They denied two states the finals because their premiers weren’t prepared to pay for it but the fans are desperate to go.
Yes. That's pretty much it. You don't like it... then you can democratically express your dissatisfaction at the ballot box.
If your Premier didn't want the game, and it's your Premier that signs off on this stuff - then what could the AFL do? They can't just barge in. That's called breaking the law.
Your beef is with McGowan. If the fans were as desperate as you say, McGowan would have not called it "low priority" for the people of WA.
Again, if you don't like it, vote for another party.
So the AFL granted the finals to a state whose premier wants it but 90% of the people are not interested in the game. They denied two states the finals because their premiers weren't prepared to pay for it but the fans are desperate to go.
I get that the decision is done and dusted but the elitism of the AFL hierarchy has never been more obnoxious than now.
Any talk that this was a financial decision is rubbish - they don't need 400 AFL "officials" holidaying in the Queensland sun whilst games proceed with no paying spectators.
I'm with you Boo Guest. Is that like Beau Geste.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beau_Geste
Its' sad to say we don't want clear definitions no matter how simple the process would be: ie why was a rule invented and pay it for that purpose.
It breaks my heart but chaos reins in decisionville and the talk back calls and headlines keep AFL in the news. Not good but a business policy, not sport.
Leigh Mathews genuinely asked Gerard Healey the other day why is it that the umpires interpretations change. He genuinely did not know. Gerards reply was extremely cryptic but is be interpreted by a quote from the Dan Gilroy movie "Mike Clayton" starring George Clooney. The line is something like "Geez Mike you mean after all this time you're asking me how we pay the rent. When did you get so delicate?" Healy was a softer take but the point was made.
You raise a valid point Goalsonly ie should we have a stated bias to cover shots at goal.In Cricket the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt similarly IMO in footy the goal shooter gets the nod.
The first angle is not definitive because it shows the ball from slightly in front of the post.
The second shot seems to be from behind the post so only slightly bettet clarity there.
I'm just mystified how the previous kick was called 15 metres.
My gut call is that it was touched just as the ball finished crossing the line whatever that means. Given the impossibility of an absolute call (all absolutes are impossible).
Do you make your mistakes to favor the scorer or the defender? I like the way this played out. As for 4K super slo mo cameras in the posts that would be cool. As for just accepting umpires call that would be even better. Is slowing down the game with all the waiting around affecting momentum and scoring?
Let’s get rid of reviews. Hasn’t done anything to improve the game but has just increased the amount of incessant whinging and media induced controversary.
RT
Roar Rookie
You can't expect the AFL to hold a GF in Perth with a quarantine period.
RT
Roar Rookie
I don't think so. The padding doesn't go behind the post.
Nick
Roar Guru
They denied two states the finals because their premiers weren’t prepared to pay for it but the fans are desperate to go. Yes. That's pretty much it. You don't like it... then you can democratically express your dissatisfaction at the ballot box. If your Premier didn't want the game, and it's your Premier that signs off on this stuff - then what could the AFL do? They can't just barge in. That's called breaking the law. Your beef is with McGowan. If the fans were as desperate as you say, McGowan would have not called it "low priority" for the people of WA. Again, if you don't like it, vote for another party.
DTM
Roar Rookie
So the AFL granted the finals to a state whose premier wants it but 90% of the people are not interested in the game. They denied two states the finals because their premiers weren't prepared to pay for it but the fans are desperate to go. I get that the decision is done and dusted but the elitism of the AFL hierarchy has never been more obnoxious than now. Any talk that this was a financial decision is rubbish - they don't need 400 AFL "officials" holidaying in the Queensland sun whilst games proceed with no paying spectators.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
I'm with you Boo Guest. Is that like Beau Geste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beau_Geste Its' sad to say we don't want clear definitions no matter how simple the process would be: ie why was a rule invented and pay it for that purpose. It breaks my heart but chaos reins in decisionville and the talk back calls and headlines keep AFL in the news. Not good but a business policy, not sport. Leigh Mathews genuinely asked Gerard Healey the other day why is it that the umpires interpretations change. He genuinely did not know. Gerards reply was extremely cryptic but is be interpreted by a quote from the Dan Gilroy movie "Mike Clayton" starring George Clooney. The line is something like "Geez Mike you mean after all this time you're asking me how we pay the rent. When did you get so delicate?" Healy was a softer take but the point was made.
Nick
Roar Guru
Cause your Premier made it very clear he wasn't interested. He said it was "low priority". Nor is he interested in hosting any cricket.
DTM
Roar Rookie
Not sure why Queensland wanted the AFL if they are not bothered showing up to watch.
Boo
Guest
You raise a valid point Goalsonly ie should we have a stated bias to cover shots at goal.In Cricket the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt similarly IMO in footy the goal shooter gets the nod.
Nick
Roar Guru
We get it, more people attend games in Perth. You are as subtle as a marching band of elephants.
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
The point is that the line of the post appears from all angles, including whilst the ball is passing the post itself! Odd that.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
The first angle is not definitive because it shows the ball from slightly in front of the post. The second shot seems to be from behind the post so only slightly bettet clarity there. I'm just mystified how the previous kick was called 15 metres.
Nolzie
Roar Rookie
Who cares. Called a goal from both the goal umpire and the review system. It's a goal.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
My gut call is that it was touched just as the ball finished crossing the line whatever that means. Given the impossibility of an absolute call (all absolutes are impossible). Do you make your mistakes to favor the scorer or the defender? I like the way this played out. As for 4K super slo mo cameras in the posts that would be cool. As for just accepting umpires call that would be even better. Is slowing down the game with all the waiting around affecting momentum and scoring?
DTM
Roar Rookie
Good pickup. Did the ground staff stuff up or is this the design? I thought crowds were being let in now. Why no people there?
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
That gap line is there when the ball is crossing the post as well?
Neil from Warrandyte
Roar Rookie
Was probably a goal, however a behind had the post padding extended up a further 1 meter.
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
Goal. No controversy here. Move on.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
Let’s get rid of reviews. Hasn’t done anything to improve the game but has just increased the amount of incessant whinging and media induced controversary.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
Your headlines suck. Close does not mean controversial. You can even see the black gap between the ball and the post. Great decision from the umps.