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

[GOTHELIONS16]

The AFL cannot come out and say they got it wrong, because they would be in all sorts of trouble with betting agencies and punters who may have lost money.

Yes but then the other way would have been based on the footage, the goal ump probably got it wrong. So would the goal umpire come under fire too? The main thing is Lynch stuffed up the kick and likely missed and lost you the game.

 

[Fadge]

Yes but then the other way would have been based on the footage, the goal ump probably got it wrong. So would the goal umpire come under fire too? The main thing is Lynch stuffed up the kick and likely missed and lost you the game.

Why would the goal umpire come under fire when he followed the correct procedure to the letter in stating what he thought the result was but asking it to be referred to the ARC?

 

[Elixuh]

This has turned out to be a really big stuff up by the AFL and ARC. I reckon Richmond beat Melbourne and Geelong quite comfortably and then who knows once you get to GF day.

 

[Chief]

a really big stuff up by the AFL and ARC

Nah.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Sydney won the game fair and square. The bullshit free was paid 70m away, he couldn’t even hear the whistle with all the noise.

You weren’t good enough this year, no one has dudded you.

So point out in the rules where it says "if the noise is too loud, give the players the benefit of the doubt".

And please, let's not bring in something as wishi-washy as "common sense". If umps actually used common sense, there would not be any of the current form of intense dislike (putting it lightly) towards umpires from supporters of all teams in the comp.

 

[JyeDye]

They finally over ruling this decision? Going to be interesting to watch Richmond cash in Money In The Bank at 3 qtr time of the Lions vs Geelong match.

 

[Purple Suit]

So point out in the rules where it says "if the noise is too loud, give the players the benefit of the doubt".

And please, let's not bring in something as wishi-washy as "common sense". If umps actually used common sense, there would not be any of the current form of intense dislike (putting it lightly) towards umpires from supporters of all teams in the comp.

Because the player does not know it is a free so it isn’t time wasting. There is hardly a black & white rule in the book. Everything is open to umpire discretion and you did not deserve to win the game.

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

Why would the goal umpire come under fire when he followed the correct procedure to the letter in stating what he thought the result was but asking it to be referred to the ARC?

Which is why the AFL have said CHANGE IS IN ORDER. Change where the goal umpire doesn’t have to make a 50/50 call and can instead simply call for the ARC to make the decision so the goal umpire doesn’t have to guess when he honestly doesn’t know. Because in this instance, the goal umpire wouldn’t have made a call if he didn’t have to!

Because at the end of the day, in its PUREST form, the best evidence available shows an oval object going over and past the white post, in line with the post. And in AFL this would be classified a BEHIND. There is no evidence which suggests it was most likely a goal, otherwise, the ARC wouldn’t have overturned the call.

If the ARC DIDNT OVERTURN THE CALL, there would have been just as much controversy, just as much debate, and I would argue even more so, considering the EVIDENCE RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES.

And just in case you’re not aware, THE SKY IS NOT FALLING

 

[Soggy2112]

So point out in the rules where it says "if the noise is too loud, give the players the benefit of the doubt".

And please, let's not bring in something as wishi-washy as "common sense". If umps actually used common sense, there would not be any of the current form of intense dislike (putting it lightly) towards umpires from supporters of all teams in the comp.

Where in the rules does it say that if a player believes they have taken a mark, they are not judged to have had prior opportunity? Yet we see that all the time. Umpires use discretion all the time, that kick wasn’t time wasting thus the umpire didn’t pay it 50 which was a good call.

 

[Do the Dew]

Because the player does not know it is a free so it isn’t time wasting. There is hardly a black & white rule in the book. Everything is open to umpire discretion and you did not deserve to win the game.

And I guess that's why every time a free kick is paid and a player boots the ball away the umpire never penalizes them 50m because the player doesn't know.

Oh wait, that basically never happens and the umpires are typically lightning fast in awarding a 50m penalty? Sure doesn't stack up with your theory.

You're somewhat correct in arguing the Tigers didn't deserve to win the game (although we were 6 goals up in the 3rd), but we certainly deserved to have a chance to draw.

 

[terrybull]

One sad thing is that if you read all the club boards posters complain the AFL is corrupt to their club, umpiring etc. But if same things happen to opposition cup they just laugh and defend the AFL.

Not much unity here on BigFooty. That’s the way leaders like it, bitching between ourselves means less heat for the people in charge.

 

[iBeng]

One sad thing is that if you read all the club boards posters complain the AFL is corrupt to their club, umpiring etc. But if same things happen to opposition cup they just laugh and defend the AFL.

Not much unity here on BigFooty. That’s the way leaders like it, bitching between ourselves means less heat for the people in charge.

My dude, Lynch could have kicked the ball 15m lower, it's not that difficult.

 

[Fadge]

Which is why the AFL have said CHANGE IS IN ORDER. Change where the goal umpire doesn’t have to make a 50/50 call and can instead simply call for the ARC to make the decision so the goal umpire doesn’t have to guess when he honestly doesn’t know. Because in this instance, the goal umpire wouldn’t have made a call if he didn’t have to!

Because at the end of the day, in its PUREST form, the best evidence available shows an oval object going over and past the white post, in line with the post. And in AFL this would be classified a BEHIND. There is no evidence which suggests it was most likely a goal, otherwise, the ARC wouldn’t have overturned the call.

If the ARC DIDNT OVERTURN THE CALL, there would have been just as much controversy, just as much debate, and I would argue even more so, considering the EVIDENCE RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES.

And just in case you’re not aware, THE SKY IS NOT FALLING

No need to shout.

1. How do we know the umpire would not have made a call had he have had that option?

2. Where was this objective evidence right in front of our eyes? I haven't seen it, and I believe the AFL is yet to release anything?

3. You are correct - the sky is not falling. But a team were eliminated from the competition as a direct result of a standard process appearing not to have been followed correctly. And that is a pretty bad result for what is meant to be a billion dollar, highly professional sporting organisation.

 

[Fadge]

My dude, Lynch could have kicked the ball 15m lower, it's not that difficult.

Why should he need to?

EDIT: yeah, sorry I forgot you'd never played footy in your life. I'll give you a tip - when you're lining up for goal on that angle, you're not thinking either of these things:

1. 'I need to keep it as low as possible, because that will give me the best chance of kicking the goal', or
2. 'I need to keep it under the height of the goal posts, so as we can have a conclusive ARC decision one way or another'.

 

[Do the Dew]

No need to shout.

1. How do we know the umpire would not have made a call had he have had that option?

2. Where was this objective evidence right in front of our eyes? I haven't seen it, and I believe the AFL is yet to release anything?

3. You are correct - the sky is not falling. But a team were eliminated from the competition as a direct result of a standard process appearing not to have been followed correctly. And that is a pretty bad result for what is meant to be a billion dollar, highly professional sporting organisation.

AFL still haven't released any extra evidence and have all but admitted that what we saw is what they based it on. Dimma went on a tour of the ARC facilities a couple of days ago and that's the last news on this. As per all their other ****ups, the AFL will bury this and it won't be an issue until it happens again and then around and around we go.

Their new ruling in regards to the goal umpire not having to make a call is also completely useless. It just puts more onus on the ARC which lacks the technology to make accurate calls on close shots at goal. Once again the AFL refuse to address the root cause of the problem which is $$ have to be invested to improve the technology. Dimma has been pushing this message since 2018!

 

[Chief]

a standard process appearing not to have been followed correctly

But it so obviously was.

Perhaps a PR failure, that's about it.

 

[Fadge]

Their new ruling in regards to the goal umpire not having to make a call is also completely useless. It just puts more onus on the ARC which lacks the technology to make accurate calls on close shots at goal. Once again the AFL refuse to address the root cause of the problem which is $$ have to be invested to improve the technology. Dimma has been pushing this message since 2018!

I don't agree with the need to spend millions of dollars in technology in an effort to get every decision 100% right, as I don't believe that is achievable anyway.

I don't see anything wrong with the current process whereby the umpire makes their determination, and if there is any doubt send it upstairs whereby if there is CONCLUSIVE evidence to the umpire's decision, it is changed.

If the technology can be improved to be in a better position to check the accuracy of the umpire's original decision, that is great.

But it is important the defined process is followed in all instances, and if the evidence is conclusive enough to overturn the umpire's original decision, the crowd and TV audience have access to that evidence.

 

[Fadge]

But it so obviously was.

Perhaps a PR failure, that's about it.

It is not obvious to me that the standard process was followed, because I haven't seen the CONCLUSIVE evidence that the Lynch kick was NOT a goal.

 

[Purple Suit]

It is not obvious to me that the standard process was followed, because I haven't seen the CONCLUSIVE evidence that the Lynch kick was NOT a goal.

It was conclusive to the ARC reviewer. Therefore it passes the process. It doesn’t have to be conclusive to all opposition supporters & BT, that’s impossible as they still don’t accept it now.

 

[Fadge]

It was conclusive to the ARC reviewer. Therefore it passes the process. It doesn’t have to be conclusive to all opposition supporters & BT, that’s impossible as they still don’t accept it now.

If it was, it shouldn't be that difficult to explain to AFL supporters as stakeholders how the conclusion was arrived at, including sharing vision of the data used to arrive at that 'CONCLUSIVE' decision.

So why haven't we seen anything yet, nearly three weeks on?

 

[Chief]

including sharing vision of the data used to arrive at that 'CONCLUSIVE' decision.

Have we gotten any confirmation of Caro's "other footage"?

 

[Fadge]

Have we gotten any confirmation of Caro's "other footage"?

I've no idea what you are talking about.

And why would we need to rely on alleged 'other footage' espoused by journalists?

All we want as stakeholders is transparency around how a conclusive decision was made in order to overturn the ruling umpire's decision as per the current defined process, and as yet the AFL haven't provided it.

 

[Pugnacious1874]

as yet the AFL haven't provided it

ARC: "from these angles we can see the ball is over the post" accompanying vision of 3 angles x2 frames back and forth showing ball over the post.

AFL confirmed correct the next day.

There is nothing else.

 

[Fadge]

ARC: "from these angles we can see the ball is over the post" accompanying vision of 3 angles x2 frames back and forth showing ball over the post.

AFL confirmed correct the next day.

There is nothing else.

So that was the vision shown on TV at the time?

And you're comfortable that vision was conclusive?

Wowee.

 

[Chief]

ARC: "from these angles we can see the ball is over the post" accompanying vision of 3 angles x2 frames back and forth showing ball over the post.

AFL confirmed correct the next day.

There is nothing else.

Come on man. At least try to leave some doubt to egg the thread on