Herkes tarafından bilinerek sevilen site olan 1xbet canlı adresi sizlere büyük avantajlar ile farklı bahis imkanları sunmaktadır. Bilindik bir firma olması nedeni ile her defasında yeni bir 1xbet güncel adrese taşınıyor. Paylaşılan adreslerden sizlere en uygun 1xbet türkiye giriş güncel adresine kolaylıkla hemen ulaşabilirsiniz. Sizlerde kolaylıkla her cihazınızda aktif olan 1xbet mobile ile bahis yaparak, üyelik oluşumunu halledebilirsiniz. Büyük promosyonlardan yararlanarak üyelik açmak için 1xbet live adresini kullana bilirsiniz. Üyelik oluşturduktan sonra kolaylıkla yatırım yapmak için mobil ödeme bahis kabul gördüğünü anlayabilirsiniz. Hiç bir yerde olmayan canlı bahis özelliklerini sizlerde hemen kullanın. Aktif bir şekilde işlem yapan canlı bahis sitesi editörler tarafından özenle araştırılarak seçilmiştir. Ülkemizde resmi yayın yapmayan sitelerin çoğu kaçak bahis adı altında görev yapmaktadır. İnternetten yayın yapan kaçak bahis siteleri kullanıcılarına yüksek oranlar sunan bir adrestir. Hemen sizlerde casino oyunun farkına ve eğlencesine varmak için kayıt oluşturun.
Forum
Index
Docker Discussions
4 v 3
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: 4 v 3

Jefferys 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #1

Jefferys
It was a bit bewildering seeing 4 canaries instead of 3 out there on Saturday, especially when two are known serial stooges In Dockers games. In my eyes it seems that somehow this worked in our favour as for some reason we were getting some rather iffy free kicks. It didn't stop our forwards from being scragged and guillotined as per usual though.

And all 4 of them missed The Fist touched off the boot goal in the third. Some might say its up to the review system to discover that but it really has nothing to do with the goal umpire. And the review of Ballantyne's effort in the last looked botched anyway (someone provide a clicky thingy please). Hours earlier at the GABBA a Lion hit the post from a set shot which was signalled as a goal, but no umpires seemed to want to overrule it until the seagulls had a whinge and the 5th umpire sent a quick message to a field umpire to instigate the review.
Login to reply,
slammen said You Beaut

Raglan Matt 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #2

Raglan Matt
The view along the goal line of Balla's shot on goal showed the ball behind the line, when hands touched the ball, then the player took the ball forward over the line.The view from the second angle in front, showed the ball in front of the line, but did not show when the player actually first got hands to ball. The reviewer was very quick to call goal, without the 215 replays normally used in goal reviews, and never went back for another look at the definitive view along the goal line. Negligent at best and bordering on corrupt, especially as all commentators agreed it carried the line when they saw the first view.
Login to reply,
slammen, Docker by the Sea said You Beaut

Drubbing 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #3

Drubbing
The goal review is crock. They take whichever angle they prefer, to make the decision they want. It's the tech version of rule interpretation.
Login to reply,

larkin 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #4

larkin
so what you are saying is that the camera director (or whatever the title is) has a bias and that the AFL won't challenge the operator of the video feeds, I agree.
Login to reply,

Drubbing 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #5

Drubbing
I think if they wanted the video review to be conclusive, they'd have actually sited one camera in a position that could actually make it so. Instead they use 2 cameras. Because clearly, you need options...

That aside, they are also plenty of reviews where you simply can't make out one thing or another, with either camera, and so it still comes down to the ump on the line to make the best call. Which he did on this occasion, and this crap process allows someone not even there to call for a review.

So either way, the whole thing is a crock. But the AFL and umps have their little piece of sports theatre.
Login to reply,
Burton said You Beaut

shane 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #6

shane
The problem with all video review systems is they are brought in to fix obvious mistakes and once they're in they start being asked to do more than they are capable of.

It's sport and the threshold for umpires being wrong should be pretty loose. If a defender gets a slight finger tip to a football that no one could hear or see and you need to look at shadows or angles of fingers, in a super slow motion replay to make a case for it, I think that the forward has sufficiently beaten the defender and should get the goal.
Login to reply,
goodie, hypen, Rhufus, Docker by the Sea said You Beaut

Raglan Matt 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #7

Raglan Matt
Can't argue with that Shane. Interestingly the same argument is happening in Cricket, Rugby and Rugby League. It still doesn't seem to negate the obvious stuff ups and just makes the on field umpires gun shy. Going with the cricket decision making process, watching in live play many times your initial thought seems to be the right one, and it takes 5 minutes of replays to confirm this. When an ump makes a complete stuff up however the reviewer seems to look for anything that can vindicate the on field ump, and allows the howler to stand so the problem is not solved. I see the same thing in rugby and rugby league. Soccer for all it's many faults ( and cricket India for all their many faults ) do not believe in the DRS and have been proved right more often than wrong by the sports that use it.

What is needed is for someone with vast experience in the game and average or above average intelligence to be paid a vast sum of money to sit and watch the telecast and notify the on field umps every time they think a wrong decision that will be picked up by the commentating team and replayed ad-nauseam has been made so it can be corrected. This person would not even have to be at the ground, so it would not interfere with holidays in the Bahamas or other important events in said video reviewers life.
Login to reply,

larkin 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #8

larkin
you don't think a 500 game camera veteran knows exactly what is at stake here?
Login to reply,

rogerrocks 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #9

rogerrocks
Do the video review like they do in tennis. Show a schematic of the path the camera* says the ball took rather than the actual footage. No one complains when the tennis system says the ball was 2 mm wide of the line, even though it can't possibly be that accurate. The don't complain because the reconstruction that they show is cut and dried.

*To be realistic, you probably need 3 cameras to calculate the path of the ball.
Login to reply,

timmeh 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #10

timmeh
the only way you could do it accurately is with hot spot like in the cricket, hawk eye wont fix AFL problems as its not a case of tracking, we know the ball has crossed the line at some point, but has it been touched on the way there
Login to reply,

thegeniusthatis 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #11

thegeniusthatis
The problem in regards to cricket is often with the question that is asked of the third umpire and the restrictions placed on that. The technology is fine, but the degrees of interpretation are what is unknown.
Login to reply,

Raglan Matt 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #12

Raglan Matt
Whay happens when Zac gets a fist to the ball in the 10 yard square and thumps it through for a forced behind and Margetts calls for a score review. The reviewer says "There is a huge hotspot on the footy but it is not exactly where Zac punched the ball, review complete decision overturned, Goal"

Don't say it won't happen, it already happens in cricket. Then there is the decisions on forward passes in both codes of rugby. It depends on who you are, not where the ball went, in all sports when technology comes into it.
Login to reply,

The Prince 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #13

The Prince
We got several soft free kicks. I would have been annoyed if I were a PA supporter.
Login to reply,

DockerKnockers 4 v 3 7 years 10 months ago #14

DockerKnockers
Humans are fallible. The review system is designed to reduce the number of really bad decisions made by humans, with the assistance of technology and a third party reviewer. Unfortunately, the third party reviewer is also human and fallible. The technology can sometimes clearly assist, other times it does not.

I'm a huge fan of the review system and believe it works (in all the sports I watch). Really bad decisions are being reversed and that is what it is designed for. But I will say, umpires should always first have to make a decision and the third umpire review system should only be used to over-rule a poor decision, whether called on or not. That is, if the reviewer has any doubt, then the original decision should stand. The number of over-ruled decisions should also be a KPI for umpires annual performance reviews and made public. In cricket, pretty much all the worst decisions in history were made without the inclusion of a review system (except for the 1999 howler by the Sri Lankan umpire Pathirana in a Sri Lanka vs Australia one dayer when Gilchrist was wrongly given run out. That decision was so bad, Pathirana was suspended for one game of umpiring. Pathirana Gilchrist shocker)
Gone to bigfooty where there's fewer Docker Haters.
Login to reply,
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Forum
Index
Docker Discussions
4 v 3