SA Footy

MW wrote:Social media over the last 36 hours...

- Injunction needed, reverse the decision and give us the 4 pts
- split the 4 points, only fair
- it didn't even hit the post, it went through for a behind not a goal
- AFL is corrupt
- Crows cheated

I don't get why Jenkins is copping so much flak over this on social media, and how people are using "Jenkins admitted it hit the post" as a viable argument.

Jenkins doesn't get paid to make the decisions, the umpires do, yeah maybe he did hit the post but that's not his **** up.. Crows win, get over it, play on.

MW wrote:Social media over the last 36 hours...

- Injunction needed, reverse the decision and give us the 4 pts
- split the 4 points, only fair
- it didn't even hit the post, it went through for a behind not a goal
- AFL is corrupt
- Crows cheated

Anyone who thinks they call tell if it hit the post with the standard of that footage had a bigger Saturday night me.

MW wrote:Social media over the last 36 hours...

- Injunction needed, reverse the decision and give us the 4 pts
- split the 4 points, only fair
- it didn't even hit the post, it went through for a behind not a goal
- AFL is corrupt
- Crows cheated

What about Gaff to face the firing squad?

The Bedge wrote:

MW wrote:Social media over the last 36 hours...

- Injunction needed, reverse the decision and give us the 4 pts
- split the 4 points, only fair
- it didn't even hit the post, it went through for a behind not a goal
- AFL is corrupt
- Crows cheated

I don't get why Jenkins is copping so much flak over this on social media, and how people are using "Jenkins admitted it hit the post" as a viable argument.

Jenkins doesn't get paid to make the decisions, the umpires do, yeah maybe he did hit the post but that's not his **** up.. Crows win, get over it, play on.

Probably just because it's Jenkins.

But yeah, from one Port supporter to another, crows won, get over it.

Wines should have put the game out of reach, he didn't.


Bring back the drop punt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Bedge wrote:

MW wrote:Social media over the last 36 hours...

- Injunction needed, reverse the decision and give us the 4 pts
- split the 4 points, only fair
- it didn't even hit the post, it went through for a behind not a goal
- AFL is corrupt
- Crows cheated

I don't get why Jenkins is copping so much flak over this on social media, and how people are using "Jenkins admitted it hit the post" as a viable argument.

Jenkins doesn't get paid to make the decisions, the umpires do, yeah maybe he did hit the post but that's not his **** up.. Crows win, get over it, play on.

Exactly. The game has been fine with this for over 100 years what's changed? The gambling industry. That's the main reason there's so much carry on about whether it was a goal or a point because it buggers up people's bets and what the betting agencies have to pay out. The Crows have been on the wrong end of some howlers in the past who cares get on with it that's sport or at least the way sport was. Now it's all about Matty Campbell or Nathan Brown on TV all the time saying what the odds are and what line needs to be covered.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

The Bedge wrote:

MW wrote:Social media over the last 36 hours...

- Injunction needed, reverse the decision and give us the 4 pts
- split the 4 points, only fair
- it didn't even hit the post, it went through for a behind not a goal
- AFL is corrupt
- Crows cheated

I don't get why Jenkins is copping so much flak over this on social media, and how people are using "Jenkins admitted it hit the post" as a viable argument.

Jenkins doesn't get paid to make the decisions, the umpires do, yeah maybe he did hit the post but that's not his **** up.. Crows win, get over it, play on.

Probably just because it's Jenkins.

But yeah, from one Port supporter to another, crows won, get over it.

Wines should have put the game out of reach, he didn't.


Bring back the drop punt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly right. Wines should have killed the game off before all of this happened.

Nicks and Greaves to leave at the end of the season. Voss and C. Cornes re-sign.

MW wrote:Social media over the last 36 hours...

- Injunction needed, reverse the decision and give us the 4 pts
- split the 4 points, only fair
- it didn't even hit the post, it went through for a behind not a goal
- AFL is corrupt
- Crows cheated

This is the one that I find most staggering. I've heard it from a number of people too.
I just don't get how people can't see that it was at least on the correct side of the post.

Brodlach wrote:Nicks and Greaves to leave at the end of the season. Voss and C. Cornes re-sign.

Greaves an interesting one, sort of came from nowhere to a significant role.

Makes the Ratten / Schofield rumor carry more weight.

#boysclub

MW wrote:#boysclub

MW wrote:#boysclub

Ratten, long association with the PAFC.

I had no problems with Ken’s presser. He was 100% right in what he was saying, that the technology used is insufficient for a billion dollar industry. An industry which coaches and players are made accountable for outcomes, while AFL big wigs have a distinct lack of accountability for poor outcomes they are responsible for. We want AFL people to be genuine in the media and not throw out party lines, yet when they do they are criticised. He acknowledged Adelaide’s performance, what his team didn’t do right and stated facts. No one can 100% know if that hit the post!

Ps I still don’t think he is a good coach

Footy Smart wrote:I had no problems with Ken’s presser. He was 100% right in what he was saying, that the technology used is insufficient for a billion dollar industry. An industry which coaches and players are made accountable for outcomes, while AFL big wigs have a distinct lack of accountability for poor outcomes they are responsible for. We want AFL people to be genuine in the media and not throw out party lines, yet when they do they are criticised. He acknowledged Adelaide’s performance, what his team didn’t do right and stated facts. No one can 100% know if that hit the post!

Ps I still don’t think he is a good coach

I agree that the technology was insufficient but Ken laboured on about it. The "We was robbed" look. No one could conclusively say if it touched or went through untouched. It was umpires call.

The good thing was that the decision was done in a timely matter. That's how goal reviews should work.

goddy11 wrote:

Footy Smart wrote:I had no problems with Ken’s presser. He was 100% right in what he was saying, that the technology used is insufficient for a billion dollar industry. An industry which coaches and players are made accountable for outcomes, while AFL big wigs have a distinct lack of accountability for poor outcomes they are responsible for. We want AFL people to be genuine in the media and not throw out party lines, yet when they do they are criticised. He acknowledged Adelaide’s performance, what his team didn’t do right and stated facts. No one can 100% know if that hit the post!

Ps I still don’t think he is a good coach

I agree that the technology was insufficient but Ken laboured on about it. The "We was robbed" look. No one could conclusively say if it touched or went through untouched. It was umpires call.

The good thing was that the decision was done in a timely matter. That's how goal reviews should work.

Spot on!
Stick to the umpires call.
Imagine if it was over ruled by the 3rd umpire and the Power won.

That would have been an injustice.

The major difference is this was a Foxtel game with minimal camera's / angles. If it was a Ch7 game there would have been at least 2 additional angles.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

bertiebeatle wrote:

Brodlach wrote:I think only ‘hot spot ‘ would be able to tell with this one

I agree. Someone mentioned it yesterday (Kornes or Lloyd), why don't they have it like the big bash that the goal post lights up if it hits it or something along those lines.. Might look silly for the obvious posters, but one's in this case where it can have an affect on the game would be perfect

Dude at work has always said if the ball hits the post and goes in the goal area it should be a goal, we are the only sport that doesn't play like that.

Rebounds back into play or goes through the point area, then it's a behind.

I mentioned that very point on here and someone ( maybe Stan) ripped into me.
I think it has merit.
Technology still needs human interaction which is where errors occur.
Off the post and in is fine by me.
It'll stop all the lala power people whinging!

tigerpie wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

bertiebeatle wrote:

Brodlach wrote:I think only ‘hot spot ‘ would be able to tell with this one

I agree. Someone mentioned it yesterday (Kornes or Lloyd), why don't they have it like the big bash that the goal post lights up if it hits it or something along those lines.. Might look silly for the obvious posters, but one's in this case where it can have an affect on the game would be perfect

Dude at work has always said if the ball hits the post and goes in the goal area it should be a goal, we are the only sport that doesn't play like that.

Rebounds back into play or goes through the point area, then it's a behind.

I mentioned that very point on here and someone ( maybe Stan) ripped into me.
I think it has merit.
Technology still needs human interaction which is where errors occur.
Off the post and in is fine by me.
It'll stop all the lala power people whinging!

Nah man wasn't me this time I think.

tigerpie wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

bertiebeatle wrote:

Brodlach wrote:I think only ‘hot spot ‘ would be able to tell with this one

I agree. Someone mentioned it yesterday (Kornes or Lloyd), why don't they have it like the big bash that the goal post lights up if it hits it or something along those lines.. Might look silly for the obvious posters, but one's in this case where it can have an affect on the game would be perfect

Dude at work has always said if the ball hits the post and goes in the goal area it should be a goal, we are the only sport that doesn't play like that.

Rebounds back into play or goes through the point area, then it's a behind.

I mentioned that very point on here and someone ( maybe Stan) ripped into me.
I think it has merit.
Technology still needs human interaction which is where errors occur.
Off the post and in is fine by me.
It'll stop all the lala power people whinging!

They’ll find something else trust me...............

tigerpie wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

bertiebeatle wrote:

Brodlach wrote:I think only ‘hot spot ‘ would be able to tell with this one

I agree. Someone mentioned it yesterday (Kornes or Lloyd), why don't they have it like the big bash that the goal post lights up if it hits it or something along those lines.. Might look silly for the obvious posters, but one's in this case where it can have an affect on the game would be perfect

Dude at work has always said if the ball hits the post and goes in the goal area it should be a goal, we are the only sport that doesn't play like that.

Rebounds back into play or goes through the point area, then it's a behind.

I mentioned that very point on here and someone ( maybe Stan) ripped into me.
I think it has merit.
Technology still needs human interaction which is where errors occur.
Off the post and in is fine by me.
It'll stop all the lala power people whinging!

I'm all for this, the more interpretation we take away from umpires the better.