Who knows? The Richmond fans behind the goals and in line with lynch did? for the Sydney game when we didn’t get the 50 it was described as a common sense rule, now with this one with no conclusive evidence, is it common sense rule again?
-
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
Agree with this except that's not how the system works currently and on the current rules it seems like a rubbish result
It’s only a debate because people are not very bright.
- Jun 22, 2011
- 4,035
- 5,106
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Man City, Cleveland Browns
There's conclusive evidence, you're just ignoring it lol
How would those fans know where the ball is in relation to the goal line when the ball was above goal post height? They also have only one angle of it.
If only there was some principle that uses a view from two angles that would able to locate the an object in space.
it really doesnt matter, the tigers could have locked down defence, lock up the ball, for 95 sec, get the ball and play keepings off.
for me, if the goal keeper said goal, and it was inconclusive, then its a goal. he should not change his mind.
for me, if the goal keeper said goal, and it was inconclusive, then its a goal. he should not change his mind.
Honesty Seeker
Draftee
- May 12, 2015
- 12
- 12
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Lynch didn't think it was a goal but who cares, the ball shouldn't have been anywhere near there due to bad umpiring!
The umpires in the preceding minutes didn't award obvious frees to the Lions right in front of Richmond's goals! No noise about that.
Good enough for the whinging Softwick. And what about Reiwoldt having a go at the umpire about it after the siren. Very poor.
This is part of the game (and the ARC does a much better job than Christiansen's MRO and the Tribunal! Ps Lynch should have been reported for belting Andrews' head from behind during one of the goal spoil attempts. No noise about that.)
Go Kangas!
The umpires in the preceding minutes didn't award obvious frees to the Lions right in front of Richmond's goals! No noise about that.
Good enough for the whinging Softwick. And what about Reiwoldt having a go at the umpire about it after the siren. Very poor.
This is part of the game (and the ARC does a much better job than Christiansen's MRO and the Tribunal! Ps Lynch should have been reported for belting Andrews' head from behind during one of the goal spoil attempts. No noise about that.)
Go Kangas!
sherb
Hall of Famer
Bont2Bruce
At the Destination Club
- Mar 15, 2012
- 11,176
- 26,163
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Melbourne City
I think someone who understands geometry and mathematics explained what to look for (multiple angles showing the same thing at the same time) for the situation over the top of a post. I don't think that the ARC operator would necessarily use this knowledge in whatever their day job is (like say a surveyor would) but possible I guess.
And it is conclusive, although you clearly don't understand the maths behind it. Your lack of understanding doesn't make it an incorrect call. It just means you don't understand.
Bluelegs
Digging into the why
I believe so. Otherwise I doubt they would have made a decision as quickly as they did. When it happened I thought they were going to look at the vision for about 5 minutes and then do umpires call, but they made a decision very quickly after they found three angles where the ball lined up with the post.
The AFL would increase my confidence if they actually came out and explained the decision, but I think they enjoy it being murky.
Last edited:
With the poor quality footage and distance from the ball, you can't even really freeze the ball at any point with clarity with the poor frame rates and image quality.
Sorry, but it was a clear incorrect application of the rules. Not irrefutable evidence in any sense, therefore umpire's call.
Bont2Bruce
At the Destination Club
- Mar 15, 2012
- 11,176
- 26,163
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Melbourne City
I was very disappointed in the AFL explanation, which said nothing other than the decision was correct (i.e. didn't explain why at all). I suspect that's because whoever ran the AFL media response had no more idea why it was the correct call than any of the commentators on the TV did either. Sad all round, there are of course people who could have explained why it was conclusive, but nobody bothered to get one of them to say so via a public broadcast.
Bont2Bruce
At the Destination Club
- Mar 15, 2012
- 11,176
- 26,163
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Melbourne City
Disagree all you like, it won't make you any less incorrect. Any time you want to educate yourself, the option will always be available to you. I won't hold my breath.
That's fine. We can agree to disagree. There's nothing "clear" about these images. Possibly the correct call, but the wrong application as it's not irrefutable based on the evidence.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
That's fine. We can agree to disagree. There's nothing "clear" about these images. Possibly the correct call, but the wrong application as it's not irrefutable based on the evidence.
The ball is over all or part of the post in those three images. What other conclusion can you make from it? Are you saying they are out of sync?
Ah right, so they've already made a statement on it (been stuck in meetings most of the day) - and the triangulation aspect was not mentioned?
Very interesting, and yes disappointing. Unsure on what basis they could confirm correct decision if it wasn't triangulation, and I remain unconvinced thats what the video review guy did. Then there's this from Tom Browne, take it with a grain of salt I suppose;
Do you have a link to the AFL statement?
- Sep 15, 2011
- 32,977
- 51,338
- AFL Club
- West Coast
No, my eyes.
- Aug 6, 2021
- 6,891
- 12,633
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Realistically there are two separate arguments here:
1. Was it a goal?
2. Was the ARC’s footage conclusive enough to overturn the decision?
In my opinion the answer to both those questions is no. I think the goal umpire made an incorrect call, and the evidence the score reviewer had was not conclusive enough, however, they judged that it was.
Does that mean the score review is bad? I don’t think so, no system will ever be perfect, but I think we’ve seen that since it’s been introduced we’ve got the right call more often than beforehand.
At the end of the day there will always be room for human error in umpiring. We can work to make it as small as possible and should continue to do so, but ultimately it’s a part of the game, and always has been.
Were Richmond robbed? Absolutely not, there was a 50/50 call that didn’t go their way, but there are dozens of those in a game of footy. They still had the lead, and still butchered it by allowing the Lions to exit defensive 50, and then letting Daniher win a one on one in the square.
Hopefully we can move on and talk about what an amazing game of footy that was instead.
1. Was it a goal?
2. Was the ARC’s footage conclusive enough to overturn the decision?
In my opinion the answer to both those questions is no. I think the goal umpire made an incorrect call, and the evidence the score reviewer had was not conclusive enough, however, they judged that it was.
Does that mean the score review is bad? I don’t think so, no system will ever be perfect, but I think we’ve seen that since it’s been introduced we’ve got the right call more often than beforehand.
At the end of the day there will always be room for human error in umpiring. We can work to make it as small as possible and should continue to do so, but ultimately it’s a part of the game, and always has been.
Were Richmond robbed? Absolutely not, there was a 50/50 call that didn’t go their way, but there are dozens of those in a game of footy. They still had the lead, and still butchered it by allowing the Lions to exit defensive 50, and then letting Daniher win a one on one in the square.
Hopefully we can move on and talk about what an amazing game of footy that was instead.
He is saying because it’s grainy that we can’t be sure.
That’s the excuse Juss is using.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
Even with the 'grainy' nature it is plainly evident, and it's a heck of a lot more reliable than Richmond supporters at the ground who certainly would not have an unbiased perspective or access to super slo-mo.
- Aug 16, 2015
- 12,053
- 20,794
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
I’ve seen this vision and to me it doesn’t show it didn’t go through for a goal, just like it doesn’t show it went through the points. Still people don’t seem to understand the rule.
The ball goes over the post, isn’t conclusive evidence to overturn the goal umpires decision, the posts diameter at the top is 7.5cm, you can’t tell from the vision if the ball would have hit the post, you also have to be sure it would have hit the post, not guess.
Its a garbage process, one that needs fixing, Richmond should sue, as it will happen again one day and it could be your club or mine and it could be in a bigger game.
It shouldn’t be too hard for officials in a huge game, to know the rules in which they are working under.
Cemos
Debutant
- Mar 30, 2011
- 76
- 189
- AFL Club
- Essendon
'Based on this flat, 2D, grainy footage from 3, almost identical shallow angles, the ball is clearly over the goalpost'
If the AFL are using your logic then it's a broken system.
TBH I didn't want to get sucked into finger-painting because it's honestly irrelevant, but the ball is not in the exact same position between frames lmao.
- Aug 16, 2015
- 12,053
- 20,794
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
Yes, a goal umpire saying I’m not sure would be good, let the review decide and everything works out fine. That’s not the case though, the current rules are there and the opinion of the ARC man isn’t conclusive evidence to overturn a decision.
Evidence in other instances requires a spike on edge, to see a deflection, to see someone touch the ball, to see it come off the wrong player, assuming the ball would have hit the post, which is only 7.5cm at the top is conclusive.
I would lose it if that happened to us.
Similar threads
