The AFL making kneejerk changes on the fly? There's a first.
Hate the AFL. Destroying the code
The AFL making kneejerk changes on the fly? There's a first.
The ARC started drinking their own bath water after getting a lot right. It was pure arrogance that made them think they could call that a point. Part of the culture at that joint no doubtThis. But the AFL didn’t follow their rules on the night. It’s that simple in my humble opinion.
I think it was too. In any case it doesn’t get to the height of the post until well after it’s gone thru.You need to get your eyes checked. That was a goal, absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
And this is where you lose a lot of posters. It clearly doesn't go to the left of the post yet you claim to have watched it ten times and can't work that out? Seriously?I just watched that 10 times and I still can't decide if it went right of the post, left of the post or over the post.
And this is where you lose a lot of posters. It clearly doesn't go to the left of the post yet you claim to have watched it ten times and can't work that out? Seriously?
It's disingenuous in the extreme. It's why you get called out a lot, it appears to be deliberately inflammatory. My question is why? You are obviously intelligent and logical (most of the time) yet can write complete *smile* like this.
It's not an opinion based on evidence though TBR, you clearly are taking the *smile* if you can say you can't agree the ball didn't go to the left (ie in front of) the post. That's your choice, but it just makes me question just how genuine your posting is in other instances.The thing is you have an enormous cognitive bias towards Richmond coupled with a high level of confidence in your own opinion, and it renders you unable to see any credibility in other views. Then the huge level of confirmation bias on this forum puts the icing on the cake. It's like a thinking man's Dunning Kruger effect.
It's not an opinion based on evidence though TBR, you clearly are taking the *smile* if you can say you can't agree the ball didn't go to the left (ie in front of) the post. That's your choice, but it just makes me question just how genuine your posting is in other instances.
The fact remains the umpire's call was a goal. If there is no definitive evidence to overturn the umpire's call then it should be a goal. As you yourself has stated you can't tell where the ball went so in no way can you make a definitive call. Therefore it should have stayed a goal.You just can't see anything that doesn't match what you want to see.
As @WildStyle says it is impossible to tell where the ball is in relation to the post and it is at one point seemingly over the post and curving left to right. All three outcomes have to be in play.
You are perfectly entitled to your perspective; apology not required. However in this instance your perspective does not matter; it is the perspective of the goal umpire that matters. He called a goal and there is no definitive evidence to say it wasn't a goal; no matter what gaslighting rubbish the AFL throws up. They completely ignored their own well documented process to *smile* us over.Although it's fun to have a go at the AFL who's carnival of missteps is fun to laugh at it in general, it looked like it travelled above the post to me watching live, and the replay footage doesn't do anything to definitively prove that it didn't.
I was actually shocked when the umpire said he thought it was a goal.
Sorry, my perspective only...
The fact remains the umpire's call was a goal. If there is no definitive evidence to overturn the umpire's call then it should be a goal. As you yourself has stated you can't tell where the ball went so in no way can you make a definitive call. Therefore it should have stayed a goal.
The gaslighting comes from the AFL telling us that there is definitive proof when in fact there is none. Then 2 weeks later they release a graph that looks like something I drew in year 8 maths class.
Yeah not sure about the graph. Thought it was an AFL thing but it may not be. Regardless, they have yet to produce any definitive evidence that the overrule was correct.Yes, agreed althought I don't think that was the AFL's graph, someone said it was from social media after the game.
I'm still disappointed we haven't heard from Hardwick in terms of if he accepts the decision or not. Bit soft for me.
I'd say if he'd accepted it we'd have heard about it. Most likely he's decided to pick his battles given he won't win this one.I'm still disappointed we haven't heard from Hardwick in terms of if he accepts the decision or not. Bit soft for me.
You've done well for yourself for someone who struggled so hard at maths Ridley.The gaslighting comes from the AFL telling us that there is definitive proof when in fact there is none. Then 2 weeks later they release a graph that looks like something I drew in year 8 maths class.
Jordan Lewis & Eddie Betts on tonight will make it interesting.
Sam Mitchell, and strangely, Shaun Burgoyne say they know nothing.
Oh the ironyYou just can't see anything that doesn't match what you want to see.
Oh the irony