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

[2009premiers]

The AFL should be doing this. My initial feeling was that it seemed inconclusive but the more I think about it the more it seems the review was right. I get the feeling that the reviewers would have been trained for this exact scenario and told what to look for.

And that is why there are three angles on the screen when the correct decision was made.

 

[Do the Dew]

And that is why there are three angles on the screen when the correct decision was made.

3 angles all from essentially front on. Which proves nothing.

 

[laam]

Later on, when I CBF I will draw a top down diagram to prove that the review was correct.

I am 100% certain about this.

Agree. I've already sketched it for some group chats haha

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Nicho50]

The worst thing about this score review which IMO how could anyone 100% say whether its a goal or a point from some angles it looks like it travelled on the inside and then some its right above but the thing I hate about this is that it has taken focus away from one of the best games of footy all season.

Both teams scored over 100 points playing attacking footy not this dour 55 to 70 crap, the result never really got past a 2 goal game at any stage, Lachie Neale

9

Lachie Neale

Age

31

Ht

178cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.0

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

15.5

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

28.3

5star

K

13.9

5star

HB

14.4

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

7.4

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.0

3star

CL

0.4

3star

put on a clinic and we had 12 goals kicked from key forwards. Lions losing their ruckman in the first and Tigers losing best mid in the second. It was a sensational game and its a shame that the ARC rubbish is overshadowing it.

 

[2009premiers]

3 angles all from essentially front on. Which proves nothing.

One was to the right, one was to the left, one was in the middle. That was all that was required.

 

[Do the Dew]

Agree. I've already sketched it for some group chats hahaView attachment 1496913View attachment 1496914

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

It could be this too... the front on angles prove nothing.

 

[2009premiers]

It could be this too... the front on angles prove nothing.

View attachment 1496920

No. In that case only one view will show it over the post

 

[pugsville]

Get rid of the whole system altogether, simple as that. Go back to umpires call like it was pre 2010.

NO system will be perfect. This system does remove some errors., far more than it causes problems.

Can't take the umpire's call. Don;t follow sport,

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

It's ok until it happens to your teams. haha

 

[Bluelegs]

It could be this too... the front on angles prove nothing.

View attachment 1496920

Two of these angles would show the ball behind the post???

 

[Ricketz]

Agree. I've already sketched it for some group chats hahaView attachment 1496913View attachment 1496914

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Haha beat me to it. Very good. I will still post mine as it shows the same principle and different views with only two points of view.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Who was the only person on the planet to have a good view of that shot for goal? Oh… it was the professional goal umpire who was standing right under the post. What was the professional’s decision who had a perfect view ? Oh, he called a goal. It would be funny if it wasn’t so costly.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[evo]

Who was the only person on the planet to have a good view of that shot for goal? Oh… it was the professional goal umpire who was standing right under the post. What was the professional’s decision who had a perfect view ? Oh, he called a goal. It would be funny if it wasn’t so costly.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Yeh bitter pill to swallow for us Tiges supporters.

All year we seemed to find new and inventive methods to lose the unloseable.

 

[Bluelegs]

Who was the only person on the planet to have a good view of that shot for goal? Oh… it was the professional goal umpire who was standing right under the post. What was the professional’s decision who had a perfect view ? Oh, he called a goal. It would be funny if it wasn’t so costly.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Nah the umpires field of vision would have seen the ball at an uncertain angle too. the review had three angles to work with and is a better judge.

 

[Ricketz]

For the scenario that the kick was a goal only - the blue line (but you can apply the same logic on the other two lines if you want).

Point A is the only frame from Camera 2 that would show the ball above the goal post. At that same point in time, Camera 1 would show the ball well to the left of the goal post.

On the other hand, Point B is the only frame from Camera1 that would show the ball above the goal post. At the same point in time, Camera 2 would show the ball to the right of the goal post.

Point C represents the only scenario where Camera 1 and Camera 2 could possibly both show the ball above the goal post at the same time.

It is impossible for it to have been a goal. The review was correct.

 

[Kram]

I'll wait for Adam Spencer's analysis and verdict on the back page this week.

 

[Ricketz]

Do what you want no one can prove with out a doubt that was a goal or point.

Whether you understand it or not (it is year 8 maths mate), the diagram above is correct.

 

[Profop]

I must be getting old because I swear the ball isn't clearly above the post in those three stills?

The other stuff about the cameras is pointless if the images don't clearly show the ball above the post in all of them

 

[Ricketz]

It could be this too... the front on angles prove nothing.

View attachment 1496920

No, if you are watching from the right camera it appears to be right of the post in, in the left camera it appears to the left of the post. Only the centre camera would show the ball "above" the post.

 

[Papa G]

Important ambiguous decision goes against Vic team.

Has a Rotal Commission been declared yet?

 

[Run n Spread]

Reckon they got the decision right but used the wrong process. Watched the replay on the angle behind Lynch. Clear point. It went to the other side of the post. Yet the ones saying the ball was above were after it crossed the line.
So unless the arc had access to the original footage I reckon Richmond would be miffed on how it was over ruled.

 

[db26]

Another person who shouldn't ever make an engineering decision that matters. Leave it to people who do understand and accept that you are ignorant.

Lol ignorant and leave it to the people who understand ?. So over to you were is the conclusive evidence the afl says it has from camera angles and why is it not shared to the public that's pure ignorance.

 

[perplexed]

A lot of sooking about nothing. The score review system worked to get the correct result. Without it Brisbane would have been robbed.

There should be more focus on Lynch choking.

 

[Cemos]

For the scenario that the kick was a goal only - the blue line (but you can apply the same logic on the other two lines if you want).

Point A is the only frame from Camera 2 that would show the ball above the goal post. At that same point in time, Camera 1 would show the ball well to the left of the goal post.

On the other hand, Point B is the only frame from Camera1 that would show the ball above the goal post. At the same point in time, Camera 2 would show the ball to the right of the goal post.

Point C represents the only scenario where Camera 1 and Camera 2 could possibly both show the ball above the goal post at the same time.

It is impossible for it to have been a goal. The review was correct.

View attachment 1496924

Cool. Now depict point C a pixel behind the goalpost and try to reconcile the difference between your well-set diagram with the 2D, blurry freeze-frames from the AFL's cameras which depict the action in non-mathematically perfect conditions (each camera set at ground-level, not overhead, and from similar vantage points).

Lmao even just taking those blurry frames for what they are, the ball isn't in the exact same position across the three angles. The point is that the reviewers need 99.9% certainty to overturn the umpire, which is impossible to achieve with the cameras the AFL use. How can you even argue this.

AFL have truly spilt the milk with this one!

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Important ambiguous decision goes against Vic team.

Has a Rotal Commission been declared yet?

What?
Are you saying that Richo’s childish dummy spitting on post game last night was because .… Richmond?
Ah man, I can’t believe that professional, above-reproach, cross-section-of-immortality including Richo and Hodgey would have got it wrong.

Next thing you’ll tell me that the decade and a half of Victorian dominance of the competition is the true balance of football of this country, whilst the 6 years before that were so excruciating that an AFL investigation and Royal Commission would be called for.