Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
Richmond supporters don't believe in the wonders of math and science.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Rules Score Review (ARC) Thread - Lions v Tigers Elimination
- Thread starter NonPhixion
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Richmond supporters don't believe in the wonders of math and science.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 32,977
- 51,339
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I think we all know it wasn't a goal.
You tiger fans are infuriating. It gets explained perfectly to you and none of you accept it.
However you might be right about the arc guy, I’m not sure if he understood what he was doing (he might’ve also) but he got it right anyway.
FourthTimeAround
Cancelled
- Jun 6, 2022
- 2,173
- 2,640
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Like the deliberate rushed behind (Pickett?) which started with him taking possession outside of the goal square. Would have liked to have seen a review on that one too.
On a per game basis, I thought Lynch was the best forward in the competition this year. It's crazy how uncomfortable he looked taking that shot.
- Aug 16, 2015
- 12,056
- 20,795
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
I’ve watched heaps of replays of the Lynch kick, in none of them I can say 100% if they were a goal or a point, but it’s irrelevant, the rules are clear, for a decision to be overturned, there needs to be conclusive evidence to overturn it.
Footage from 60-80m away, of the ball going over an imaginary line above the post, is not conclusive, conclusive means that it can’t be disputed.
The diameter of the top of a AFL goal posts is 7.5cm.
How anyone can say the ball travelled directly over the top of that 7.5cm from the vision is ridiculous.
The on Field call was a goal, Lynches body language, whether you thought it was a goal or not is irrelevant.
Footage from 60-80m away, of the ball going over an imaginary line above the post, is not conclusive, conclusive means that it can’t be disputed.
The diameter of the top of a AFL goal posts is 7.5cm.
How anyone can say the ball travelled directly over the top of that 7.5cm from the vision is ridiculous.
The on Field call was a goal, Lynches body language, whether you thought it was a goal or not is irrelevant.
So basically players are going to be taught now to fake a celebration when its close call? As comical as that sounds, its probably going to happen going forward. Based on what the afl said, this is part of their ‘decision making process’. Lol. Hope it doesnt happen again in grand final, because if you had half a brain of course youre going to fake it.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Lol.
No you wouldn't. If it happened to Geelong you'd be in here telling them it was clearly a point.
- Jun 22, 2011
- 4,036
- 5,106
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Man City, Cleveland Browns
- Jun 28, 2017
- 1,857
- 7,749
- AFL Club
- Richmond
i imagine the ruling is someone has to make the call before it goes to review, because someone has to get the benefit of the doubt in the event the footage is inconclusive, same with cricket, the umpire has to soft signal a decision.
obvious example is LBW where the technology signals umpire call
where you being out or not out is entirely dependent on if the umpire soft signaled out out or not out
Must admit watching it live last night I thought no way thats definitive, but the triangulation diagrams posted here and elsewhere seem to be on the mark - thing is we just don't know if thats the rationale the video review guy used. Will be interesting to see if the AFL go with that specific rationale, surely they'll release a statement on it (confirming it was the correct decision of course haha, but yeah will they offer triangulation as the proof).
Would they? You're a lot more confident in the professionalism of the AFL than I am lol.
Last edited:
sherb
Hall of Famer
I'm not convinced the goal umpire knew if it was a goal or not, I'd suspect he was guessing because he was on the move as the kick went over the goal line.
Situations like that are the best advertisement for a second goal umpire that I have seen, particularly when the ball goes over the height of the posts. One goal umpire simply doesn't have the time to be where he has to be when the player is that close and on an angle.
Having said that, Lynch deserves some flak for using a banana kick when any quality forward should have been able to put a drop punt through, or even use his left foot to open up the angle. But banana kicks (and the round the corner kicks) are just sooooo trendy these days, despite how unreliable they can be........
Then there's the minor issue of the ball going up the other end and Daniher somehow being able to snag a goal whilst having 5 (?) Richmond players in his immediate vicinity - not one of them smart enough to stand on the goal line either.
I understand the focus being on the Lynch "goal", but there are many other layers to this, as is almost always the case in matches with tight, controversial finishes.
Yeh, based on the grainy, low framerate, low pixel when zoomed footage where there was inches in it looked at for 30 seconds.
Nothing conclusive or irrefutable about it. If it was, there wouldn't be debate, if it was clear, there's nothing to debate.
It wasn't. Therefore it shouldn't have been overturned from umpires on field call.
- Jun 22, 2011
- 4,036
- 5,106
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Man City, Cleveland Browns
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #345
Geez, you reckon they are paid to guess on general free kicks? I'd argue if they don't clearly see something, let it go. I'd hope most footy fans think the same.
When it comes to scoring when a decision has to be made, an option of not sure, let the review process decide is far better than making a guess the deciding factor.
For me personally I just don't think it should have been over-turned
Had they reviewed with umpires call being a behind and it been upheld I have no issue. The main problem for me is that it needs to be conclusive to be over-turned and I'm yet to see anything that could have gotten them a conclusive answer in the time they took to make a decision
1. I honestly don't know. To the naked eye, I would lean towards it went over the post. However I couldn't be 100% sure as there were inches in it, and the footage is not very clear. Which brings me to the main point.
2. It's not what I think, it's what the rules state. If it's not irrefutable, clear, definitive evidence to overturn, it's umpires call. The rules/guides were not correctly applied. At best that was debatable. It wasn't like we saw the ball hit the post or push someone's fingers back as touched.
- Jun 22, 2011
- 4,036
- 5,106
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Man City, Cleveland Browns
We all know it didn't go through the goals
that angle it looks like a goal!
as a cheer squad member during the late 70s early 80s, ie. wayne harmes era, and through the torrid lions salary cap fiascos, and the bullshit free against westcoast, ima just gunna say the line i always told the kids i umpired "you gotta be far enough in front that the mother of all umpire decisions doesnt cost you the game!" i have no faith, none whatsover, in the integrity of the AFL and/or its umpires: the dogs free kick count all through 2016 and in the final: players who dont get rubbed out just before finals, or because they are leading the Brownlow and thats embarrassing: almost killing off a team over dollars in paperbags and now saying its ok for the coach in charge of a whole cheating supplement scandal, can coach the same club again: changing rules mid season for a 19 year old kid when a so called superstar vet has made a career out of the same move for 15 fricken years: jumping over players for bets taken and endorsing gambling!! its such a farce!! level playing field? even the ground conditions are not level! the fixture is based on who will sell the most seats, not fairness!!!
it was your turn Tiger kings, next time dont let em near you!
although since your song started playing, i dont think the AFL saw that coming, or maybe, just maybe, they got their lines crossed!
as a cheer squad member during the late 70s early 80s, ie. wayne harmes era, and through the torrid lions salary cap fiascos, and the bullshit free against westcoast, ima just gunna say the line i always told the kids i umpired "you gotta be far enough in front that the mother of all umpire decisions doesnt cost you the game!" i have no faith, none whatsover, in the integrity of the AFL and/or its umpires: the dogs free kick count all through 2016 and in the final: players who dont get rubbed out just before finals, or because they are leading the Brownlow and thats embarrassing: almost killing off a team over dollars in paperbags and now saying its ok for the coach in charge of a whole cheating supplement scandal, can coach the same club again: changing rules mid season for a 19 year old kid when a so called superstar vet has made a career out of the same move for 15 fricken years: jumping over players for bets taken and endorsing gambling!! its such a farce!! level playing field? even the ground conditions are not level! the fixture is based on who will sell the most seats, not fairness!!!
it was your turn Tiger kings, next time dont let em near you!
although since your song started playing, i dont think the AFL saw that coming, or maybe, just maybe, they got their lines crossed!
Similar threads
