After watching Ken Hinkley’s press conference, he is absolutely spot on in regard to the goal review system. I have thought for some time if the AFL aren’t willing to spend the money to get the correct technology than they should get rid of it. With the vision last night I can’t tell if it hit the post or not. Stop worrying about changing the rules, spend the money to stop incidents like last night and plenty that has happened in the past because of this flawed system.
MW wrote:2nd showdown in a row ken has embarrassed himself post game
Don’t agree.. he was spot on.. he also mentioned it didn’t cost them the game and were beaten in key areas of the game
But what point is he trying to prove on this occasion? The footage was inconclusive which means it’s a goal anyway as the goal umpire called it a goal initially. Why would you blow up after the game about it? You could review free kicks every game and it would effect the result each week. I just don’t see what the issue here is? Maybe he should have pressed “umpires call” but it’s still a goal. It’s not a howler, the only person on the ground that thought it may have hit the post was Jenkins himself.
Can you bring a man to his feet when defeat is on repeat?
Ollie Wines embarrassing miss just earlier that would have killed the game cost Port the game. EOS. The goal/point is subjective depending on what side you follow and are not vision impair. Kens embarrassing press conference is another. If he roles were reversed he would have said he was unsighted which he was. JJ should not have just said he was not sure. (grandma would understand)
I heard the Jenkins interview and I'm fairly sure he said he was concerned it might have hit the post, not that it had. The review replay didn't show anything definite, which is why it remained "Umpire's call".
Perhaps we can simplify it to avoid controversy and arguments over replays, and the "we wuz robbed" scenario, and say that if it touches the post but goes through the goal side it is still a goal, if it touches the post and goes through the behind side its a behind, and if it bounces off the post into play its still in play.
Psyber wrote:I heard the Jenkins interview and I'm fairly sure he said he was concerned it might have hit the post, not that it had. The review replay didn't show anything definite, which is why it remained "Umpire's call".
Perhaps we can simplify it to avoid controversy and arguments over replays, and the "we wuz robbed" scenario, and say that if it touches the post but goes through the goal side it is still a goal, if it touches the post and goes through the behind side its a behind, and if it bounces off the post into play its still in play.
If Ollie Wines doesn’t try that around the corner shot on goal we don’t have the JJ situation.
Hinkley saying the review system is rubbish is one thing (it is); basically calling Jenkins a cheat because he didn’t rush up and overrule an umpire that was 2m away is pretty poor