The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

[GVGjr]

Have a rant about something that annoyed you for this round.
It could be the AFL, umpiring, Kane Cornes, Channel 7 commentary, Rules or even opposition players etc
What do you think of the gather round concept?

[soupman]

That goal review.

Wtf.

Firstly the Arc told the umpire to stop the game, which has never been a thing except after a goal. Is this a thing?

Second the footage was inconclusive. And possibly trended towards saying it wasn't a mark imo. How could they justify overruling the decision based on the available footage?

[Grantysghost]

Geelong.

Just fk their entire existence.

Smug, entitled, public coffer teet sucking, ocean loving, goat embracing, coastal lifestyle spruiking mongrels!

They couldn't walk in the last qtr and still beat us with Libba having more clearances than Sidney's Lounge Discounters and Ken Bruce combined!

Bahhhh.

Guess what, we go to Sedat Stadium later in the season. Leger choc!

[GVGjr]

That goal review.

Wtf.

Firstly the Arc told the umpire to stop the game, which has never been a thing except after a goal. Is this a thing?

Second the footage was inconclusive. And possibly trended towards saying it wasn't a mark imo. How could they justify overruling the decision based on the available footage?

Agreed.
There are also just way too many reviews. It will end up with a TV sponsor.

[hujsh]

Gather Round. When there are close AFL games, one of if not the the most naturally crowd engaging sports I'm aware of, and the time the crowd is most engaged is when doing Mexican Wave, you've got a dud concept.

You've taken away the passion for a gimmick.

[Grantysghost]

Gather Round. When there are close AFL games, one of if not the the most naturally crowd engaging sports I'm aware of, and the time the crowd is most engaged is when doing Mexican Wave, you've got a dud concept.

You've taken away the passion for a gimmick.

The crowd was so flat in our game it was really distracting me. Of course it will all be hailed as a wonderful success. Considering we have to play in Geelong - I feel as if we lost a home ground advantage playing them there. Actually what am I saying, they beat us everywhere.

[ledge]

The crowd was so flat in our game it was really distracting me. Of course it will all be hailed as a wonderful success. Considering we have to play in Geelong - I feel as if we lost a home ground advantage playing them there. Actually what am I saying, they beat us everywhere.

I want to know how close Adelaide ovals ground is similar to Kardinia park.

[bornadog]

My soapbox is so many discussions on player salaries - media especially.

I don't give a flying F on what players are paid. My concern is more their form and whether they are what we need.

[MrMahatma]

Went to Gather Round and enjoyed every second of it. Loved going to the more regional grounds, watched loads of footy - albeit the quality of most matches was pretty poor.

For a soap box... not a new one, but shout out to the cost of a beer at the footy.

[SquirrelGrip]

I'm OK with the concept of THAT review on the goal line, as if it was us taking the mark, we'd want that to happen.

My soap box is more with the decision made. I struggle that it can be a legal mark if you have no part of your body on or in front of the line. I know that the rule is about the ball being on or over the line, but it doesn't sit right with me.

[westdog54]

Going to go against the grain here. I was happy with the score review. As far as I'm concerned Stengle had marked the ball before it had completely crossed the line. No issue at all.

Now, on to the stand rule.

I'm not objected to it in principle. I get why it is in place and it HAS opened up the game.

BUT...

The focus on enforcing the Stand/Oustide 5 provision has left many umpires forgetting rule 20.2(a), which states *ahem*


Disposal From Behind the Mark

(a) A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall be directed by a field
Umpire to dispose of the football within a reasonable time in a direct line from
The Mark to the centre of their Goal Line.

I'm constantly seeing players either being able to line up 5 metres closer to the centre corridor than they ought to be, or being called to play on when in reality, they're simply trying to move into their proper line over the mark.

It's not necessarily an umpire issue (though it is to a large degree). Its what happens when you have an unnecessary complex rule that requires so much of the umpire's focus that a fundamental gets thrown out the window. Get the players back over their mark. Blow the whistle and move them in if you have to.

And while I'm talking about officiating, I'm not letting go of my previous view of the advantage rule. The game needs to adopt Rugby's approach. Signal the advantage without the whistle, then call it back if it doesn't immediately and clearly pan out. I'm sick of seeing rushed advantages that clearly aren't advantages allowed to stand, or all but one player stopping for the whistle at a stoppage and an unopposed takeaway. It discourages playing to the whistle.

[Grantysghost]

Ball was still spinning WD over the line wasn't it?

[westdog54]

Ball was still spinning WD over the line wasn't it?

From my viewing I'm happy he had control of it. Again, I acknowledge that I'm an outlier on this one.

[Grantysghost]

From my viewing I'm happy he had control of it. Again, I acknowledge that I'm an outlier on this one.

Fair enough.

I just had a closer look, frame 1 is what they used to say it was in control and hadn't crossed the line.

Frame 2, you can clearly see the ball has spun from the previous frame and that his hand isn't completely on it so there's enough doubt for me that you can't definitively over rule.

It might have been a mark. Considering the goal umpire called a point, and the evidence is suspect i think its a mistake.

https://i.postimg.cc/BbqxBfJX/i-Markup-20240408-150622.jpg (https://postimg.cc/k6p67Z6m)


https://i.postimg.cc/RZ3wRRxQ/i-Markup-20240408-150712.jpg (https://postimg.cc/WdvDp03h)

[kickit2Koly]

my soapbox is our Fixture, how the F@#k have we ended up with 4 of The top 5 teams twice this year?! we missed finals last year and get Dees, Cats, giants and swans twice.

[hujsh]

Fair enough.

I just had a closer look, frame 1 is what they used to say it was in control and hadn't crossed the line.

Frame 2, you can clearly see the ball has spun from the previous frame and that his hand isn't completely on it so there's enough doubt for me that you can't definitively over rule.

It might have been a mark. Considering the goal umpire called a point, and the evidence is suspect i think its a mistake.





I'd like to see clarification on exactly at what point a ball is controlled if it's something that's going to be reviewed with this below par video review technology. Is it as simple as if the ball is in the players hands and they end up controlling it that counts? Does the control need to be complete before the ball crosses the line? If the ball is spinning is it still 'controlled'. Feels like there's a lot of grey area here once you start deviating from the umpire and going frame by frame instead

[Sedat]

I'd like to see clarification on exactly at what point a ball is controlled if it's something that's going to be reviewed with this below par video review technology. Is it as simple as if the ball is in the players hands and they end up controlling it that counts? Does the control need to be complete before the ball crosses the line? If the ball is spinning is it still 'controlled'. Feels like there's a lot of grey area here once you start deviating from the umpire and going frame by frame instead
Pretty simple, if it is not 100% definitive the umpire's call has to stand. No way was it 100% conclusively controlled before the whole of the ball crossed the line - ARC made an error and it needs to be formally acknowledged, but in true AFEL makey uppey fashion that will not be happening.

We were already punished by not being able to run it out quickly from the restart.

[azabob]

Ball was still spinning WD over the line wasn't it?

Both Stengle and Cameron were laughing their heads off after he kicked the goal, both knew he was very lucky.

[Mofra]

If we're talking footy robbery this weekend, Fremantle have a stronger argument than we do.

[Mofra]

Both Stengle and Cameron were laughing their heads off after he kicked the goal, both knew he was very lucky.
Cameron kicked a goal last year when he was so far out he needed a ground pass to get back to his position.
Ironic considering their home ground has no wing on one side of it

[Sedat]

If we're talking footy robbery this weekend, Fremantle have a stronger argument than we do.
They sure do, but you never give a sucker an even break and Treacey fluffed 2 simple chest marks to retain possession on the wing with under 4 minutes left when they were a goal and a half in front. Should never have lost from there and Longmuir knows it.

[GVGjr]

After it's 2nd year of games in SA what's everyone's thoughts if Gather Round is a success or not?
I'd prefer a better 2nd venue was made available because that one at Norwood Oval is a genuine compromise but I'm warming to the concept as being a good one for football.

[bornadog]

After it's 2nd year of games in SA what's everyone's thoughts if Gather Round is a success or not?
I'd prefer a better 2nd venue was made available because that one at Norwood Oval is a genuine compromise but I'm warming to the concept as being a good one for football.

The home teams must play each other, otherwise they end up with an extra home game each

[SquirrelGrip]

After it's 2nd year of games in SA what's everyone's thoughts if Gather Round is a success or not?
I'd prefer a better 2nd venue was made available because that one at Norwood Oval is a genuine compromise but I'm warming to the concept as being a good one for football.

I'm yet to go, but I think it's a great as long as they keep it about the fans, not the corporates. It's in school holidays which is perfect for kids and families, plus South Australia is pretty accessible to most states, especially Victoria.

As for as equity goes for the competition, it would be fairest for Adelaide to play Port Adelaide, as this is an extra round which is not meant to disadvantage anyone. However as far as maximising crowds goes, you want home games for each of Adelaide and Port Adelaide. But given the AFL never really has equity at its heart, as long as we don't play one of those teams I selfishly don't mind who else does.

The concept of the "Expansion Cup" between GWS and Gold Coast being played each year in a cow paddock in the Adelaide Hills is one I quite like, so I hope they continue that each year.

For South Australia, it's a definite win and I'd be interested if economically it's more attractive to them than hosting an AFL Grand Final. I suspect it is.

[Happy Days]

The home teams must play each other, otherwise they end up with an extra home game each

Mind blowing that this is allowed and never even seems to get raised. Having a showdown as the headline game is such an obvious slam dunk anyway.

[JanLorMill]

After it's 2nd year of games in SA what's everyone's thoughts if Gather Round is a success or not?
I'd prefer a better 2nd venue was made available because that one at Norwood Oval is a genuine compromise but I'm warming to the concept as being a good one for football.
If you play a non Southern Australian side that weekend, that should be the only time that season(apart from finals) you play them, once at a neutral venue is fair enough. The sides that play Adelaide and Port, them must play again at the their venue(ie be it Victoria, WA, NSW, QLD).

[ledge]

I can’t believe they didn’t play both Adelaide games on the Sunday. It makes sense to make them wait and still be hungry for previous games . We all know a lot of supporters aren’t interested in the rest of the games if their side loses.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Geelong. I hate them to a visceral level.

I think I'll skip watching our games v Geelong in the future. My heart (and dog) will thank me for it.

But just to be clear, I ****ing hate everything about that over entitled, long haired, smug shitstain of a club.

[jeemak]

Geelong. I hate them to a visceral level.

I think I'll skip watching our games v Geelong in the future. My heart (and dog) will thank me for it.

But just to be clear, I ****ing hate everything about that over entitled, long haired, smug shitstain of a club.

****en Dempsey's ****en face.

It's not even his fault, but his face is Geelong.

[Scorlibo]

I was almost ready to move on from this, but seeing as it's the soapbox thread...


From my viewing I'm happy he had control of it. Again, I acknowledge that I'm an outlier on this one.

Depends on your definition of controlled I suppose. The ball had literally only just made contact with his hands. How many marks would be paid if simply touching both hands is the criteria?

What happens after the line is irrelevant - it's out of play. So I think we have to look at it in the same way that we would look at a defender making a spoil at the moment the ball crosses the line. Imagine there is a defender's fist exactly a ball's width behind the line. Is there any chance at all that it gets paid a mark when it's spoiled a split second after making contact with Stengle's hands? Why is the goal line different?

In fact there were several non-marks within the game (Dale on the wing was one, Geelong had a couple) that were spoiled after being in the hands for somewhere between 10-20x longer than Stengle's attempt, and play on was called.

But of course the far easier argument to make is: if everyone's debating whether it was controlled in time or not, then that is not definitive, and therefore not able to be overturned.

The arrogance from the ARC (and the AFL) is what irritates me so much here. They've called for a review themselves for the first time ever, and then overturned the decision on footage that (to me) suggests a clear behind.

On the call Richo saw how bad the decision was but then Jason 'Vanilla' Bennet starts banging on about how all of the ball must be across all of the line. DUH no one is disputing that he made contact with the ball before it crossed the line!

[jeemak]

Our coach takes the admirable position and says it's fine, can you imagine the shit kicking he'd have gotten if he said it was bullshit and impacted the game?

Corn Kanes would get his wank suit on and rip him apart, and everyone else would jump in on it. It's something Baines and the president needed to come out against but of course they won't (and I'm not normally someone who rips into them).

[ledge]

Our coach takes the admirable position and says it's fine, can you imagine the shit kicking he'd have gotten if he said it was bullshit and impacted the game?

Corn Kanes would get his wank suit on and rip him apart, and everyone else would jump in on it. It's something Baines and the president needed to come out against but of course they won't (and I'm not normally someone who rips into them).

Cornes isn?t associated with a club or on a committee he can say what he likes.
We?ll all it?s going to do is get us fined , if it?s an issue I?m sure the above bring it up in private with the AFL.

[EasternWest]

I was almost ready to move on from this, but seeing as it's the soapbox thread...



Depends on your definition of controlled I suppose. The ball had literally only just made contact with his hands. How many marks would be paid if simply touching both hands is the criteria?

What happens after the line is irrelevant - it's out of play. So I think we have to look at it in the same way that we would look at a defender making a spoil at the moment the ball crosses the line. Imagine there is a defender's fist exactly a ball's width behind the line. Is there any chance at all that it gets paid a mark when it's spoiled a split second after making contact with Stengle's hands? Why is the goal line different?

In fact there were several non-marks within the game (Dale on the wing was one, Geelong had a couple) that were spoiled after being in the hands for somewhere between 10-20x longer than Stengle's attempt, and play on was called.

But of course the far easier argument to make is: if everyone's debating whether it was controlled in time or not, then that is not definitive, and therefore not able to be overturned.

The arrogance from the ARC (and the AFL) is what irritates me so much here. They've called for a review themselves for the first time ever, and then overturned the decision on footage that (to me) suggests a clear behind.

On the call Richo saw how bad the decision was but then Jason 'Vanilla' Bennet starts banging on about how all of the ball must be across all of the line. DUH no one is disputing that he made contact with the ball before it crossed the line!

Always enjoy reading your thoughts mate.

[ledge]

I think if it’s that close go with the umpires call, it’s not conclusive.