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

[My_Username]

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".

A pretty graphic doesn't change the situation.

and if ARC says "I don't know, it's within the error margins", what happens?

Someone has to make the call, and if it's not the goal umpire, then there isn't much point in having Goal umpires at all.

ARC should have 3 responses.

Goal.
Behind
and when it's in the error margins, Umpires call.

This case should have been the last one.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

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.

I'm just hypothesising here:

• Synching could be done by digitally plotting the movement of the ball between frames. Therefore increasing the effective framerate to say 1000 frames per second.
• Assume cameras on both wings are at the same height relative to the goalposts
• Find the 'effective frame' that the ball goes ABOVE the height of the posts. That's the synch-point.
• Synch vision from the two cameras based on that.

The hardest thing to do would be to capture the spinning/rotation of the ball, but that kind of modelling is definitely possible, if the vision is reasonable, so need better cameras than we have right now.

Automate it, and it could give us a sub-second answer.

AFL need to value it to invest in it though, and it seems unlikely they will.

edit: Don't "assume cameras are same height", rather "set up cameras at same height"

 

[Fadge]

I don't know much about camera technology, but is it unrealistic to think we can get to a point where ALL scenarios can be accurately captured on ALL occasions?

We're talking about a unique situation here where the result didn't appear to be clear to either the goal umpire or the ARC - how many of these situations have we had over the course of the season? Less than a handful?

I just think we have to acknowledge there will indeed be instances when the technology will not be able to tell us the answer (even if the AFL invests what is required at ALL grounds, what if there is a glitch in the technology), and therefore have a defined process, and follow that process on all occasions. This includes sharing the vision the ARC umpires have available to them when a result is determined.

It's pretty simple I would have thought.

 

[My_Username]

I'm just hypothesising here:

• Synching could be done by digitally plotting the movement of the ball between frames. Therefore increasing the effective framerate to say 1000 frames per second.
• Assume cameras on both wings are at the same height relative to the goalposts
• Find the 'effective frame' that the ball goes ABOVE the height of the posts. That's the synch-point.
• Synch vision from the two cameras based on that.

The hardest thing to do would be to capture the spinning/rotation of the ball, but that kind of modelling is definitely possible, if the vision is reasonable, so need better cameras than we have right now.

Automate it, and it could give us a sub-second answer.

AFL need to value it to invest in it though, and it seems unlikely they will.

edit: Don't "assume cameras are same height", rather "set up cameras at same height"

I remember working with a 60 megapixel video camera, that recorded at 30 fps. Awesome camera, and you could do amazing things with it. You'd probably want something like that resolution, but at a faster frame rate in order to accurately track a ball to the level you want at the kind of distances required.

Problem is, just think about how much data that is.

That camera needed a fibre optic cable to transmit what it recorded. It needed a dedicated server and a fairly decent disk array to store and replay the data.
You want to not just process those images in something close to real time, but do so for multiple cameras simultaneously, interlacing the images to produce a '3D' representation of what's happening?

Can is be done? Unlikely, but you could get something close I suppose, especially if you extend the 'sub second answer' bit to a 10-20 second answer. But to set up the kind of hardware required to do this, have software written accordingly, install and maintain it at all AFL grounds ... It would be a MASSIVE undertaking and frankly, I think the AFL has better uses for that kind of money.

Edited to add....

I got curious about just how much data it was. (I had a general idea in my head, but...)

OK, so in a high def image (16.7M colours), each pixel is 3 bytes (one each of RGB)
60 megapixels therefore is 180 megabytes of data. Per frame.
So 30 fps would mean 5.4GB of data per second for a camera of that quality.
and I think you'd want a better frame rate than that...

Even a 'normal' HDTV image at 2Megapixels and 25fps would be 150MB/s, which isn't chicken feed to transmit, and it's pretty serious stuff when you're talking about rendering/analysing/processing an array of such images. (there is a reason ball tracking in cricket is the last thing they go to).



To do this well, you'd need...

High megapixels for an detailed and accurate image (after all, you need to find a ball, posts, fingers, etc. precisely, at distance, on a moving/coloured background).
High frame rate to reduce the gaps between images, and thus track more accurately.
A decent server farm to render and process these images in a reasonable time.
All closely synced to very tiny fractions of a second for triangulation.

The better you do for each of these*, the lower the error margin (you'll never eliminate it entirely), but the higher the cost.

* - the server farm, beyond a basic level, is more about speed than accuracy.

Cost to do this well on an ongoing basis would be akin to what the AFL distributes to clubs every year. And all for what, maybe 100 decisions a year? (I know more get referred, but a lot are just ass covering by the umps, not that many really NEED this). Better to just have people accept that there is a decent error margin involved in the ARC and that like with cricket, it's only there to deal with 'howlers', so when you're looking at something in the error margins, 'umpires call' is an acceptable answer, even when the technology suggests it mightn't actually be right.

 

[Arctic fox]

"Like sands through the hourglass...."

 

[JyeDye]

A pretty graphic doesn't change the situation.

and if ARC says "I don't know, it's within the error margins", what happens?

Someone has to make the call, and if it's not the goal umpire, then there isn't much point in having Goal umpires at all.

ARC should have 3 responses.

Goal.
Behind
and when it's in the error margins, Umpires call.

This case should have been the last one.

Who would set these error margins? There isn't a computer program running ball tracking to configure that in this case. So although you and other people may think there is enough possible error that it should be umpires call, the trained individual in the ARC didn't think that.

I think this is a case where like in cricket 51% of the ball is hitting the stumps, therefore it's a wicket.

 

[My_Username]

Who would set these error margins? There isn't a computer program running ball tracking to configure that in this case. So although you and other people may think there is enough possible error that it should be umpires call, the trained individual in the ARC didn't think that.

I think this is a case where like in cricket 51% of the ball is hitting the stumps, therefore it's a wicket.

Pretty sure someone with a better idea of the technical specs could do the maths, then like in cricket, an approximation can be made to make it 'user friendly' both for determination and for those at home (I'd be stunned if the error margin in cricket is exactly 51% for example, but it's an easy line to draw/understand).

 

[Gibbke]

I remember working with a 60 megapixel video camera, that recorded at 30 fps. Awesome camera, and you could do amazing things with it. You'd probably want something like that resolution, but at a faster frame rate in order to accurately track a ball to the level you want at the kind of distances required.

Problem is, just think about how much data that is.

That camera needed a fibre optic cable to transmit what it recorded. It needed a dedicated server and a fairly decent disk array to store and replay the data.
You want to not just process those images in something close to real time, but do so for multiple cameras simultaneously, interlacing the images to produce a '3D' representation of what's happening?

Can is be done? Unlikely, but you could get something close I suppose, especially if you extend the 'sub second answer' bit to a 10-20 second answer. But to set up the kind of hardware required to do this, have software written accordingly, install and maintain it at all AFL grounds ... It would be a MASSIVE undertaking and frankly, I think the AFL has better uses for that kind of money.

Edited to add....

I got curious about just how much data it was. (I had a general idea in my head, but...)

OK, so in a high def image (16.7M colours), each pixel is 3 bytes (one each of RGB)
60 megapixels therefore is 180 megabytes of data. Per frame.
So 30 fps would mean 5.4GB of data per second for a camera of that quality.
and I think you'd want a better frame rate than that...

Even a 'normal' HDTV image at 2Megapixels and 25fps would be 150MB/s, which isn't chicken feed to transmit, and it's pretty serious stuff when you're talking about rendering/analysing/processing an array of such images. (there is a reason ball tracking in cricket is the last thing they go to).



To do this well, you'd need...

High megapixels for an detailed and accurate image (after all, you need to find a ball, posts, fingers, etc. precisely, at distance, on a moving/coloured background).
High frame rate to reduce the gaps between images, and thus track more accurately.
A decent server farm to render and process these images in a reasonable time.
All closely synced to very tiny fractions of a second for triangulation.

The better you do for each of these*, the lower the error margin (you'll never eliminate it entirely), but the higher the cost.

* - the server farm, beyond a basic level, is more about speed than accuracy.

Cost to do this well on an ongoing basis would be akin to what the AFL distributes to clubs every year. And all for what, maybe 100 decisions a year? (I know more get referred, but a lot are just ass covering by the umps, not that many really NEED this). Better to just have people accept that there is a decent error margin involved in the ARC and that like with cricket, it's only there to deal with 'howlers', so when you're looking at something in the error margins, 'umpires call' is an acceptable answer, even when the technology suggests it mightn't actually be right.

 

[jonty15]

Hoping for a deep Brisbane run. The further they go, the more scrutiny (and rightly so) for this decision impacting not just the result but the season.

While a Tigers supporter, my thoughts are it probably was a point but should never have been overturned once called a goal.

I’m pretty sure they were having a good laugh in the Arc in the last quarter tonight when they had insufficient evidence to overturn what looked like a fairly straightforward goal from Bailey.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Do the Dew]

Brisbane the beneficiaries of the ARC again with the Bailey "goal" deep in the last against Melbourne. What's astounding is the process actually worked as intended.

The goal umpire signalled a goal (even though he may not have been sure because he wasn't watching the ball), and then it went to the ARC which rocked the footage showing that the ball clearly went on the goal side of the post due to the shadow of the ball, but it may or may not have hit the post. For some reason they didn't use the snicko edge thing to see if it clipped the post, and due to insufficient evidence the decision reverted back to the goal umpires call = goal.

So what we have here is the umpire guessing (similar to the Lynch non-goal except the Bailey one was far more of a guess because the ball was slammed over his head compared to Lynch when he had a lot more time to get into position), ARC failing to provide evidence one way or the other (same as the Lynch non-goal), and then the decision reverting back to umpires call in one instance and then an overrule in the other. But nah, the ARC is perfect just the way it is...

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Brisbane the beneficiaries of the ARC again with the Bailey "goal" deep in the last against Melbourne. What's astounding is the process actually worked as intended.

The goal umpire signalled a goal (even though he may not have been sure because he wasn't watching the ball), and then it went to the ARC which rocked the footage showing that the ball clearly went on the goal side of the post due to the shadow of the ball, but it may or may not have hit the post. For some reason they didn't use the snicko edge thing to see if it clipped the post, and due to insufficient evidence the decision reverted back to the goal umpires call = goal.

So what we have here is the umpire guessing (similar to the Lynch non-goal except the Bailey one was far more of a guess because the ball was slammed over his head compared to Lynch when he had a lot more time to get into position), ARC failing to provide evidence one way or the other (same as the Lynch non-goal), and then the decision reverting back to umpires call in one instance and then an overrule in the other. But nah, the ARC is perfect just the way it is...

Trained campaigners should have triangulated it in 10 seconds.

In all seriousness though, in a final, as you pointed out, where the **** is snicko? This is another one that needs explaining, especially in light of last week’s incident. Have they altered the protocol due to last week? My first thoughts tonight were like yours, where is the edge technology?

 

[loopy08]

Trained campaigners should have triangulated it in 10 seconds.

In all seriousness though, in a final, as you pointed out, where the * is snicko? This is another one that needs explaining, especially in light of last week’s incident. Have they altered the protocol due to last week? My first thoughts tonight were like yours, where is the edge technology?

Suspect it was because the goal umpire was making contact with the post which I would suspect would cause interference with edge but not sure. The irony regarding the score review wasn't lost on most other people either.

Don't know how you can make a judgement on whether it's a goal or not when you're not looking at the ball though. Definitely need a change where the goal umpire can say they have no idea though as well as taking the calling for a review process out of the field umpires hands.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Suspect it was because the goal umpire was making contact with the post which I would suspect would cause interference with edge but not sure. The irony regarding the score review wasn't lost on most other people either.

Don't know how you can make a judgement on whether it's a goal or not when you're not looking at the ball though. Definitely need a change where the goal umpire can say they have no idea though as well as taking the calling for a review process out of the field umpires hands.

Yes or goal ump makes his decision then gives a % value of how confident he is. “I believe it is a goal but I am only 20% confident that is correct.” Or “I believe it is a goal and I am 90% confident that is correct.” This is not told to the ARC operator. Then the ARC can determine also with a degree of confidence. If the goal ump is 90% certain on goal and the ARC is 100% certain of behind, then it is a behind, and so on. If they differ and have the same level of confidence, reverts to on field.

I bet quite a lot and this is partially how I determine my staking. I believe a score over 150 is 70% likely and odds offered is 2.0. If I am 90% certain my assessment is correct I apply a large stake. If I am 30% certain I still bet due to perceiving good value, just with a much smaller stake, due to less certainty.

 

[loopy08]

Yes or goal ump makes his decision then gives a % value of how confident he is. “I believe it is a goal but I am only 20% confident that is correct.” Or “I believe it is a goal and I am 90% confident that is correct.” This is not told to the ARC operator. Then the ARC can determine also with a degree of confidence. If the goal ump is 90% certain on goal and the ARC is 100% certain of behind, then it is a behind, and so on. If they differ and have the same level of confidence, reverts to on field.

I bet quite a lot and this is partially how I determine my staking. I believe a score over 150 is 70% likely and odds offered is 2.0. If I am 90% certain my assessment is correct I apply a large stake. If I am 30% certain I still bet due to perceiving good value, just with a much smaller stake, due to less certainty.

Definitely food for thought but suspect it would be too involved a system for it to be implemented considering the average IQ of an AFL House employee. Good analogy with likening it to betting though, especially considering the amount of people that bet on live sport.

Proof that field umpires shouldn't be involved in the process of calling for a review was found in the Geelong vs Collingwood game. Field umpire called touched off the boot, goal umpire hears and starts to signal a behind. Same umpire that called the ball touched off the boot then calls for a score review effectively reviewing his own decision. Keeping in mind that all goals are reviewed automatically, this raises a few questions.

Was the field umpire unsure of his touched call and wanted to check it or was he being a smart aleck and trying to prove a point? If the umpire was unsure of his touched call, why effectively guess and make it in the first place? If the umpire was sure of his call, what reason other than arrogance and proving he was right is there to review it? I can only conclude that the umpire is either incompetent and is guessing or is arrogant and trying to point score. Either way he shouldn't be umpiring.

How can the average supporter expect the review system to be used effectively when the supposed best umpires misuse it? I'm making this point regardless of whether you believe the decision was correct in the Brisbane vs Richmond match.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Definitely food for thought but suspect it would be too involved a system for it to be implemented considering the average IQ of an AFL House employee. Good analogy with likening it to betting though, especially considering the amount of people that bet on live sport.

Proof that field umpires shouldn't be involved in the process of calling for a review was found in the Geelong vs Collingwood game. Field umpire called touched off the boot, goal umpire hears and starts to signal a behind. Same umpire that called the ball touched off the boot then calls for a score review effectively reviewing his own decision. Keeping in mind that all goals are reviewed automatically, this raises a few questions.

Was the field umpire unsure of his touched call and wanted to check it or was he being a smart aleck and trying to prove a point? If the umpire was unsure of his touched call, why effectively guess and make it in the first place? If the umpire was sure of his call, what reason other than arrogance and proving he was right is there to review it? I can only conclude that the umpire is either incompetent and is guessing or is arrogant and trying to point score. Either way he shouldn't be umpiring.

How can the average supporter expect the review system to be used effectively when the supposed best umpires misuse it? I'm making this point regardless of whether you believe the decision was correct in the Brisbane vs Richmond match.

Is it not possible an umpire acting perfectly reasonably can believe the ball was touched but is not certain he is right so he wants it checked because he recognises he may not be correct?

This is perhaps where a 3 person system might work better.

1. the umpire says I believe it was touched and I am about 75% certain that is correct. Anything under say 90% certainty triggers an automatic review by the ARC operator.

2. the ARC operator says I believe it is not touched but I only have 10% certainty as I do not have a clear angle that shows a gap between hand and ball.

3. a 3rd adjudicator takes account of the 2 calls and in this case would rule in favour of the touched call. He then watches the footage quickly to ensure nothing obvious is missed, and says to the umpire all clear 1 behind.

In the case of the Brisbane goal v Melbourne, something like this:

1. goal ump says I believe it is a goal but I am only 50% certain.

2. ARC campaigner says I believe it was a goal and I am 70% certain.

3. Adjudicator watches footage briefly to ensure no obvious error, and says all clear 1 goal.


Presumably in the Lynch goal scenario:

1. Goal ump says I believe it is a goal, I am about 50% certain I am correct, it appeared very close.

2. ARC campaigner says looking at this shyte technology I believe the ball has gone over the post and I am 70% certain that is correct.

3. Adjudicator has a quick look no obvious error, says it is 1 behind. High fives every campaigner in sight because he works for the AFL and the decision is anti-Richmond.

 

[loopy08]

Yes or goal ump makes his decision then gives a % value of how confident he is. “I believe it is a goal but I am only 20% confident that is correct.” Or “I believe it is a goal and I am 90% confident that is correct.” This is not told to the ARC operator. Then the ARC can determine also with a degree of confidence. If the goal ump is 90% certain on goal and the ARC is 100% certain of behind, then it is a behind, and so on. If they differ and have the same level of confidence, reverts to on field.

I bet quite a lot and this is partially how I determine my staking. I believe a score over 150 is 70% likely and odds offered is 2.0. If I am 90% certain my assessment is correct I apply a large stake. If I am 30% certain I still bet due to perceiving good value, just with a much smaller stake, due to less certainty.

Definitely food for thought but suspect it would be too involved a system for it to be implemented considering the average IQ of an AFL House employee. Good analogy with likening it to betting though, especially considering the amount of people that bet on live sport.

Proof that field umpires shouldn't be involved in the process of calling for a review was found in the Geelong vs Collingwood game. Field umpire called touched off the boot, goal umpire hears and starts to signal a behind. Same umpire that called the ball touched off the boot then calls for a score review effectively reviewing his own decision. Keeping in mind that all goals are reviewed automatically, this raises a few questions.

Was the field umpire unsure of his touched call and wanted to check it or was he being a smart aleck and trying to prove a point? If the umpire was unsure of his touched call, why effectively guess and make it in the first place? If the umpire was sure of his call, what reason other than arrogance and proving he was right is there to review it? I can only conclude that the umpire is either incompetent and is guessing or is arrogant and trying to point score. Either way he shouldn't be umpiring.

How can the average supporter expect the review system to be used effectively when the supposed best umpires misuse it? I'm making this point regardless of whether you believe the decision was correct in the Brisbane vs Richmond match

Is it not possible an umpire acting perfectly reasonably can believe the ball was touched but is not certain he is right so he wants it checked because he recognises he may not be correct?

This is perhaps where a 3 person system might work better.

1. the umpire says I believe it was touched and I am about 75% certain that is correct. Anything under say 90% certainty triggers an automatic review by the ARC operator.

2. the ARC operator says I believe it is not touched but I only have 10% certainty as I do not have a clear angle that shows a gap between hand and ball.

3. a 3rd adjudicator takes account of the 2 calls and in this case would rule in favour of the touched call. He then watches the footage quickly to ensure nothing obvious is missed, and says to the umpire all clear 1 behind.

In the case of the Brisbane goal v Melbourne, something like this:

1. goal ump says I believe it is a goal but I am only 50% certain.

2. ARC campaigner says I believe it was a goal and I am 70% certain.

3. Adjudicator watches footage briefly to ensure no obvious error, and says all clear 1 goal.


Presumably in the Lynch goal scenario:

1. Goal ump says I believe it is a goal, I am about 50% certain I am correct, it appeared very close.

2. ARC campaigner says looking at this shyte technology I believe the ball has gone over the post and I am 70% certain that is correct.

3. Adjudicator has a quick look no obvious error, says it is 1 behind. High fives every campaigner in sight because he works for the AFL and the decision is anti-Richmond.

So in your scenario the umpire has made a decision on what probably happened instead of what he knows did happen, similar to what many Richmond supporters are complaining the ARC did?

The first rule of umpiring is if you didn't see it and aren't sure you're correct, don't call it. Ie, to call it touched, the umpire is saying it was touched. How often do we see marks paid because an umpire can't definitively say it was touched by someone else first? The onus is on the umpire, similar to a review system, to be certain that they're correct before making a decision. In fact, that's the most common reason for not making a call by umpires, "I didn't see it or I don't know".

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So in your scenario the umpire has made a decision on what probably happened instead of what he knows did happen, similar to what many Richmond supporters are complaining the ARC did?

The first rule of umpiring is if you didn't see it and aren't sure you're correct, don't call it. Ie, to call it touched, the umpire is saying it was touched. How often do we see marks paid because an umpire can't definitively say it was touched by someone else first? The onus is on the umpire, similar to a review system, to be certain that they're correct before making a decision. In fact, that's the most common reason for not making a call by umpires, "I didn't see it or I don't know".

Umpires need to make calls all the time where they are not sure they are correct. Knowing what we all know with the benefit of having watched the sport for years, in a passage of play where one player goes sprawling forward in a contest and an opponent had his hands touching the player’s back, there is no possible way the umpire can be completely certain what actually propelled the player forward. He knows players sometimes dive and players sometimes push opponents in the back causing them to fall forward. He is uncertain, but picking up on the cues he sees he believes the player has been pushed in the back causing him to fall forward. He pays a free kick. We can see with the benefit of a replay he was wrong, the player in front dived.

Some decisions and umpire needs to make are obvious. Player runs into the goal square with an open goal and plants it straight through the middle, the umpire is likely to be 100% certain it is a goal. Every degree of angle, metre of distance the kick travels, extra player anywhere near the flight of the ball either at the kicker’s and or the goal line end or anywhere in between, many of which are trying to touch or grab the ball, will add some amount of doubt in the umpire’s mind about his own judgement.

It is not just a case of an umpire needing to be 100% certain he is right, otherwise play on. He is often asked to form an opinion based on what he sees and hears. As matters stand, and for the whole history of the game, a goal umpire has no opt out, he cannot call play on. There was a time where if he was not able to make any sensible call he would consult the field and even boundary umpires to assist. But if in any position to see at all, the goal umpire has always had to use his judgement to make a call. It has never meant he was 100% certain he was correct.

When I played country footy I started as a full forward before playing full back for a few years then back to full forward. When I was young I was not a reliable shot for goal. I kicked the ball very high and rarely straight through the middle or miles off line. Always somewhere near a goal post…I was having a beer with a goal ump one day after maybe kicking about 4 goals in the match. He said to me my kicks were a nightmare to judge and really he wasn’t absolutely certain any of them were goals, he thinks they were, but they were all way above the goal posts and somewhere very close to the line of the posts. It probably didn’t help him that I was running around triumphantly with my arms in the air celebrating before he had to make his decision. .

There is your judgement as to what you believe you have witnessed. Then there is your level of confidence as to how certain you are that you are correct. And these are two very different and distinct things. At the moment the system treats a decision from a goal umpire who believes it is a goal but is only 60% certain he is correct the same as where he believes it is a goal but is 99% certain. And it presumably treats an ARC operator who is 100% certain in his judgement the same as when he is maybe 60% certain. In my opinion, the system should not treat these levels of certainty the same.

 

[D-N-R]

The decision in last night's game just shows how spineless the AFL are when it comes to criticism. Instead of backing their team in from last week's decision ( correct imo) they have clearly instructed the ARC to be more cautious. The ball clearly went behind the post, clearly no deviation in spin. Why no Edge? Possibly as pointed out above the umpire was contacting the post and this may affect it.

But the AFL don't have the guts to back their umpires in and they get thrown to the wolves yet again.

If improved cameras from the broadcaster is not part of the latest deal the whole management team should be sacked.

 

[GastevsBeard]

The decision in last night's game just shows how spineless the AFL are when it comes to criticism. Instead of backing their team in from last week's decision ( correct imo) they have clearly instructed the ARC to be more cautious. The ball clearly went behind the post, clearly no deviation in spin. Why no Edge? Possibly as pointed out above the umpire was contacting the post and this may affect it.

But the AFL don't have the guts to back their umpires in and they get thrown to the wolves yet again.

If improved cameras from the broadcaster is not part of the latest deal the whole management team should be sacked.

Most tigers supporters re-melted last night purely because the process did a complete 180 from the previous week

 

[Gibbke]

Brisbane the beneficiaries of the ARC again with the Bailey "goal" deep in the last against Melbourne. What's astounding is the process actually worked as intended.

The goal umpire signalled a goal (even though he may not have been sure because he wasn't watching the ball), and then it went to the ARC which rocked the footage showing that the ball clearly went on the goal side of the post due to the shadow of the ball, but it may or may not have hit the post. For some reason they didn't use the snicko edge thing to see if it clipped the post, and due to insufficient evidence the decision reverted back to the goal umpires call = goal.

So what we have here is the umpire guessing (similar to the Lynch non-goal except the Bailey one was far more of a guess because the ball was slammed over his head compared to Lynch when he had a lot more time to get into position), ARC failing to provide evidence one way or the other (same as the Lynch non-goal), and then the decision reverting back to umpires call in one instance and then an overrule in the other. But nah, the ARC is perfect just the way it is...

Huh...? The goal umpire has to make a call after a very fast bit of action resulting in a goal, which is the procedure, followed by a review called because he specifically said he wanted to confirm which side it went on, which then confirmed his decision...

Yeah, the process worked again. 2-0 to Brisbane, and more accurately 2-0 to correct decisions. Exactly which part of this are we supposed to be whinging about...?

 

[Fadge]

Yeah, the process worked again. 2-0 to Brisbane, and more accurately 2-0 to correct decisions. Exactly which part of this are we supposed to be whinging about...?

Integrity and consistency of the process.

Pretty simple.

 

[JackOutback]

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

Let’s think about the series of events that would have unfolded if it had of gone the other way.

1. The umpire calls it a goal
2. goes to the score review
3. vision shows it more likely than not went over the post,
4. but it’s not definitive so the goal stands.

Just like the goal umpire made the wrong decision which would’ve cost us the game…

The arc made the wrong decision that cost you the game.

As it turns out the goal umpire probably made the wrong call, as did the arc.

At the end of the day, it was more likely a goal than not based on the vision of three camera angles. Therefore the lions would have been more hard done by than the tigers.

Move on…

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

Integrity and consistency of the process.

Pretty simple.

Just like integrity and consistency of the umpires, right?

 

[Gibbke]

Integrity and consistency of the process.

Pretty simple.

I saw two incidents that went via procedure and got the right result both times. Sounds consistent and integral to me...