The entire TV commentary team was culpable, they were all playing mind-reader and assuming from Vlastuin's body language that he hadn't touched it. Never mind the inconclusive video evidence. May as well decide goal reviews on "the vibe".
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Footy media , love’m or hate’ m ?
- Thread starter Mr Brightside
- Start date
JB kept crapping on about Vlastuin "looked" guilty and that they should go back and look at his reaction on the replay.
The first thing i noticed when they showed the replay was Vlossy indicating he HAD touched. Dunno where the guilty vibes came from.
Yeah it was JB. Vlastuin looked a bit sheepish afterwards, but I took that as being that he nearly stuffed up what appeared a pretty straight forward spoil from first look. He misjudged it in flight and nearly missed it and I reckon he was feeling a bit dumb for that rather than because he was trying to cheat.
Yeah even I as a non-media-conspiracy theorist found that strange. First, artefacts and frame-rate in the video made it impossible to tell if he touched it or not, and they were saying there was a clear gap. I couldn't see that clear gap. Then they were saying he "looked guilty". Cripes.
Classic case of group think, one said it and they all jumped on.
Classic case of group think, one said it and they all jumped on.
Yeah, there was a definitely an element of that Richo. Build some excitement through controversy. Agree that umpires aren't really going to take the player's word into consideration, they have to call it as they see it.
How many times per game do players deliberately throw the ball? Claim a mark they know hit the ground, or pretend they didn't hear "touched, play on"? Footballers 'cheat' on the reg. But only this occasion was called out as such. Mark Robinson has so little going on in his life he is emotionally invested in Richmond not winning another premiership. The bloke's pathetic.
So you think Vlastuin lied. I’m not talking about his conversation with the umpire.
Didn't the goal umpire say it was touched? I'd had a few beers by then but that's my recollection. Can't understand why the Field Umpire even called for a review if that was the case.
The goal umpire called it touched and Vlossy agreed!
There is absolutely no way you can tell from the ARC replay whether it was or wasn't. The ball was so pixelated. Shocking technology.
Either improve it to the point where its useful or get rid of it.
In the meantime you can only go by what the umpire saw. He was closest to it.
The commentary on the incident was absolutely pathetic by all of them.
The umpire did call it as touched. That’s why it stood. The video wasn’t conclusive enough to overturn the decision.
the grainy vision can't prove the ball is not touched. It can only do the opposite by seeing the bending of the finger.
so if an umpire thinks it's touched when it's so close, there's no point going to the arc as it can't be proven with the *smile* technology we have.
so if an umpire thinks it's touched when it's so close, there's no point going to the arc as it can't be proven with the *smile* technology we have.
Because sometimes you can tell from the ARC footage, sometimes you can't. The goal ump can't know if the replays are conclusive or not, so he did the right thing to refer it.
Fair enough too. It puts you in the same category of human as Kane Cornes
Alternately, knowing the technology is rubbish he could have listened to the bloke on the spot who said it was touched - the Goal Umpire.
If it was only Vlastuin claiming it was touched you could argue that a review was justified.
