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

[The 747]

Love the score review, best part of the game.

 

[Full Wingspan]

I can't find any provision or clause within the AFL's 2022 Laws of the Game which deal directly with the score review system. However, if we use the often-repeated rule that "conclusive evidence is required to overturn the goal umpire's decision", I feel a lot of the confusion and frustration boils down to a clear misunderstanding of what evidence is deemed "conclusive". This doesn't help when commentators and coaches alike add further fuel to the fire of ignorance around such topics.

According to Dr Google, the definition of conclusive is:

"(of evidence or argument) having or likely [emphasis added] to have the effect of proving a case; decisive."

I have seen quite a number of frustrated posters suggest that evidence needs to be 100% accurate in order to be deemed conclusive. It's a futile exercise to try and define terms such as "likely" and "probable", however taking the definition above, we know something needs to be more than 50% and less than 100% for it to be regarded "conclusive".

Based on the angles provided during the broadcast, I feel the evidence was clear enough to overturn what proved to be an incorrect call by the goal umpire (as per the amateur footage available).

A grave injustice has been avoided in a do-or-die final. The AFL community (including Richmond fans) should celebrate that.

 

[JackOutback]

I can't find any provision or clause within the AFL's 2022 Laws of the Game which deal directly with the score review system. However, if we use the often-repeated rule that "conclusive evidence is required to overturn the goal umpire's decision", I feel a lot of the confusion and frustration boils down to a clear misunderstanding of what evidence is deemed "conclusive". This doesn't help when commentators and coaches alike add further fuel to the fire of ignorance around such topics.

According to Dr Google, the definition of conclusive is:

"(of evidence or argument) having or likely [emphasis added] to have the effect of proving a case; decisive."

I have seen quite a number of frustrated posters suggest that evidence needs to be 100% accurate in order to be deemed conclusive. It's a futile exercise to try and define terms such as "likely" and "probable", however taking the definition above, we know something needs to be more than 50% and less than 100% for it to be regarded "conclusive".

Based on the angles provided during the broadcast, I feel the evidence was clear enough to overturn what proved to be an incorrect call by the goal umpire (as per the amateur footage available).

A grave injustice has been avoided in a do-or-die final. The AFL community (including Richmond fans) should celebrate that.

That's why you're the law-talking guy.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

The score review was brought in the eliminate the howler, not be used for EVERY....SINGLE....SCORE. The goal umps can't even make a decision for themselves these days because the ball barely flicks a goal post pad and we need to spend five minutes looking at four ultra blurry angles with zero conclusive evidence to the fact on the vision.

We've gone too far on it and should be peeled back to only deal with the absolute horrible howler.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Nothing wrong with the technology EXCEPT the way it is presented to the punters.
The technology WORKS, but punters don't believe or understand it.

Tennis got it right when they introduced their hawkeye. They essentially turn whatever footage they have (granted it's higher quality than at afl games) into an incontrovertible image. Nobody can argue with it.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

and if they added a "whoosh" sound to it as well, I think everyone would be happy

 

[Full Wingspan]

The score review was brought in the eliminate the howler, not be used for EVERY....SINGLE....SCORE. The goal umps can't even make a decision for themselves these days because the ball barely flicks a goal post pad and we need to spend five minutes looking at four ultra blurry angles with zero conclusive evidence to the fact on the vision.

We've gone too far on it and should be peeled back to only deal with the absolute horrible howler.

That was a howler - the only person who thought it was a goal was the goal umpire.

 

[kickazz]

Seeing two separate angles show the ball over the post at the same time = conclusive evidence.

This image from reddit was posted by Quivorir in the other thread about this.

Simple exercise:

Pick a spot, anywhere that the ball is NOT over the post. Draw a footy there, remembering that the footy must appear over the top of the post from both camera angles. That is you need to be able to draw a straight line from one camera that goes through the ball and the post. Then you need to be able to do the same from the other camera. Give it a try! You can even move the starting positions of the cameras around if that helps.

 

[JyeDye]

Seeing two separate angles show the ball over the post at the same time = conclusive evidence.

This image from reddit was posted by Quivorir in the other thread about this.

Simple exercise:

Pick a spot, anywhere that the ball is NOT over the post. Draw a footy there, remembering that the footy must appear over the top of the post from both camera angles. That is you need to be able to draw a straight line from one camera that goes through the ball and the post. Then you need to be able to do the same from the other camera. Give it a try! You can even move the starting positions of the cameras around if that helps.

Have any Richmond supporters actually gave any arguments about this? Or is it just grainy footage, you never know, it's gotta be conclusive. Well it literally is.

 

[royboy2]

The score review was brought in the eliminate the howler, not be used for EVERY....SINGLE....SCORE. The goal umps can't even make a decision for themselves these days because the ball barely flicks a goal post pad and we need to spend five minutes looking at four ultra blurry angles with zero conclusive evidence to the fact on the vision.

We've gone too far on it and should be peeled back to only deal with the absolute horrible howler.

Same with the cricket, when was the last time you saw an ump not use the video for a run out?

 

[kickazz]

Only for howlers is specious reasoning.

It was howlers that gave us enough momentum, the straw that broke the camel's back as it were, to actually finally adopt technology.

It is now used to maximise accuracy for all secisions. Same with cricket and tennis.

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

all this staring at grainy footage and making graphs in paint reminds me of something.......



have we removed the posibility that there were infact 2 shooters?

 

[Soggy2112]

The score review was brought in the eliminate the howler, not be used for EVERY....SINGLE....SCORE. The goal umps can't even make a decision for themselves these days because the ball barely flicks a goal post pad and we need to spend five minutes looking at four ultra blurry angles with zero conclusive evidence to the fact on the vision.

We've gone too far on it and should be peeled back to only deal with the absolute horrible howler.

What defines a howler though?

 

[maskmcgee]

Point it is.

In what way? That is indisputable proof it was a goal. Goes behind the post crossing the line way before it reached the top of the post.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Seeing two separate angles show the ball over the post at the same time = conclusive evidence.

This image from reddit was posted by Quivorir in the other thread about this.

Simple exercise:

Pick a spot, anywhere that the ball is NOT over the post. Draw a footy there, remembering that the footy must appear over the top of the post from both camera angles. That is you need to be able to draw a straight line from one camera that goes through the ball and the post. Then you need to be able to do the same from the other camera. Give it a try! You can even move the starting positions of the cameras around if that helps.

The issue with these diagrams and explanations is that we do not know the exact positions of the camera or their angle or distance from the goals based on those broad camera angles shown to be able to place those lines with any certainty.

Therefor if the placement of the starting point and angle of those lines (cameras) on the diagram is wrong (even slightly) they will then not intersect at the same point in time as required.

In the image you have posted, if you move one of those intersecting lines off the position which is marked (which is likely a random guess as to where exactly the camera is), then it likely won’t intersect at exactly the same point and therefor that argument is invalid.

Unless they can show exactly where those cameras were, those diagrams do not prove anything.

 

[maskmcgee]

Seeing two separate angles show the ball over the post at the same time = conclusive evidence.

This image from reddit was posted by Quivorir in the other thread about this.

Simple exercise:

Pick a spot, anywhere that the ball is NOT over the post. Draw a footy there, remembering that the footy must appear over the top of the post from both camera angles. That is you need to be able to draw a straight line from one camera that goes through the ball and the post. Then you need to be able to do the same from the other camera. Give it a try! You can even move the starting positions of the cameras around if that helps.

Except in no image does the ball appear exactly over the post from 2 angles

 

[Forward Press]

The issue with these diagrams and explanations is that we do not know the exact positions of the camera or their angle or distance from the goals based on those broad camera angles shown to be able to place those lines with any certainty.

Therefor if the placement of the starting point and angle of those lines (cameras) on the diagram is wrong (even slightly) they will then not intersect at the same point in time as required.

In the image you have posted, if you move one of those intersecting lines off the position which is marked (which is likely a random guess as to where exactly the camera is), then it likely won’t intersect at exactly the same point and therefor that argument is invalid.

Unless they can show exactly where those cameras were, those diagrams do not prove anything.

The three cameras were in front of the goal, and off in the stands to the sides.

It does not matter whether the camera is at 46 degrees or 48 degrees or 98 degrees - if they are spread out, it does not matter one bit.

The only issue would be whether the cameras are in sync and thus accurately demonstrate where the ball was at a particular point in time.

 

[kickazz]

Except in no image does the ball appear exactly over the post from 2 angles

Yeah if anything one has it over and the other missing to the left, but very close to over

 

[Woody15]

In what way? That is indisputable proof it was a goal. Goes behind the post crossing the line way before it reached the top of the post.

You're obviously watching something completely different.

 

[kickazz]

The issue with these diagrams and explanations is that we do not know the exact positions of the camera or their angle or distance from the goals based on those broad camera angles shown to be able to place those lines with any certainty.

Therefor if the placement of the starting point and angle of those lines (cameras) on the diagram is wrong (even slightly) they will then not intersect at the same point in time as required.

In the image you have posted, if you move one of those intersecting lines off the position which is marked (which is likely a random guess as to where exactly the camera is), then it likely won’t intersect at exactly the same point and therefor that argument is invalid.

Unless they can show exactly where those cameras were, those diagrams do not prove anything.

You don't need to know the exact positions of the cameras, that is the whole point.

 

[Woody15]

In what way? That is indisputable proof it was a goal. Goes behind the post crossing the line way before it reached the top of the post.

I know the vision is grainy, but can you explain how this is possible when the ball appears to pass in front of the post from the person's perspective who is filming?

It cant possibly be behind the line prior to it going over the top of the post. Thats just ridiculous.

 

[maskmcgee]

I know the vision is grainy, but can you explain how this is possible when the ball appears to pass in front of the post from the person's perspective who is filming?

It cant possibly be behind the line prior to it going over the top of the post. Thats just ridiculous.

In what way is it in front? It disappears behind the post, that's why the middle of the ball becomes invisible and covered by a white post.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Here's the incontrovertible proof. Clearly hitting the post.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

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?

I read about it on The Age last night here:

‘Correct call’: AFL says Lynch goal review was right as Hardwick lashes system

But the AFL said in a statement: “the ARC [review bunker] reviewed all the camera angles and it is viewed as a definitive behind. The correct call was made.”

May have been stated elsewhere with more details, but that's literally all that was said in the article about the AFL statement. The rest was all quotes from Hardwick.

 

[Woody15]

In what way is it in front? It disappears behind the post, that's why the middle of the ball becomes invisible and covered by a white post.

The ball passes between the person filming and the post. You can see it cross over the face of the post and then up over the post.

If the ball is bending left to right, and as you say, has gone over the goal line before it reached the height of the post, it would have had to have gone through the goals before it reached the height of the post.

This clearly did not happen. I'm staggered anyone thinks this.