All good. You guys have obviously seen vision that the rest of us aren't privy to.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Rules Score Review (ARC) Thread - Lions v Tigers Elimination
- Thread starter NonPhixion
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Wholeheartedly agree .
Pugnacious1874
Dreamin'
We just have a sense of spatial awareness, and some basic geometry. 3 angles of the same ball in flight event, roughly in sync and all at some point over the post. There's only one possibility that fits all of that.All good. You guys have obviously seen vision that the rest of us aren't privy to.
Play the whole video not stop it.
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...
Finally some common.
Well that's why the question was asked by the public show the conclusive evidence you claim to have.
Spot on and why isn't the technology the same at all grounds is bewildering just asking for trouble.
All good. You guys have obviously seen vision that the rest of us aren't privy to.
Yeah must be privileged to see the vision we all haven't seen.
Roughly ?? that sounds a bit Mickey mouse for a professional sport lol we all have not seen conclusive evidence the afl claimed to have.
Yep sounds gagged to me not convincing the problem is what people forget the afl totally went against it's own process.
Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall for his one on one discussion with Brad Scott.
Reckon there would have been some pretty terse words spoken, and rightfully so from Hardwick, but they're both too professional to let it play out in the public forum.
Yeah spot on
would be solved and buried if the afl was true to the word and had the vision and shared it problem is they don't.
Not sure how you got that from it.
He seemed evasive to me, not answering the question directly, saying, that his problem with it was the process (ie, the ump saying I think it's a goal but want to review it, and "based on that vision" Hardwick "couldn't categorically say it wasn't a goal".)
"To us, our biggest thing was the process."
And...
"It was more about the process. There was never gonna be a right or wrong answer, if that makes sense"
And...
"At the end of the day we were really happy with the process they took us through."
And when Whateley asked... "they didn't send you away with a laminated freeze frame saying this is the one?"
Hardwick said that "they had some form of triangulation there, my head started to explode at one stage. But anyway, I thought I was looking up at [unsure what he said] I thought I don't know what's going on".
To me that was clearly what others here have been pointing out, and it was Hardwick conceding that he either didn't understand it, or didn't want to admit to understanding it.
(For anyone else interested, it's around 57mins into tonight's AFL 360)
Last edited:
Well said. Hardwick just like many others just can’t understand it and/or don’t want to.
Obviously triangulation was explained to him and they told him that’s the proof.
However it’s over the top of his head.
So basically what he was saying that he wasn't swayed by their explanation about triangulation, without coming out and saying as much, in the same way as many on here haven't been swayed by the triangulation argument.
The bottom line is, the vision had to be CONCLUSIVE, and it wasn't.
Hence his continued issue with 'the process'. Which is reasonable and logical.
- Jan 23, 2007
- 4,559
- 3,176
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
What I got out of that is Hardwick either needs to go back to school, or face that others are simply smarter and therefore just accept their decision process which turned out to be correct.
I disagree.
I think what he was saying was...
"they had some form of triangulation there, my head started to explode at one stage. But anyway, I thought I was looking up at [unsure what he said] I thought I don't know what's going on".
If he (or you) doesn't understand it, that doesnt mean its incorrect.
It's on him (and you) to understand it, like the rest of us have done, and then if he still disagrees, he should put forward a counter argument - something which he has not yet done, and it seems, won't be doing.
My_Username
Club Legend
- Jun 23, 2022
- 1,686
- 1,437
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
Most who agree don't understand it.
"I see 2 images that were taken at roughly the same time, therefore I'm certain I know."
The concept of error margins, and how they (should) degrade certainty seems lost on people.
At least we know now with some certainty that triangulation is the basis of the method the ARC uses in these cases. What is left is for the AFL to reveal the specs and setup of their hardware so that presumably experts can calculate error margins. Then these margins need to be somehow tested against the error rates of the naked eye of the average goal umpire.
To me at least watching with little knowledge of the technicalities involved, I presumed this was all done prior to the adoption of the triangulation method being used to over-rule umpires. Certainly with the Hawkeye system in cricket, it came from the outset with operator claims about error margins and this was built into the system for making LBW decisions based upon Hawkeye, as you have pointed out previously.
With the ARC system it appears there is no meaningful testing that has been done for these cases where the ball travels above the posts. After watching someone drive a truck through the Tribunal’s method of hearing cases because the AFL hadn’t done something as obvious as accord the charged player procedural fairness, then it is difficult to see how anybody could have blind faith in any system they set up to judge anything. That mess of a Tribunal system with its very obvious flaws managed to somehow alter the result of the most prestigious individual honour in the game, the Brownlow Medal.
It is an unlikely but horrendous scenario that if a Grand Final result hinged on that Lynch kick after the siren, the whole result of the Grand Final could potentially be argued out in courts post season. So the AFL needs to get this system tested for accuracy and proven before something like that occurs.
Last edited:
My_Username
Club Legend
- Jun 23, 2022
- 1,686
- 1,437
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
No, I'm all for the physics. That's the point of my argument after all.
I'm saying that due to the limitations of the technology used (resolution, frame rates, synchronization of cameras), rather than the ball being at a fixed point as it appears to be, it's actually in a cube ( e.g. it could be +-20cm forward, sideways and/or up/down from where it 'appears'). This represents the error margin. (better tech will shrink that cube, but never entirely remove it).
An over rule of the umps should only occur when that entire cube is on the wrong side of the line(s) compared to where the umpire said it was.
Similar threads
