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

[markm106]

I doubt very much the goal reviewers watched Lynch reaction. The only thing that matters is the goal umpire called a goal and was overruled. I just don’t get it on available footage. I’m not doubting Lynch wasn’t convinced.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Meh, the call that turned over the McCarthy mark was a shit one too. Just another umpire making a shit call.

Want to fix that specific scenario, bring in the same offside tech that the EPL uses.

 

[Hoops]

and there was no proof of that. thats the point mate. not hard to understand

The proofs in the footage.

 

[Underdog]

There was no definitive evidence to overturn.

Looked a point to me, to Lynch, to everyone at the ground and to the score review fella.

But yeah, OJ was innocent. Didn't do nothing!

This.

I while it might have been a bit grey, I think we got the right result.

Similar to an immediate square up by an umpire when they've made a dodgy call.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Jugada]

Ball was clearly hitting the post at absolute best. If you're not overturning obvious ones like that then may as well not even have the goal review

 

[markm106]

I saw a ball over the post on two angles. Conclusive to me

Did you have alternate footage to what was shown on TV? From what I saw they were to far away to tell definitively. If the umpire called a behind fair enough. But not sure it could be overruled.

 

[Jugada]

I don't need definitive evidence. I'm a fan.

He clearly kicked a behind. That doesn't mean they should have overturned the call. There was no definitive evidence which is required.

Understand why Richmond supporters are dirty. If it wasn't overturned Brisbane fans would feel equally annoyed.

Huh? Thats exactly what they should have done then

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Only logic is that they had another angle which wasn’t shown but if not, absolutely no way that could be overturned from the umpires call.

You're obviously not an engineer, but when three different camera angles have the ball over the top of the post at the same point in time, the ball is definitively over the top of the post.

 

[Hoops]

Did you have alternate footage to what was shown on TV? From what I saw they were to far away to tell definitively. If the umpire called a behind fair enough. But not sure it could be overruled.

You just had to follow the line if the post to the ball on the two angles which is at the exact same time to see it was over the post. Favouring the behind side if anything. Clear as day.

 

[Underdog]

You're obviously not an engineer, but when three different camera angles have the ball over the top of the post at the same point in time, the ball is definitively over the top of the post.

My concern is that they didn't show an angle down the line of the ball. Some angles will show a ball over a post even if it's 2m away.

Having said that, I think the right call was made.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[speedpeck23]

Did you have alternate footage to what was shown on TV? From what I saw they were to far away to tell definitively. If the umpire called a behind fair enough. But not sure it could be overruled.

Ball over the post on 3 separate angles ....simple maths ...its a point ! Bad luck for the Tigers but many chances in the game.

 

[Hoops]

You're obviously not an engineer, but when three different camera angles have the ball over the top of the post at the same point in time, the ball is definitively over the top of the post.

I am an engineer and that's correct. You only need two angles as long as they aren't 180deg to each other. 90 deg for two angles gives you the most accurate snapshot.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

My concern is that they didn't show an angle down the line of the ball. Some angles will show a ball over a post even if it's 2m away.

Having said that, I think the right call was made.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

That's why they need three different angles to make it conclusive, because one is behind the goals and another is side on at an angle.

 

[moond0g]

wheres you definitive evidence, and no not lynch's reaction

Where’s your definitive evidence it was a goal?

 

[L_W_P]

Simple fix to all of this -

BIGGER POSTS!

 

[maskmcgee]

You just had to follow the line if the post to the ball on the two angles which is at the exact same time to see it was over the post. Favouring the behind side if anything. Clear as day.

No, the only way to confirm the ball was over the post would be to have a camera in perfect line across the goal line at the height the ball was at, and another camera in direct line with the goalpost at the exact height the ball was at. Without that it's factually impossible to tell, and has to be an umpires call.

 

[Hoops]

My concern is that they didn't show an angle down the line of the ball. Some angles will show a ball over a post even if it's 2m away.

Having said that, I think the right call was made.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

They don't need to. As long long as you capture at least two angles at the same time you can pin point where the ball is.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Life ban from watching AFL and this forum to anyone who says it was a point. The score reviewers need to be investigated for their links to bookies, probably had a stack on a Brisbane victory. Nothing else could explain such a horrendous call.

So this is what Dimma does on the iPad during games…..

 

[tiger_tough]

Where’s your definitive evidence it was a goal?

There doesn't have to be because the umpire called it a goal. That's how rhe system works.

 

[jc12]

Where’s your definitive evidence it was a goal?

how hard is it to get it through your head. umps call was a GOAL. hence you need definitive proof it was a behind to overturn.

 

[Hoops]

No, the only way to confirm the ball was over the post would be to have a camera in perfect line across the goal line at the height the ball was at, and another camera in direct line with the goalpost at the exact height the ball was at. Without that it's factually impossible to tell, and has to be an umpires call.

Not true. Take it from me you're wrong.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

No, the only way to confirm the ball was over the post would be to have a camera in perfect line across the goal line at the height the ball was at, and another camera in direct line with the goalpost at the exact height the ball was at. Without that it's factually impossible to tell, and has to be an umpires call.

Hope you don't make any engineering decisions that matter.

 

[jc12]

The proofs in the footage.

and the footage showed no 100% proof it was a behind. how hard is it to understand

 

[Wojcinski]

Lucky to even get called a point, I reckon it almost OOTF

 

[Jensen]

Definitive point when you have 3 separate angles showing the ball over the post at the same time and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to go back to school. Well done to the ARC reviewer for paying attention in year 8 maths.