|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dark Beanie
Joined: 06 Feb 2004 Location: A galaxy far, far away.
|
Post subject: | |
|
LOL _________________ If you are foolish enough to be contented, don't show it, but just grumble with the rest. - Jerome K Jerome |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
K, I hate to break it to you, but the kick clearly went left to right, not right to left. Look at the behind-the-goals replay (can't find a video online, but it's in the full match replay about a minute after he kicks it, for those with access). It didn't curve around the post, if that's what you're thinking. Put your stills in the opposite order and it's clearly gone the right side of the post (i.e. it goes in front of the post and to the right). I don't know what you're smoking, but I wouldn't mind some right now!
I presume this is the footage where your stills come from. It's clearly going left to right; the broadcasters are just playing it backward and forward as they often do:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAHGaRWBBdw
What this frame-by-frame footage also shows us is that the ball seems to maintain its trajectory perfectly. Look at its movement from 0:10–0:17: 1) vertical/tilted; 2) horizontal; 3) vertical/tilted; 4) horizontal; 5) vertical/tilted. If it even glanced the woodwork in that process, you would expect it to have altered its angle or spun off slightly differently. I'm guessing this is why they made such a quick call: there's absolutely nothing to suggest that it's not a goal. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
David, if another angle shows differently, I'll revise my opinion, but in the live footage, the camera is roughly from JJ's perspective (well, behind & above him, looking the same way as him), and it looks right to left there (i.e. left to right from the goal umpire's perspective -- in the direction in which he was scrambling):
e.g. starting around 1:36 of the Crows JJ highlights here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQFau-lWQFo
Yeah, looking at the above, it still definitely looks right to left, i.e. it went the wrong side of the post. (I'm trying to think whether that angle can reverse the apparent direction in some sort of optical illusion, but it would surprise me if it could...) Certainly, the way JJ kicked it was an attempt to curl it right to left, so if it was going the other way, it would have to be because it hadn't yet curled.
They do "rock and roll" the footage for the video review. Might it be the reverse-angle footage you saw that was backwards? The goal umpire was scrambling to the left of screen and clearly not in a very good position to see. You can see which way is running the video forward, because that's where the goal umpire is running forwards, not backwards.
[The footage you link to has been removed, but the footage I link to above is Adelaide FC Media's so it should remain. (It doesn't have much replaying, though.)] |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
The (now dead) video I posted was just 2:01 to 2:04 of your video in extreme slow motion. The broadcasters reverse it, play it forward and reverse it, but it's obvious which way is which because the ball simply couldn't be travelling in the opposite direction.
The reverse-angle replay is just a standard behind-the-goals wide shot (i.e. from the crowd's vantage point) – there's no ambiguity about which direction is which there. You see Jenkins kick the ball from the bottom right of the frame (i.e. the left forward pocket), and it travels more or less diagonally from right to left (that is, from the left to the right of the goalface). While it's not necessarily clear from that angle whether it went through the big sticks, it is immediately clear that it didn't bend around the inside of the left-hand goal post in the kind of right-to-left u-shape that might have enabled it to travel from right to left across the front of the goalpost (even though it looked like it might have bent around tightly in the initial footage – all a matter of camera perspective, I'm guessing), providing that such a ball movement were even physically possible to begin with! I'll post the footage if I can find it. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
I am viewing some behind-the-goal footage now, and the camera is perhaps too far away to see whether the ball passes in front of (from the reverse perspective, that is) the post (i.e. just a point) or behind the post (possibly a goal, if it did not touch it)...
But when I replay this footage several times, it now does look to my eyes like it went through in the point region, not the goal region, i.e. it looks the way I originally thought it looked from the over-JJ's-shoulder perspective.
Hmm.... |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
Post subject: | |
|
But the still frames you yourself posted a page back clearly show the ball travelling in front of the post rather than behind! So the only remaining question (apart from post contact, which seems impossible to determine at this point) is which direction the ball was travelling in, and I’d hope everyone is clear by now that it was not travelling in reverse back to Jenkins’ boot.
Look, I’m no AFL apologist. They do a lot of dumb things (these upcoming rule changes in particular), and sometimes get it wrong. But I find it ironic that the Jenkins goal is being brought up as evidence of them merely rubber-stamping umpire mistakes, when I think any sensible person (i.e. any non-Port Adelaide supporter) could see that they made the right call under the circumstances (and quite likely the right call full stop). Let’s just say that if they’d overturned the goal and Adelaide had lost, this would still have been a huge controversy and the AFL would have a much more difficult position to defend. _________________ "Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Albert Parker
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | David wrote: | I think you (and many others) are getting thrown by Ken Hinkley’s hissy fit.
... |
No, we're not thrown by it, just getting pleasure from it. I think the players know what really happened. But the pleasure is really because of the general situation (not this decision or even about goal reviews in general). He's right that there's no accountability.
Albert Parker wrote: | ...
Umpires boss tried lamely to defend it, as they almost always do, with a call that it was OK if you accept the decision was real time. Yet there was an opportunity for review, so this is negated.
AFL is pretty amateurish in the way it conducts itself. ...
|
Yep. The headlines were that the AFL rubber-stamped it. Mark Stevens, though, stated that Hayden Kennedy basically sat on the fence about it. I'd have to see what exactly HK said. I seem to recall that when Buddy ran clearly over 20m (in his 'GOTY'), he kind of said something like "he may have run a little far".
Yep, unprofessional...
Update: Kennedy on Buddy was quoted as saying it's hard because he's a "really fast man with long strides". Hayden, just say it's wrong and move on. Don't use silly excuses. Hayden, you may also have become confused: We're talking about Buddy, not Usain Bolt. |
Even John Ralph, a Richmond supporter, said that Hayden Kennedy's defence was so weak that he believe the goal was ineligible.
AFL is a bit of a farce in the way it deals with these things and defends itself. Complete lack of integrity. _________________ One team, one dream - the Pies and this year's premiership |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | But the still frames you yourself posted a page back clearly show the ball travelling in front of the post rather than behind! So the only remaining question ... is which direction the ball was travelling in, and I’d hope everyone is clear by now that it was not travelling in reverse back to Jenkins’ boot.
... |
No, David. The footage of the live action shows that the goal umpire turned to his right, i.e rotated clockwise, to try to follow the ball's path. In the rock-and-roll review, which plays the video forwards and backwards in time, that umpire movement seems to show that the forward direction in time is when the ball is travelling right to left, though it's not entirely easy to see, so I would not bet my (non-existent) house on it. It seems it's a behind, as claimed. (It does seem to touch the post too, but it's the outside of the post, not the inside.)
There's more to explain... I'll return to this later... |
|
|
|
|
uncanny
Joined: 04 Mar 2014 Location: Castlemaine
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | I honestly have no idea. It might be 80%, it might be 95%. Even if that's the case, who's to say this wouldn't be in the 10% of decisions that doesn't get endorsed? I would be surprised if even 10% of umpiring decisions are mistaken, to be honest – they're usually pretty good, not that you'd get that impression from the average Collingwood fan.
The footage is here. He had a player running in that he could have handballed to (and calling for it), but with Moore so close, he probably made the right call to try to do it himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rOHkN6BhH8 |
I thought it was a throw then a kick but after a few conversations and reading these posts I agree that there cannot be a clear line around when "releasing" the ball onto the boot becomes a throw. You could throw it three feet in the air and as long as you make contact with the boot before anyone else touches it then it's a valid kick. So yes it was a goal.
However.
Moore should have killed the contest before the kick was taken. He was very polite about his approach to the man. Should have been in his face to effect a rushed behind before any chance of a goal transpired. _________________ woodsmen rule |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | David wrote: | K wrote: | 'Monumental mistake,' says Ken but AFL OK's goal
"If I was the AFL, I'd be embarrassed and disappointed in an industry that's so important to so many people. ...
Someone should be accountable for that because I'm accountable for winning and losing."
Oh, what a surprise!
|
We’ve seen plenty of angles on TV replays. Did you see it hit the post? I sure didn’t. The correct approach in the video replay is to override the goal umpire’s decision if it is conclusively incorrect. I think you (and many others) are getting thrown by Ken Hinkley’s hissy fit.
The decision could have perhaps taken longer – I was a little surprised by how quick it was – but, ultimately, according to both the letter of the rule and common sense, it was correct. |
I pulled myself away from the entertainment of watching Ken dump on the AFL and looked at the game footage.
I can now provide a definitive judgement: the ball may or may not have touched the post, but the kick was certainly a point, because it passed in front of the (left) goalpost, travelling right to left.
Below are stills from the video. If I can hit the pause button, maybe the video umpire can too? Again, though, the point (ahem...) is not that umpires on-field or in front of screens should never make mistakes; the point is that the AFL made a deceitful statement about it. I don't expect infallibility; I do expect honesty. |
How on earth could the ball travel right to left when jenkins was in the left pocket when he kicked it. It would have gone out on the full if it was travelling right to left. _________________ Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Who cares? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
|