Rules Score Review (ARC) Thread - Lions v Tigers Elimination

[Bluelegs]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the person with the best angle/view of the shot was Lynch himself.
He knew that he missed.

ARC confirmed this for the reasons many have stated already.

Case closed.

Fwiw I don't think Lynch's view matters at all and I would be shocked if it was used as evidence to determine the result.

I do think the AFL need to spend more time educating the audience about how these decisions are made. Every time there is a controversial decision it seems like you get a bunch of different conflicting views about how the score review is actually done.

 

[kickazz]

Yeah theres a very good chance the right decision was made. But doesnt change the fact process isnt up to scratch compared to other professional sports.

To overturn a decision you need to be 80-90% conclusive. Otherwise its umpires call. This was somewhere between 60-70%. I know you guys got out the triangle things to work it out but i garuntee with the current technology in the arc, they didnt make decision based on that in under 30 seconds. It was partly based off player ‘reaction’ based on the afl response lol. Its comical if that was used in another sport.

What if the initial call by the umpire was only 50% conclusive at best? It makes things more complicated no doubt, but I don't think the goal umpire had much idea.

Should there be scope for the goal umpire to say they really don't know and defer to the ARC? That gets tricky though and could encourage indecisiveness.

There wasn't much consultation with the field or boundary umpires which I found unusual. Normally the field umpire will inform the goal umpire of what he thought it was via his "all clear" (raising one or two hands appropriately).

As for the ARC taking Lynch's reaction into account - I find that so hard to believe. Tom Browne after the game said that he heard that this is indeed the practise. Far out if that is true, then bugger everything else about this decision, because that is the real story that should be talked about.

 

[Bluelegs]

But although it may sound silly it’s not about being correct

Under the current system it’s about if the person in the bunker had conclusive evidence to over rule the umpires call

Without another angle (side on) showing and synced to show if the ball was in front or behind the goal line when it appears to travel over the post we don’t have conclusive evidence

If the vision was out of sync then I agree the evidence is not conclusive. I would have thought the reviewer believed the vision to be synchronised which is why they would make the decision the way they did. Again, the AFL would make this far less painful if they actually explained how the reviewers make their decisions.

 

[Ricketz]

Same people who probably make an argument that this was the right call.

Haha, yep.

 

[Muddiemoose]

If the vision was out of sync then I agree the evidence is not conclusive. I would have thought the reviewer believed the vision to be synchronised which is why they would make the decision the way they did. Again, the AFL would make this far less painful if they actually explained how the reviewers make their decisions.

That is my main issue as well, like I said earlier I do think it was a behind but due to the nature of the vision showed and the time it took to make it I don’t think it would of been definitive decision

Probable? Absolutely.
But definitive means 100%

The process needs to be shown and explained with the same vision used in the bunker and the technology needs to be upgraded to also remove doubt

 

[Jazny]

That is my main issue as well, like I said earlier I do think it was a behind but due to the nature of the vision showed and the time it took to make it I don’t think it would of been definitive decision

Probable? Absolutely.
But definitive means 100%

The process needs to be shown and explained with the same vision used in the bunker and the technology needs to be upgraded to also remove doubt

So you want to win on a technicality? If it seems the right decision was made in the end, what does it matter?

 

[Muddiemoose]

So you want to win on a technicality? If it seems the right decision was made in the end, what does it matter?

The result is already in stone, I’m saying that the technology needs to be at a standard to remove the doubt to prevent mistakes in the future either way

If it’s not definitive it’s the umpires call
That’s the rule

 

[perplexed]

Lynch has more Premiership medals than Norf has top-4 finishes in the last 20-years


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Nice melt

 

[Profop]

So you'd be happy to win by effectively cheating?

Cheating would be paying the umpire for them to make an incorrect decision. Not sure how kicking the ball very close to/over the goal post and the umpire calling it a goal can be considered cheating. If so teams have been cheating continuously since the game was invented

 

[Noidnadroj]

No, that's not how this works. If 50% of people think 2+2=4 and 50% of people think 2+2=5, that doesn't mean that 2+2 has an inconclusive answer, it means that 50% of people are incorrect.

No, that’s fact, not opinion. Just accept half the people think it was conclusive and half the people don’t. The people who don’t think it was conclusive can’t be wrong as it’s their opinion based on what they see on the screen.

The goal umpire called a goal as that was his opinion based on what he saw with his own eyes in real time. The ARC guy thought it was conclusively over the post. David King, Jason Dunstall, Leigh Montagna and Kane Cornes saw the same vision as the ARC guy and have viewed it 50 times compared to 8-seconds it took ARC guy and thought it was inconclusive.

The fact there’s 1,000+ comments in various threads on BF debating it and hundreds of talkback calls is really all the evidence anyone needs that it wasn’t conclusive.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Ricketz]

Debatable that the 3rd angle shows it clearly going over the top and if you need to use lines to map it out a few seconds isn’t enough to make a conclusive call in the bunker

I think this is the frame you want - as I said, there will only be one point in time where they all intersect the goal post:

For it to have gone behind, the centre (top right) view would show it as it does, in line with the goal post. The left camera (bottom left) would show it to the left as it does. But the right camera (top left) would need to show the ball on the right of the post - which it doesn't.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the person with the best angle/view of the shot was Lynch himself.
He knew that he missed.

ARC confirmed this for the reasons many have stated already.

Case closed.

The person with the best view was the goal umpire. He called a goal.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[dean33]

That is the vision they showed us. Three angles (front on and off to each side). If the ball is over the post in all three at the same time, that's you can localise the ball.

So they have never once overturned a decision when the ball has gone over the post but decide to do it for the first time in the last 2 mins of a final. As soon as the ball is over the goal post you go with the umpires call, like they always do. Except for last night of course.

 

[Forward Press]

No, that’s fact, not opinion. Just accept half the people think it was conclusive and half the people don’t. The people who don’t think it was conclusive can’t be wrong as it’s their opinion based on what they see on the screen.

The goal umpire called a goal as that was his opinion based on what he saw with his own eyes in real time. The ARC guy thought it was conclusively over the post. David King, Jason Dunstall, Leigh Montagna and Kane Cornes saw the same vision as the ARC guy and have viewed it 50 times compared to 8-seconds it took ARC guy and thought it was inconclusive.

The fact there’s 1,000+ comments in various threads on BF debating it and hundreds of talkback calls is really all the evidence anyone needs that it wasn’t conclusive.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

No offence to King et al, but I doubt they are as qualified as the people in the ARC to analyse camera evidence, especially in the heat of the moment where a decision must be made as promptly as possible.

Richmond is a large Victorian club on the wrong end of a controversial decision, it was always going to attract online and radio angst - this does not automatically mean the decision was wrong.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

The person with the best view was the goal umpire. He called a goal.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

No. He called for a review because he didn't know.

 

[Sentinel]

The person with the best view was the goal umpire. He called a goal.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

And an immediate review because he wasn't certain.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

The person with the best view was the goal umpire. He called a goal.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The goal umpire’s positioning was terrible?

 

[Forward Press]

The person with the best view was the goal umpire. He called a goal.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The person with the best view of LBW decisions in cricket is the umpire.

This doesn't mean all decisions made for LBW are correct. Why are Richmond supporters still going down this path?

The goal umpire also was not best positioned.

 

[JasRulz63]

So they have never once overturned a decision when the ball has gone over the post but decide to do it for the first time in the last 2 mins of a final. As soon as the ball is over the goal post you go with the umpires call, like they always do. Except for last night of course.

I'm sure you have many examples of this on hand since it's such a given? Or is it written in the rules?

 

[dean33]

I think this is the frame you want - as I said, there will only be one point in time where they all intersect the goal post:
View attachment 1497013
For it to have gone behind, the centre (top right) view would show it as it does, in line with the goal post. The left camera (bottom left) would show it to the left as it does. But the right camera (top left) would need to show the ball on the right of the post - which it doesn't.

That vision shows nothing conclusive, all guess work based on Lynch’s non reaction. Watch for every player to celebrate all kicks for goal where it is close now the arc is taking reactions into account. Might as well count how many people in the stands stood up and cheered and how many were sat down.
Farcical.

 

[dean33]

No offence to King et al, but I doubt they are as qualified as the people in the ARC to analyse camera evidence, especially in the heat of the moment where a decision must be made as promptly as possible.

Richmond is a large Victorian club on the wrong end of a controversial decision, it was always going to attract online and radio angst - this does not automatically mean the decision was wrong.

Qualified person in the arc? Lol
Yes I imagine they have a quantum physicist in there making the decision.

 

[JyeDye]

All that should happen is the goal umpire should be dropped for making such a shit call that gives these Richmond plebs another reason to cry about how the AFL are against them.

 

[Maze]

Cheating would be paying the umpire for them to make an incorrect decision. Not sure how kicking the ball very close to/over the goal post and the umpire calling it a goal can be considered cheating. If so teams have been cheating continuously since the game was invented

If Lynch feels he missed it, then acting contrary to this would be cheating by trying to get another outcome to what really happened.

 

[Bluelegs]

Slightly off topic, but wasn't there an example from earlier this year where a player jumped over a goal umpire trying to spoil and totally obstructed their vision? Is there ever a situation where the goal umpire can throw their hands up and say they have no clue and hand over the decision to the score reviewer or do they always need to make a call?

 

[dean33]

I'm sure you have many examples of this on hand since it's such a given? Or is it written in the rules?

Just on the fact it’s never happened before. It’s guesswork pure and simple.