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

[Fadge]

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

Yep, absolutely no doubt with those images...

 

[JackOutback]

Why should he need to?

Because then it might have gone in, instead of missing.

 

[Pugnacious1874]

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

And you're comfortable that vision was conclusive?

Wowee.

I don't care about this one.

Still upset about the non review in 2012 PF that cost Swans a goal. Lucky we won otherwise I'm sure it would have dominated media coverage throughout GF week. Wouldn't it be great if the square up decided the game tomorrow.

 

[Fadge]

I don't care about this one.

Yeah, see that's why the AFL get away with it.

Meanwhile, you're still seething over an incident 10 years ago, and you still won the game...

Guess what - it's still not resolved, so a bad call is just as likely to cost the Swans a Grand Final birth tomorrow, as it is being to your benefit.

But I guess that's just the rub of the green, right?

 

[Pugnacious1874]

Yeah, see that's why the AFL get away with it.

Meanwhile, you're still seething over an incident 10 years ago, and you still won the game...

Guess what - it's still not resolved, so a bad call is just as likely to cost the Swans a Grand Final birth tomorrow, as it is being to your benefit.

But I guess that's just the rub of the green, right?

Nah. I just rewatched it last night and thought of this thread.
Was magic watching Jets sprint 100m to open goal with 3 bounces.

 

[iBeng]

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'.

You think a highly paid key forward didnt think to himself "Heck, if I kick this TOO hard it might cause issues with my kick.

Why do you think he didnt celebrate straight away?

Watch the game last weekend where Charlie Cameron took the EXACT SAME KICK and put it through at a height that left NO DOUBT.

 

[Fadge]

You think a highly paid key forward didnt think to himself "Heck, if I kick this TOO hard it might cause issues with my kick.

Why do you think he didnt celebrate straight away?

Watch the game last weekend where Charlie Cameron took the EXACT SAME KICK and put it through at a height that left NO DOUBT.

I cannot believe what I'm reading.

What are your thoughts on this banana kick from Dustin Martin? No good because he kicked it too high?

 

[JyeDye]

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.

That actually is a rule.

 

[iBeng]

I cannot believe what I'm reading.

What are your thoughts on this banana kick from Dustin Martin? No good because he kicked it too high?

It went through below post height lol wtf were you watching? Lynch had his ball go through ABOVE POST HEIGHT and when it was reviewed it was clearly going over the top of the post.

 

[Fadge]

It went through below post height lol wtf were you watching? Lynch had his ball go through ABOVE POST HEIGHT and when it was reviewed it was clearly going over the top of the post.

1. It is impossible to tell from that video whether Martin's kick was above or below post height when it went through the goals;
2. There was no evidence from the Lynch kick that has been released where the ball was CLEARLY going over the top of the post;
3. It shouldn't matter whether the ball goes above or below the height of the post, we should have a defined, consistent process to assess whether or not a goal has been kicked.

 

[Soggy2112]

That actually is a rule.

View attachment 1509348

Hah there you go, the more you know

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

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?

Because fans are not as entitled as you think they are. And there is nothing to explain.

The footage shown on three angles shows the ball went over the top of the post. The arc decided it was definitive. The process was followed. The goal umpire didn’t call for the umpire to make a decision. The arc overturned the decision because it was conclusive.

What about all the times a goal is overturned because the arc sees a finger move but there is not definitive contact with the ball when it moves. That is no different.

 

[terrybull]

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.

There is no way there be so much discussion if it was conclusive.

That is like saying the umpire is always right because he called it.

 

[scoman]

Still surprised how many people wanted the wrong decision to stand. Maybe not that surprised.

 

[My_Username]

Huh? You think one human is inferior to three cameras with zoom and freeze frame?

It's obviously not the case. Obviously.

Depends on the cameras and how they're set up.

Ultimately, it's a cost/benefit thing.

Cameras have an error margin, and better resolution, frame rate, and syncing reduces (but doesn't eliminate) that.

Trouble is, improving these is expensive.

So the question is, what error margin is acceptable, and how many million are you willing to spend to do this?


Personally I think the AFL has better things to spend the money on, and we should just accept that as with cricket, the review is only there to deal with the 'howlers', and 'umpires call' is a fair decision when it's in the error margin.

 

[db26]

Because fans are not as entitled as you think they are. And there is nothing to explain.

The footage shown on three angles shows the ball went over the top of the post. The arc decided it was definitive. The process was followed. The goal umpire didn’t call for the umpire to make a decision. The arc overturned the decision because it was conclusive.

What about all the times a goal is overturned because the arc sees a finger move but there is not definitive contact with the ball when it moves. That is no different.

What footage the one that shows the ball already crossed the line for a goal Blind Freddy could see that complete farce.

 

[Purple Suit]

What footage the ones that shows the ball already crossed the line for a goal Blind Freddy could see that complete farce.

Only one eye Richmond blind freddy. It goes straight over the goal post, quite impressive from that close.

 

[db26]

Only one eye Richmond blind freddy. It goes straight over the goal post, quite impressive from that close.

Straight over the goal post .

 

[My_Username]

Only one eye Richmond blind freddy. It goes straight over the goal post, quite impressive from that close.

I think we can all agree that it didn't go 'straight'.

 

[Chief]

Straight over the goal post .

Look at the angle of that camera.

The ball would have to cross the goal line entirely, then bend left, then bend right.

It simply doesn't show what you are trying to convince people it shows.

That video shows the ball going over the post.

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

What footage the one that shows the ball already crossed the line for a goal Blind Freddy could see that complete farce.

If you actually keep pausing the footage, you will see it is CLEARLY over the post

 

[db26]

Look at the angle of that camera.

The ball would have to cross the goal line entirely, then bend left, then bend right.

It simply doesn't show what you are trying to convince people it shows.

That video shows the ball going over the post.

It doesn't cross the line entirely ?. The ball bends to the right in between the sticks for a goal.

 

[My_Username]

If you actually keep pausing the footage, you will see it is CLEARLY over the post

You can see depth CLEARLY from one angle?

Wow.

 

[db26]

You can see depth CLEARLY from one angle?

Wow.

The question is still we're is the footage the afl claimed to have conclusive either they got it or it's a spin.

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

I’m glad the tigers didn’t lose one of the grannies, otherwise we wouldn’t have heard of the end of it.

You can see depth CLEARLY from one angle?

Wow.

yes because if you keep pausing it you will see the ball in front of the post before going over it. And this angle is not in isolation there are four camera angles showing the Same thing. 3 from the arc+ 1 =4