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

[campbell]

A week has passed.

It is time guys, move along .

Richmond would have had a chat with the AFL, sadly they chose to ignore what they were told.Instead
choosing to play this out through the media.

This was never going to change the result,or system, or anything really.

The media feel they can bully the AfL, with their interpretations ,on anything really. Totally damaging to the code of the supporters, who blindly believe everything the media tell them.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Yeah done and dusted, a behind was given.

 

[Profop]

And by the by, I think we're actually lucky the mishandling of this situation didn't result in a team wrongly taking the win. I'm absolutely confident it was a behind.

Reverse everything that happened (Bris kick a poster - ump says behind, ARC overrides and says goal) and they could have a real mess on their hands.

How is reversing everything that happened in that scenario you've listed any different in real terms to the ending of the game then what actually happened?

In both cases you'd have a decision based around what is conclusive and what isn't. Just because you're absolutely confident doesn't mean that's case closed for everyone else

Personally I think the rule change that should happen is that if the goal umpire isn't sure they shouldn't be made to guess one way or another just say from my angle I had no clear indication of what the result was (or something like that). This way ARC can make the call and there's no blues over the fact that they've over-ruled an umpire on the field

 

[Meteoric Rise]

A week has passed.

It is time guys, move along .

Richmond would have had a chat with the AFL, sadly they chose to ignore what they were told.Instead
choosing to play this out through the media.

This was never going to change the result,or system, or anything really.

The media feel they can bully the AfL, with their interpretations ,on anything really. Totally damaging to the code of the supporters, who blindly believe everything the media tell them.

From a fan perspective, and as far as we know from a club perspective, the issue remains unresolved. If you move on from unresolved issues in life, you can be sure they will cause problems in the future. The ARC system needs explaining, and almost certainly also needs improving. Otherwise we have a situation where viewers and fans can have no confidence in how it works, and results of matches even more important than this one could swing on a mechanism that for all we know is completely unsound.

Imagine if this were a Grand Final and no match to move onto next week, and the kick was post siren with the result hanging on it. You could potentially have a situation where the result of the Grand Final is played out in courts over the summer. It needs to be resolved. We have ex-coaches and even current coaches saying they are puzzled by the process that was followed. So the matter needs resolving.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Personally I think the rule change that should happen is that if the goal umpire isn't sure they shouldn't be made to guess one way or another just say from my angle I had no clear indication of what the result was (or something like that). This way ARC can make the call and there's no blues over the fact that they've over-ruled an umpire on the field

Agreed 100%

 

[campbell]

From a fan perspective, and as far as we know from a club perspective, the issue remains unresolved. If you move on from unresolved issues in life, you can be sure they will cause problems in the future. The ARC system needs explaining, and almost certainly also needs improving. Otherwise we have a situation where viewers and fans can have no confidence in how it works, and results of matches even more important than this one could swing on a mechanism that for all we know is completely unsound.

Imagine if this were a Grand Final and no match to move onto next week, and the kick was post siren with the result hanging on it. You could potentially have a situation where the result of the Grand Final is played out in courts over the summer. It needs to be resolved. We have ex-coaches and even current coaches saying they are puzzled by the process that was followed. So the matter needs resolving.

Goodness.......Conversations have been held with Richmond. They dont agree with the explanation given.

Surely you see,that all this angst is not good for your club or supporters.

Actually, your club should just be quiet
Sadly, your coach,has a history of whinging through the media.

The old cry wolf. One day, there will be something there, this is not that day though.

I remember when, we as supporters and club believed we were robbed as you do now, at Geelong ,when Zac, should have gotten a free in front............

We didnt whinge through the media though. We hurt, but moved on.
Afl came out and said the decision was indeed wrong......
They do that, when an error is made like that.

AFL concedes free kick error in Cats-Lions thriller

The AFL has conceded a free kick should have been awarded to Brisbane's Zac Bailey in the dying stages of Friday night's one-point defeat to Geelong.

www.espn.com.au

They have come put and said the decision last Thursday was the correct decision.

Just accept that.........

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Goodness.......Conversations have been held with Richmond. They dont agree with the explanation given.

Surely you see,that all this angst is not good for your club or supporters.

Actually, your club should just be quiet
Sadly, your coach,has a history of whinging through the media.

The old cry wolf. One day, there will be something there, this is not that day though.

I remember when, we as supporters and club believed we were robbed as you do now, at Geelong ,when Zac, should have gotten a free in front............

We didnt whinge through the media though. We hurt, but moved on.
Afl came out and said the decision was indeed wrong......
They do that, when an error is made like that.

AFL concedes free kick error in Cats-Lions thriller

The AFL has conceded a free kick should have been awarded to Brisbane's Zac Bailey in the dying stages of Friday night's one-point defeat to Geelong.

www.espn.com.au

They have come put and said the decision last Thursday was the correct decision.

Just accept that.........

So Richmond have to learn how to be a good club….from Brisbane. OK….

 

[Mantastic]

So Richmond have to learn how to be a good club….from Brisbane. OK….

Need to learn from someone, what with people losing their jobs based on an early finals exit. Unless Dimma was telling fibs, he wouldn't do that though.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Need to learn from someone, what with people losing their jobs based on an early finals exit. Unless Dimma was telling fibs, he wouldn't do that though.

No he said the wrong thing, should have said he was very surprised the game wasn’t postponed.

 

[Fadge]

From a fan perspective, and as far as we know from a club perspective, the issue remains unresolved. If you move on from unresolved issues in life, you can be sure they will cause problems in the future. The ARC system needs explaining, and almost certainly also needs improving. Otherwise we have a situation where viewers and fans can have no confidence in how it works, and results of matches even more important than this one could swing on a mechanism that for all we know is completely unsound.

Imagine if this were a Grand Final and no match to move onto next week, and the kick was post siren with the result hanging on it. You could potentially have a situation where the result of the Grand Final is played out in courts over the summer. It needs to be resolved. We have ex-coaches and even current coaches saying they are puzzled by the process that was followed. So the matter needs resolving.

This is a really good point (unusual for you).

Unfortunately with a result of any game, it only impacts a small minority of the football viewing public and stakeholders, and people are too quick to pull the 'you're just being a sore loser and need to accept the result' card.

I reckon it is incumbent upon those who have influence to stand up and not accept it, for the very reasons you have stated.

Whether that be other coaches, commentators, players - people really need to fight for the greater good here, because if nothing changes, there will inevitably be another team, or teams, on the receiving end of an injustice of this nature.

I've just watched a great documentary about match fixing by referees in the NBA, and it struck me as how easy it would be for an umpire to fix the result of an AFL game, with all of the grey areas in place and the acceptance of unusual decisions due to 'interpretation'.

I stated in another post that despite all the coverage over the past few days about how great all finals were, 50% of losing coaches felt the need to publicly question rules adjudications as they felt they cost their team a finals win. Surely that's not where we want our sport to be?

 

[Hoops]

Pretty much.

By AFL policy that uncertainty means it should have been "umpires call" ( to borrow from the cricket terminology).

Might that have been the wrong call, yes. But like in cricket the review should be to check for howlers, not make it's own questionable decision.




Trust me, they're not synched. Not THAT well.

I've worked with linked digital camera systems that were 90 seconds off before and while that's certainly a bad/extreme example, the idea that 2 servers on opposite sides of the ground are in sync to the milisecond is fanciful.

All you're doing is explaining why the 3 camera angles are not exactly synched and don't line up exactly to where the ball is a certain given time. But if you look at the other footage from the crowd then it's clearly went over the post.

But thanks for helping to debunk the shots don't line up conspiracy.

 

[smasha]

Let's see what happens if this happens in a granny and to Collingwood.
Have not even seen a replay yet from the AFL to put my mind at rest ,a week later.

 

[Forward Press]

Let's see what happens if this happens in a granny and to Collingwood.
Have not even seen a replay yet from the AFL to put my mind at rest ,a week later.

Maynard being blocked in 2018 probably got about 10% of the whining compared to Richmond posters in this and numerous threads across this website.

 

[Profop]

Maynard being blocked in 2018 probably got about 10% of the whining compared to Richmond posters in this and numerous threads across this website.

Imagine if the field umpire called a free to Maynard then to have the third umpire run out and over rule it to give Sheed the kick

Not quite the same thing I know but Collingwood fans would legitimately never not talk about it if that happened

 

[Fadge]

Maynard being blocked in 2018 probably got about 10% of the whining compared to Richmond posters in this and numerous threads across this website.

As a Collingwood supporter, there's a distinct difference between an umpire not paying a 60/40 free kick and a defined, established process that is in place for decision reviews that is not followed at the most important time in the most important game during which a decision is being reviewed.

 

[Forward Press]

Imagine if the field umpire called a free to Maynard then to have the third umpire run out and over rule it to give Sheed the kick

Not quite the same thing I know but Collingwood fans would legitimately never not talk about it if that happened

As a Collingwood supporter, there's a distinct difference between an umpire not paying a 60/40 free kick and a defined, established process that is in place for decision reviews that is not followed at the most important time in the most important game during which a decision is being reviewed.

Well aware of the key difference, I was just focused on the point of if Collingwood was on the wrong end of a contentious umpiring decision in a Grand Final.

 

[amazingjoshy]

One of the all time sooks, you lost move on

Tag Neale for a qtr and you'd have won the game Dimma.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Tag Neale for a qtr and you'd have won the game Dimma.

Such a lazy comment to make for people who don't watch the game and listens to Karen Cornes like he's the gospel.

We tried to tag him at stoppages. No one seems to mention this, but we did try. Just cause it failed doesn't mean we didn't try.

Throughout the game, I saw Short, Cotchin and Ross manning Neale for continuous blocks of game time.

The most successful period was when Prestia was on him during the second quarter, which was noticeable for anyone watching the game since Prestia won about 3 clearances in a row and we won 7 of 8 clearances during that period. But as we all know, Prestia went off injured at the end of that quarter.

The other period of the game that we were able to control Neale was when Pickett played on him in the last quarter. Sure Neale had 9 disposals and 3 clearances, but Pickett was able to match it with 9 of his own as well as 2 clearances himself.

So its not due a lack of trying that we didn't stop Neale, the problem was we didn't have the type of player to do that role on Neale for the whole game.

 

[tropicaltiger]

You could argue this already exists, but supporters inability to interpret the images does not mean the AFL is hiding something. All the replays I’ve seen indicate it was more likely a behind than a goal and neutral fans seem to agree, the only people who think otherwise are Richmond supporters and unfortunately the goal umpire who most likely made a mistake.

If it were up to me I would talk about it with the club officials but would not be releasing anything to the public.

so much doubt, guessing and grey areas in this post

 

[My_Username]

All you're doing is explaining why the 3 camera angles are not exactly synched and don't line up exactly to where the ball is a certain given time. But if you look at the other footage from the crowd then it's clearly went over the post.

But thanks for helping to debunk the shots don't line up conspiracy.

Does ARC make decisions based on footage from the crowd now?

I think it was probably a point.

But on what they had available, the error margins that should be considered with that, and the AFL rules/policy regarding ARC, it should have remained with the umpire's decision.

 

[Happy_Neale]

so much doubt, guessing and grey areas in this post

Just like the goal umpire on Thursday night.

 

[My_Username]

4 points

1. I believe that if there was a break in process, it was warranted due to the extraordinary uncertainty of the goal umpire. He actually asked (after giving his mandatory goal/behind binary choice) "check which side of the post it went". I'm okay with that.
2. The silence from the AFL on the ARC process is poor. They should explain it. The only "other vision" they would have is perhaps a higher resolution view from each camera. Remember, they've squeezed 3 camera's worth of vision onto one screen, which means lower res.
3. The AFL should invest in higher-speed cameras. Nothing wrong with their positioning - one on right-wing, one on left is fine. Faster framerate would increase precision.
4. The AFL should implement an easy to understand (and accept) visualisation for fans (as per below), although due to AFL ineptitude there is now possibly so much doubt around the process, fans would remain sceptical. It's a shame, because nobody ever questions hawkeye at the tennis.

View attachment 1502556

Cameras in Tennis are, at most, 30M from the action and focus on a single line. (it doesn't follow the ball, but rather the software 'notices' when a ball sized object moves into frame at speed). It has multiple custom made cameras for every line and dedicated servers/software for every court.

They spend a month installing and calibrating them for the Aus Open and there is a dedicated team on site for the duration of the tournament to keep them operating properly. There is still a sizable error margin involved.

AFL cameras need to cover an area of at least 20M*10M*10M (realistically about double that), look for a variety of possible issues rather than just one, from ~150M away and have nowhere near the hardware (AFL's latest media deal is nice, but they have nothing like the money a big global sport like Tennis does).

You're comparing apples and oranges here.


Cricket is a closer analogy (although still easier to do technically), and they rely heavily on 'umpires call' to cover the possible error margins involved.

 

[Gibbke]

At the same instant.

Really?

Cameras don't record continually, they're a series of 'still' frames, and even in the hugely unlikely (AKA impossible) event that the frames are synced exactly, the idea that the server brings both frames together precisely indicates a lack of knowledge about how these things work in reality.

In an ideal situation, it's hugely unlikely that 2 cameras will be completely in sync without weeks, if not months of setup. AFL cameras come and go for each match/weekend.

Of course, the bigger issue is the servers, storage, networking and playback software and how well those are synced, but that's a whole other can of worms.

I teach media and music subjects, including syncing cameras to create live videos of performances, so someone not knowing how these things work is a hypothetical in this case. You don't need a degree though, just a post-it in the instruction manual. At 24.97 frames a second, a ball travelling at 100kmh (I guess?) or 27m/s will be photographed close to every metre of its trajectory, a metre difference on frame if the camera is perpendicular. The one behind Lynch though saw the ball move right to left only minimally. Line up the far camera close enough, and there was clear evidence for the decision makers. Don't forget they can rock the footage too. Basic triangulation...fence contractors have been doing it since the Stone Age. Can't sync the cameras? Rubbish...that's you not knowing how these things work, bud. I like using the line 'people getting paid for doing a job I could do better for free" when feeling like exercising my pompous git muscle, but in this case they did do it right, and everyone bagging it is wrong...!

 

[My_Username]

I teach media and music subjects, including syncing cameras to create live videos of performances, so someone not knowing how these things work is a hypothetical in this case. You don't need a degree though, just a post-it in the instruction manual. At 24.97 frames a second, a ball travelling at 100kmh (I guess?) or 27m/s will be photographed close to every metre of its trajectory, a metre difference on frame if the camera is perpendicular. The one behind Lynch though saw the ball move right to left only minimally. Line up the far camera close enough, and there was clear evidence for the decision makers. Don't forget they can rock the footage too. Basic triangulation...fence contractors have been doing it since the Stone Age. Can't sync the cameras? Rubbish...that's you not knowing how these things work, bud. I like using the line 'people getting paid for doing a job I could do better for free" when feeling like exercising my pompous git muscle, but in this case they did do it right, and everyone bagging it is wrong...!

Synced to what degree? Looks about right to the naked eye? Not good enough.

at 24.97 frames per second, a 0.02 second difference would be nothing, right?
Except that's a whole half a frame, which messes with your triangulation somewhat...and it's likely to be off by a fair bit more than that.

Then you have the issue of if the frames are properly aligned. If camera A is showing the image at 1.96 seconds after the ball was kicked, and camera B is showing the image at 1.87 seconds after, would you notice in your syncing? Of course, even in this case, the respective servers could say they were at the same time (they wont be on the same server)...how closely are their clocks aligned?

What about the network lag, the switches, the storage, the machine the comparison is run on? Are they all perfectly aligned?

Syncing cameras for a live performance is good stuff, but it's not the same thing.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Cameras in Tennis are, at most, 30M from the action and focus on a single line. (it doesn't follow the ball, but rather the software 'notices' when a ball sized object moves into frame at speed). It has multiple custom made cameras for every line and dedicated servers/software for every court.

They spend a month installing and calibrating them for the Aus Open and there is a dedicated team on site for the duration of the tournament to keep them operating properly. There is still a sizable error margin involved.

AFL cameras need to cover an area of at least 20M*10M*10M (realistically about double that), look for a variety of possible issues rather than just one, from ~150M away and have nowhere near the hardware (AFL's latest media deal is nice, but they have nothing like the money a big global sport like Tennis does).

You're comparing apples and oranges here.


Cricket is a closer analogy (although still easier to do technically), and they rely heavily on 'umpires call' to cover the possible error margins involved.

True - cricket is a closer analogy. Personally, I've always been a little sceptical of the ball-tracking technology, but that's the point I'm making - even if we're somewhat doubtful the ball would have hit the stumps, there's no real argument because the visualisation has reduced it to an unarguable point.

Even if the primary technology (for AFL the cameras) is not optimal, wrapping it up in an unarguable visualisation would minimise/eliminate these situations.

And on the rules themselves: to repeat a point an earlier poster made, if the goal ump really didn't see it (in this case he had to ask which side of the post it went), he/she should be allowed to say "I don't know - the ARC must decide".