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

[Forward Press]

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.

I can understand those taking issue with the process - maybe the rules around ARC can be better refined or a better explanation given, but I don't understand those taking issue with the result - it was clearly not a goal.

 

[amazingjoshy]

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.

Yet a big proportion of the time it comes back to "umpires call"

Not a comment on last night's decision (which I think ended up correct but am still not totally sure) but does it really add anything to the game?

The min or so wait to to confirm if your teams actually kicked a goal and if you can continue your celebrations is a bit of a downer imo

 

[kickazz]

Yet a big proportion of the time it comes back to "umpires call"

Not a comment on last night's decision (which I think ended up correct but am still not totally sure) but does it really add anything to the game?

The min or so wait to to confirm if your teams actually kicked a goal and if you can continue your celebrations is a bit of a downer imo

I'm totally with you when it comes to touched off the boot. Big let down. If you don't get enough on it for the umpire to notice then **** it it's a goal. Not to mention some shots get better camera angles than others, etc.
I don't think it enhances the game.

 

[MagpieJo]

really though, its like the Harmes thing, you gotta let it go (clearly i havent!) they aint gunna say sorry we were wrong and change the result!

 

[amazingjoshy]

really though, its like the Harmes thing, you gotta let it go (clearly i havent!) they aint gunna say sorry we were wrong and change the result!

Agree, which is exactly the point....alot the best moments in sport come from umpy "errors", it's part of any game.

Off the top of my head, Maradonas hand of God, the Harmes thing, Maynard being "blocked"

Why use technology for one aspect of the game (goals) especially when it hasn't even eliminated any sort of controversy and probably only enhanced it

 

[FourthTimeAround]

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.

Quoted to emphasise

 

[maskmcgee]

it would have had to have gone through the goals before it reached the height of the post.

Which is what happened, hence all those false claims about positioning being correct.

And on top of that we have the confirmation the ARC based its decision entirely on Lynch's reaction not on any angles they used.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Which is what happened, hence all those false claims about positioning being correct.

And on top of that we have the confirmation the ARC based its decision entirely on Lynch's reaction not on any angles they used.

Confirmation? Are you calling Tom Browne's musings confirmation now?

 

[maskmcgee]

Confirmation? Are you calling Tom Browne's musings confirmation now?

They haven't denied it, therefore they confirm it's true given how easy it would be to deny, and how outrageous of a claim they could make it out to be. You never head a politician talk?

 

[Woody15]

Which is what happened, hence all those false claims about positioning being correct.

And on top of that we have the confirmation the ARC based its decision entirely on Lynch's reaction not on any angles they used.

No thats not what happened. It is impossible for the ball to be behind the post prior to reaching the height of the post. The ball passes between the camera and the goal post.

Think of how the images would have looked on the review last night. Its impossible.

And no, they didnt base their decision SOLELY on Lynch's reaction. He said it was a factor in the decision. This is also a completely different argument to the ball path.

 

[WilloTree]

So, Bevo wants to get rid of the goal umpires now?

Never go full Bevo

 

[Hoops]

Then you would have matches decided on the fact a seagull flew over the post.

Just need a guy with a gun. What could go wrong?

 

[Ricketz]

Yup, the only way you could use a camera footage as definitive evidence (as the rule suggests) are if the camera is set up directly in line with the goal post in order to eliminate parallax error

I think it was a behind but the umpires call shouldn’t of been overturned due to the insignificant evidence

Parallax error only affects stereoscopic views. The cameras are fixed single view points, the goal post is fixed.

The umpire was bending over the point side of the goal post when it passed over. He suffered from parallax error.

 

[Hoops]

Richmond supporters don't believe in the wonders of math and science.

I've said it before, but Tiger supporters are the closest we have to MAGA like fans in this country. Just lucky they don't make up a substantial portion of the population.

 

[dean33]

I've said it before, but Tiger supporters are the closest we have to MAGA like fans in this country. Just lucky they don't make up a substantial portion of the population.

Except the fact every commentator I’ve heard agree it shouldn’t have been overruled. I have no doubt it the overrule was in Richmond’s favour all you cats, pies and blues fans would have taken the opposite view, nothing surer.

 

[Hoops]

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.

The only way that footage shows it could be a goal is if the ball didn't go post height until after it passed the goals. At all times when the ball is seen between the goal posts it is below post height.

 

[dean33]

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.

That’s the thing, every supporter backing the decision would lose their shit if their season was over due to that decision we copped last night.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Except the fact every commentator I’ve heard agree it shouldn’t have been overruled. I have no doubt it the overrule was in Richmond’s favour all you cats, pies and blues fans would have taken the opposite view, nothing surer.

They all thought Cotchin should have been suspended for his hit on Shiel.
But nah, that's was a conspiracy of the media AGAINST Richmond, right?

They all though Cripps should have been suspended too.
Anti Carlton brigade right?

Then I have a pro-Victorian AFL conspiracy newsletter I'd like you to subscribe to.

 

[Hoops]

That’s the thing, every supporter backing the decision would lose their s**t if their season was over due to that decision we copped last night.

Maybe, doesn't make it right.

 

[deck]

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 problem is you don't know the ball is over the post. It could be a metre behind the post. Depth perception is a thing.

 

[Mantastic]

The problem is you don't know the ball is over the post. It could be a metre behind the post. Depth perception is a thing.

If you have multiple angles, you can tell. Read the thread.

 

[deck]

If you have multiple angles, you can tell. Read the thread.

Where are they? Ones I'm looking at have the ball directly over the post from the right angle. In the goals on the straight on shot and right of the goal post from the left.

 

[deck]

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.

None of that shows any of the balls in the exact same spot over the post.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

The problem is you don't know the ball is over the post. It could be a metre behind the post. Depth perception is a thing.

Again with this.
You can not physically have 3 different angles with the ball above the post, and the ball NOT be above the post.
Physically impossible.
Why can't you just accept that?

 

[Bont2Bruce]

The problem is you don't know the ball is over the post. It could be a metre behind the post. Depth perception is a thing.

No, the problem is you don't understand geometry. If there was only one image, yes the ball could be a metre behind the post. But once three images taken at the same time from different angles all show some part of the ball over the post, the ball is definitively over the post.

You could of course have read this any number of times already in this thread, but obviously you didn't do that.

You are not the first to not understand this and you probably won't be the last.