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

[Profop]

It was a howler. I'd be pretty pissed losing that game because the umpire made an error and called a goal. The ARC did remove the howler, exactly what you're alluding to.

That wasn't a howler. The Hawkins post was a howler

 

[Noidnadroj]

Nice melt

Round 11 2016. Roos beat Tigers by 70-points in Tassie to go 10-1 and 2 games clear on top of the ladder. Tigers slump to 4-7.

Since that game that had you flag favourites you’ve won 39 games of football and lost 104 in 6.5 seasons, haven’t won a final, and have collected 2 spoons and a second bottom…and had about 6 coaches.

I’ll continue to enjoy melting after a finals loss.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[juss]

And another one. It wouldn't matter how many times the right explanation is made, some just won't accept it because they are ignorant of the mathematics that is behind it.

What sort of expertise do you think the ARC guy has? Do you think they've hired an engineer or someone with expertise in a similar field to make those quick assesments?

That sort of decision has never been overturned. It is inconclusive, especially in the very short time the decision was overturned in.

 

[Forward Press]

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

Well, they'd be operating the thing, yeah?

Why are David King and Kane Cornes now held as gospel in the matter and not the people in the ARC?

 

[Noidnadroj]

What sort of expertise do you think the ARC guy has? Do you think they've hired an engineer or someone with expertise in a similar field to make those quick assesments?

It’s Gil Mclachlan’s 17yo son


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Elixuh]

The whole flawed process begins with a requirement that an umpire - who may have no clue - has to guess.

That umpire had no clue. He was out of position and had one shot at guessing whether a fast moving ball went over a pole. For all touched on the line, touched the post, over the post calls, the umpire should be able to say I don't know and we use technology to decide.

 

[Ricketz]

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.

Ok, if thats the excuse you are going to run with. I don't really mind.

 

[living_in_syd]

Result might be right - but the process they got that decision in 30 seconds is real issue. Not something any professional would be proud off.

 

[royboy2]

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.

Field umpire raises his right hand only either to blow whistle or give all clear behind, unsure of what as the camera cuts away before I can confirm

 

[Elixuh]

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

 

[dean33]

Well, they'd be operating the thing, yeah?

Why are David King and Kane Cornes now held as gospel in the matter and not the people in the ARC?

Pretty much everyone who has commented about it in the media has disagreed with the decision. Did you hear whateleys take on it?

 

[Forward Press]

Pretty much everyone who has commented about it in the media has disagreed with the decision. Did you hear whateleys take on it?

No, because I don't seek out AFL media at all. The entire industry is built on dragging out controversy.

This was controversial - but the decision was right. Fine, criticise the process, but the ARC did what it was supposed to do - correct a wrong decision. The goal umpire at the time had to make a call and he believed it was a goal in the immediate aftermath of the kick - and the ARC had the benefit of the footage to review and made the right call.

That's my take on it.

 

[maskmcgee]

Sportsbet refunded all bets on Richmond, clearly they know the decision was wrong.

 

[maskmcgee]

Sportsbet refunded all bets on Richmond, clearly they know the decision was wrong.

 

[royboy2]

Sportsbet refunded all bets on Richmond, clearly they know the decision was wrong.

Tell me we arent using Sportsbet as our moral compass now

 

[Elixuh]

 

[BF Tiger]

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

Because next time the wrong decision might be made... and it might be your team on the end of it.

Surely as football fans we just want a system that works.

 

[Woody15]

Point it is.

 

[Heaps of fun]

Score review stinks. Scrap it. It's outside the spirit of the game and affects the flow of the spectacle.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Sportsbet refunded all bets on Richmond, clearly they know the decision was wrong.

It's called marketing - if they knew the decision was wrong they'd have paid the bet out in good faith.

They are not a morally correct, they are a corrupt bookmaker. Just like all bookmakers.

 

[Mantastic]

Because next time the wrong decision might be made... and it might be your team on the end of it.

Surely as football fans we just want a system that works.

The system did work, you just don't like the decision.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

Point it is.

Now can we finally concentrate on Lynch's choke?

 

[Elixuh]

Because next time the wrong decision might be made... and it might be your team on the end of it.

Surely as football fans we just want a system that works.

Yes. The inherent flaw in the system is forcing a field umpire to guess. Had the umpire been able to say I don't know then the technology provided the correct answer.

 

[Forward Press]

The system did work, you just don't like the decision.

Exactly this.

Are we arguing the goal umpire decided it was a goal and the evidence was inconclusive to overrule it and thus it must remain a goal, or are we arguing the ARC made the wrong decision in the first place because it was not a point without any shadow of a doubt? Because if it's the former, fine, I can deal with the difference of opinion (because we are all just interpreting the footage we have and coming to different conclusions), but if it's the latter then you really cannot be reasoned with.

 

[dean33]

No, because I don't seek out AFL media at all. The entire industry is built on dragging out controversy.

This was controversial - but the decision was right. Fine, criticise the process, but the ARC did what it was supposed to do - correct a wrong decision. The goal umpire at the time had to make a call and he believed it was a goal in the immediate aftermath of the kick - and the ARC had the benefit of the footage to review and made the right call.

That's my take on it.

It didn’t correct a wrong decision as no one knows whether it was a goal or not. The goal umpire called it a goal and is supposed to be overturned by conclusive evidence, ball hitting fingers, ball hitting post, ball going to left or right of post. Not ball going over imaginary line on top of goal post from grainy vision 50 metres away.