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

[Bont2Bruce]

Whether or not the Tigers deserved to win tonight is irrelevant to the FACT that an Elimination Final was a decided by a shonky review. Maybe it was a goal. maybe it was a point. Who really knows? Not the goal review official... A team's season was finished because of someone's guesswork.

Another person who I hope isn't an engineer designing anything important.

This was not a subjective call overruling another subjective call. This was an engineering call overruling a subjective call by an off-balance umpire.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Sook or no sook, the AFL (and Channel 7) are a f**kin embarrassment

The typical reaction to this sort of bullshit is for everyone to say "the right team won it", or "Haha, cop that Richmond"
This is exactly the sort of reaction the AFL bank on whenever they sweep this type of incompetence under the rug.

Maybe the AFL should quit being such cheapskates and get a goal review system that actually does "our great game" justice. It's only been... um... let me see.... TEN F**KIN YEARS that we've all ha to put up with their blurry replays, rubbish camera angles, an "inconclusive" decisions.

The AFL is an amateur bush league compared to sports leagues in America and Europe. It's a joke

Whether or not the Tigers deserved to win tonight is irrelevant to the FACT that an Elimination Final was a decided by a shonky review. Maybe it was a goal. maybe it was a point. Who really knows? Not the goal review official... A team's season was finished because of someone's guesswork.

No, just because the VFL commentators can’t accept the decision by the video review.
Or more accurately, can’t UNDERSTAND the decision.
Its not guesswork, just because you can’t understand it.

 

[maskmcgee]

Yes you can, as described by multiple people above.

Random people on the internet wrote it so it must be true, found the anti-vaxxer Qanoner

 

[Jugada]

More they show it the more obvious the right call was made. Unfortunately we just have tons of fans and media nuffies not understanding why it was obviously the correct call so controversy will occur

 

[maskmcgee]

Another person who I hope isn't an engineer designing anything important.

This was not a subjective call overruling another subjective call. This was an engineering call overruling a subjective call by an off-balance umpire.

t
You didn't solve it, indisputable admission of you being wrong. Thanks for confirming I'm right and it was a goal.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Random people on the internet wrote it so it must be true, found the anti-vaxxer Qanoner

Don’t use your GPS on your phone then. It doesn’t really know where you are, it just guesses.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Actually didn't even think it was near the goals at any stage. Over the post on the behind side of the goal posts. Can't believe it was called a goal in the first place.

Goal umpire was wrong. ARC was correct. Used a common surveying method, ball was over the post at the same instant in time from at least three different camera angles.

 

[speedpeck23]

How embarrassing is it.... so many don't understand basic maths...!

 

[Happy_Neale]

Goal umpire was wrong. ARC was correct. Used a common surveying method, ball was over the post at the same instant in time from at least three different camera angles.

Right decision in the end, but if the goal umpire didn't fluff it there would be no controversy at all.

Kind of ironic given how Richmond got a ridiculous free on what was a goal for us in our last match at the MCG. Bit of poetic justice perhaps.

 

[Back One Out]

No, just because the VFL commentators can’t accept the decision by the video review.
Or more accurately, can’t UNDERSTAND the decision.
Its not guesswork, just because you can’t understand it.

You'll have to explain yourself better mate.

You typed three sentences above but offered no explanation

 

[maskmcgee]

Don’t use your GPS on your phone then. It doesn’t really know where you are, it just guesses.

I didn't know we had a GPS in the ball.
Which wouldn't matter given GPS for civilian use is only accurate to 2 metres. Even more confirmation you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

t
You didn't solve it, indisputable admission of you being wrong. Thanks for confirming I'm right and it was a goal.

There's only one thing your last couple of posts have proved and it isn't what you think it is.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

I didn't know we had a GPS in the ball.
Which wouldn't matter given GPS for civilian use is only accurate to 2 metres. Even more confirmation you have no idea what you're talking about.

Nah, not gonna argue with some one who doesn’t understand Yr 9 trigonometry.

Ignore.

 

[jim boy]

Looks pretty conclusive to me - ball is clearly hitting the post. I'm sure the operators are trained for this. As for the Goal Umpire - these sorts of calls are notoriously difficult

 

[numbat06]

I think the right call was made even if by the rules there wasn't definitive evidence to overturn the umpires decision. The umpire obviously made a split decision call that was wrong, he wasn't even in position to see it.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Yep, that when you're asked to prove something, you desperately try to avoid the question, because you know you're wrong.


Come on champ, prove it. You say it's so obvious, so just prove it.

You can stop proving how little you understand now, we get it.

 

[maskmcgee]

View attachment 1496675
Looks pretty conclusive to me - ball is clearly hitting the post. I'm sure the operators are trained for this. As for the Goal Umpire - these sorts of calls are notoriously difficult

Yea espcially the bottom left and bottom right ones which both clearly show the ball is already far behind the goal post, not on top of it.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

View attachment 1496675
Looks pretty conclusive to me - ball is clearly hitting the post. I'm sure the operators are trained for this. As for the Goal Umpire - these sorts of calls are notoriously difficult

Obvious, but this is the rational that some people use.

Walking down the street, come across something brown on the ground.
”Looks like dog crap.”
”Smells like dog crap”
”Tastes like dog crap”

“Lucky I didn’t step in it”

 

[maskmcgee]

You can stop proving how little you understand now, we get it.

Lol, now going for the personal insults. This is like Trumpism 101, when asked to prove a very simple thing, try everything you can to distract everyone else. Nobody's falling for your pathetic attempts to avoid the truth.

 

[Back One Out]

Ah, yes... Big Footy... the forum where someone will start a thread saying the sun will come up tomorrow and a dozen know-alls will argue that it won't.

Sure guys... Whatever you reckon.

The AFL has a foolproof goal review system with fantastic camera angles in super high definition with decisions adjudicated by the world's leading engineers.

There is no problem. Everyone go to bed. There is nothing to see.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Life ban from watching AFL and this forum to anyone who says it was a point. The score reviewers need to be investigated for their links to bookies, probably had a stack on a Brisbane victory. Nothing else could explain such a horrendous call.

Boohoo.

It was a point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VL3OJ]

The league could look at upping the technology. Using a magnet in the ball and having a magnetic field around the goal (and another for points) would assist. In this instance a wide angle camera on the top of each goal post and perhaps a light beam as well. Maybe for the key grounds at least.

There were lots of key decisions in the last quarter due to the frenetic nature of both teams.

 

[jc12]

It was conclusive as bouncing off the post

Nice troll

 

[Meteoric Rise]

View attachment 1496675
Looks pretty conclusive to me - ball is clearly hitting the post. I'm sure the operators are trained for this. As for the Goal Umpire - these sorts of calls are notoriously difficult

Actually just seen from your top left shot where the goal ump is. He is in the perfect position to judge. It was obviously a very close run thing but the goal ump seems now to me to be in a better position to judge than the score review guy is.

 

[Ed_Gein]

What a talking point!

My opinion: Goal review should've made it umpire's call since the footage wasn't definitively conclusive enough. But at the same time I think the goal ump made a meal of it as well as Lynch's reaction telling us it was a behind anyway.