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

Remove this Banner Ad

Fadge said:
Yep, because you can clearly tell by that vision the ball is directly above the post, as opposed to being a metre or two behind the post having already passed the goal line...

o_Oo_Oo_O
Click to expand...
So that video can't be used to prove anything?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Fadge said:
Yep, because you can clearly tell by that vision the ball is directly above the post, as opposed to being a metre or two behind the post having already passed the goal line...

o_Oo_Oo_O
Click to expand...
Imagine if you have three camera angles where they all show the ball, intersecting the top of the post at the same time? Sounds like it would be conclusive. If only we had that...
 
Purple Suit said:
Imagine if you have three camera angles where they all show the ball, intersecting the top of the post at the same time? Sounds like it would be conclusive. If only we had that...
Click to expand...

Sure, if they were all AT THE SAME TIME (ie, the cameras were all very closely synced) and the resolution of the images and speed of the frame rate was such that you could tell within a fine margin where the ball was.

None of these apply however.
 
GOTHELIONS16 said:
I’m glad the tigers didn’t lose one of the grannies, otherwise we wouldn’t have heard of the end of it.

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
Click to expand...

Multiple angles are only useful if they're properly synced and have high resolution/frame rate.

If camera A has the ball in a 50cmX 50cm box, and camera B has it in a similar sized box, that is half a frame later so the ball has moved into 2 boxes further along, etc. there are significant error margins at play.
 
My_Username said:
Sure, if they were all AT THE SAME TIME (ie, the cameras were all very closely synced) and the resolution of the images and speed of the frame rate was such that you could tell within a fine margin where the ball was.

None of these apply however.
Click to expand...
You have to assume they are synced as there is nothing to suggest they are not and hence why the decison was made. Both teams get that in a review, it's not favouring one team or another so you just go with it.

Even with bad frames & resolution, you can line up part of the ball directly above the point post in three cameras, I did it with my mouse pointer on a photo posted on here. The ARC would have much better feed/screens than that compared to 4 screens on a tv at home. That is as certain as you can get with what we have.

Remember, the goal umpire asked for them to check which side of the post it went so he was clearly not in a position to tell. The AFL are also changing the rules so the goal umpire doesn't have to give a soft signal if they are unsure. In the future, ARC will be making the call and I can see them making a better judgement than an out of position goal umpire.
 
My_Username said:
Multiple angles are only useful if they're properly synced and have high resolution/frame rate.

If camera A has the ball in a 50cmX 50cm box, and camera B has it in a similar sized box, that is half a frame later so the ball has moved into 2 boxes further along, etc. there are significant error margins at play.
Click to expand...
Then the goal umpire is only useful if he has super powers where he can slow down/freeze the flight of the ball to get an accurate reading and be in perfect position
 
Purple Suit said:
You have to assume they are synced as there is nothing to suggest they are not and hence why the decison was made. Both teams get that in a review, it's not favouring one team or another so you just go with it.

Even with bad frames & resolution, you can line up part of the ball directly above the point post in three cameras, I did it with my mouse pointer on a photo posted on here. The ARC would have much better feed/screens than that compared to 4 screens on a tv at home. That is as certain as you can get with what we have.

Remember, the goal umpire asked for them to check which side of the post it went so he was clearly not in a position to tell. The AFL are also changing the rules so the goal umpire doesn't have to give a soft signal if they are unsure. In the future, ARC will be making the call and I can see them making a better judgement than an out of position goal umpire.
Click to expand...

No, you would assume they're not synced, because these cameras are only brought in shortly before the game and removed as soon as they can afterwards. Syncing them properly takes time (realistically, it means cameras be permanently installed).

Frames/resolution. It's the difference between saying it's within 20cm of where it seems to be, and 50cm of where you think it is. With a 50cm error margin, are you willing to say it's a certainty that it was directly over a 7.5cm post?

Goal umpires always refer all decisions that aren't blatantly obvious...That's what they're instructed to do. The umpire though had 2 advantages...better position (near the base of the post, looking up) and the human brain being analog, so there are no frame rates involved.

and check the video...the ump was in pretty good position...
 
Last edited:
GOTHELIONS16 said:
Then the goal umpire is only useful if he has super powers where he can slow down/freeze the flight of the ball to get an accurate reading and be in perfect position
Click to expand...

He does have super powers (relatively speaking).

His brain is analog, not digital, so he gets a genuinely continuous image, and gets to see it from a much better position allowing him to look UP the post.
 
My_Username said:
No, you would assume they're not synced, because these cameras are only brought in shortly before the game and removed as soon as they can afterwards. Syncing them properly takes time (realistically, it means cameras be permanently installed).

Frames/resolution. It's the difference between saying it's within 20cm of where it seems to be, and 50cm of where you think it is. With a 50cm error margin, are you willing to say it's a certainty that it was directly over a 7.5cm post?

Goal umpires always refer all decisions that aren't blatantly obvious...That's what they're instructed to do. The umpire though had 2 advantages...better position (near the base of the post, looking up) and the human brain being analog, so there are no frame rates involved.

and check the video...the ump was in pretty good position...
Click to expand...
With his analog brain he made the call to ask the Arc what happened. I'm not sure he was in a good position as he had to cover both posts, otherwise why ask?
 
Purple Suit said:
With his analog brain he made the call to ask the Arc what happened. I'm not sure he was in a good position as he had to cover both posts, otherwise why ask?
Click to expand...

AFL standard procedure is to ask ARC. He didn't decide to, he was obligated to.

Check the video, at the time you think it passed the post. Where was the ump? (to save you the time, he was close to the base of the goal post it passed near, looking up).
 
This debate is going nowhere until we move past this particular ARC adjudication, and consider the flaws in the system as a whole. I don’t know why anyone would be happy with the current set-up, when next time it could be their team on the end of a dodgy judgement.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

My_Username said:
His brain is analog, not digital, so he gets a genuinely continuous image,
Click to expand...
Human brains don't process a continuous image. It's one reason for déjà vu.

We also don't make split second decisions, just rationalise our actions afterwards.

Our brain can process an image as a concept very fast. It can't really freeze-frame what we see and go back over it in detail in our memory. We unconsciously add meanings and relationships. Add details that weren't there, remove details that were.
 
Chief said:
Human brains don't process a continuous image. It's one reason for déjà vu.

We also don't make split second decisions, just rationalise our actions afterwards.

Our brain can process an image as a concept very fast. It can't really freeze-frame what we see and go back over it in detail in our memory. We unconsciously add meanings and relationships. Add details that weren't there, remove details that were.
Click to expand...

For complex observations, sure.

but looking at if a ball crosses a line is pretty much a yes/no thing.
 
My_Username said:
No, you would assume they're not synced, because these cameras are only brought in shortly before the game and removed as soon as they can afterwards. Syncing them properly takes time (realistically, it means cameras be permanently installed).

Frames/resolution. It's the difference between saying it's within 20cm of where it seems to be, and 50cm of where you think it is. With a 50cm error margin, are you willing to say it's a certainty that it was directly over a 7.5cm post?

Goal umpires always refer all decisions that aren't blatantly obvious...That's what they're instructed to do. The umpire though had 2 advantages...better position (near the base of the post, looking up) and the human brain being analog, so there are no frame rates involved.

and check the video...the ump was in pretty good position...
Click to expand...
As someone who has worked in broadcasting I can assure you that what you have written is totally incorrect, you think they just rock up, set up the cameras and go "let's hope all our cameras are in sync" ?

There is a tonne of pre-broadcast checks, one of which being a sync check where all cameras are pointed at a blinking timecode generator and the technical-director can see whether the cameras are in and out of sync by if the blinking is occurring at the same time on each monitor and they can adjust accordingly. Each camera would be accurate to the frame.
 
This thread is still going?

Brian_45 said:
As someone who has worked in broadcasting I can assure you that what you have written is totally incorrect, you think they just rock up, set up the cameras and go "let's hope all our cameras are in sync" ?

There is a tonne of pre-broadcast checks, one of which being a sync check where all cameras are pointed at a blinking timecode generator and the technical-director can see whether the cameras are in and out of sync by if the blinking is occurring at the same time on each monitor and they can adjust accordingly. Each camera would be accurate to the frame.
Click to expand...

Pft, what would you know? It doesn't fit the narrative.

The Richmond thread is now 800 posts on this matter...
 
Brian_45 said:
As someone who has worked in broadcasting I can assure you that what you have written is totally incorrect, you think they just rock up, set up the cameras and go "let's hope all our cameras are in sync" ?

There is a tonne of pre-broadcast checks, one of which being a sync check where all cameras are pointed at a blinking timecode generator and the technical-director can see whether the cameras are in and out of sync by if the blinking is occurring at the same time on each monitor and they can adjust accordingly. Each camera would be accurate to the frame.
Click to expand...

So the technical director does it by a visual check?

That might tell you that frame #684357 on camera A and frame #25764 on camera B happened at the 'same time'.

There is sync and there is sync.

At 25fps, there is a frame every 0.04 of a second. If frame A is taken at 0.000 seconds, and frame B is taken at 0.01 seconds, then the cameras are probably regarded as synced, but the frames aren't fully in sync. (you certainly couldn't tell from a visual check)

Mightn't sound like much, but with a ball moving at ~10-15M/s, that 0.01s means the ball has moved 10-15cm between when those 'synced' frames were taken, and considering that a goal post is only 7.5cm wide, that's significant in this context.

Tell me, what duration does that light flash they sync off last for?
 
Last edited:
Forward Press said:
This thread is still going?



Pft, what would you know? It doesn't fit the narrative.

The Richmond thread is now 800 posts on this matter...
Click to expand...
Don't mention "posts" - you will set them off!
 
My_Username said:
So the technical director does it by a visual check?

That might tell you that frame #684357 on camera A and frame #25764 on camera B happened at the 'same time'.

There is sync and there is sync.

At 25fps, there is a frame every 0.04 of a second. If frame A is taken at 0.000 seconds, and frame B is taken at 0.01 seconds, then the cameras are probably regarded as synced, but the frames aren't fully in sync. (you certainly couldn't tell from a visual check)

Mightn't sound like much, but with a ball moving at ~10-15M/s, that 0.01s means the ball has moved 10-15cm between when those 'synced' frames were taken, and considering that a goal post is only 7.5cm wide, that's significant in this context.

Tell me, what duration does that light flash they sync off last for?
Click to expand...

There is sync, even if you believe it’s not perfect we are judging it by the fact it is in sync.
I am 100% certain it’s not a goal, it is not a stretch that the person in the arc is also 100% certain.
Therefore correct procedure was followed.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

D
Score review and ball coming back into play.
Replies
1
Views
643
Randomizor
Randomizor
BF Tiger
Zak Butters deserves his own MRP thread
Replies
17
Views
879
Duckimus Prime
Duckimus Prime
Chief
MRP / Trib. Match Review Rd 16, 2023 - The Great Western Wrestle
Replies
0
Views
329
Chief
Chief
Maddo11
Dangerous tackle roulette v6.9, Maynard v Powell
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
TW Sherrin
TW Sherrin
Chief
MRP / Trib. Match Review Round 17 - Nankervis 3+; Serong, Phillips, Haynes 1 week
Replies
5
Views
636
Art Vandelay_
Art Vandelay_
Red Black and Blue
  • Poll
Umpiring North v Pies R14 - Should have been 50m ?
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
507
Views
11K
RHLK
RHLK
Mr Meeseeks
Umpiring Easter Monday 2024 Cats v Hawks Umpire Chat
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Footy_Fan2007
Footy_Fan2007

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top