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

[Anja_Nees]

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.

Yep looked a behind all the way.

Score review process probably not followed properly (unless there’s footage we didn’t see). Storm in a teacup though.

 

[db26]

 

[Thedeftouch]

The ball needs to travel between the posts for a goal to be scored.

The review footage clearly shows most or all of the ball to be in line with the post. It was quite clearly not a goal.

It was a correct decision.

 

[Back One Out]

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.

It doesn't need technology

They've got 9 (NINE) umpires out there on the ground, plus emergency umpires on the sidelines.

How hard is it to get an umpire to man each goal post?


Look at how the Rugby Union geniuses do it....

Look at how the NFL geniuses do it....

 

[Big_Tony]

Okay, prove it.

View attachment 1496666

Given that's the only way it could even be estimated, solve that in less than 30 seconds, otherwise it's a umpires call.

You won't do it because you can't and are therefore wrong.

You don't need an equation to solve this mate. Get out a trusty pencil and paper and draw it. 3 different angles of the same scene, ball exactly above post in each. It's triangulation. And for what it's worth, I am a surveyor so work with angles and positioning all day every day.

 

[Hoops]

Nice troll

I get it. it's a hard pill to swallow. just don't get angry because you refuse to or don't understand why.

 

[tandino]

It's a bit hard to get my head around honestly. Intuitively for some reason I thought there would need to be a side camera to see when the ball breaks the plane of the goal line, despite the three angles and the triangles etc. Not smart enough.

 

[Bungeye]

Even if it was a behind, it still doesn't excuse the fact, that the technology is below par.

I think supporters would accept the decision if they knew the technology was full proof.

 

[Hoops]

View attachment 1496708

If only we had another angle to show if the ball is in front of behind the goals at that point in time

 

[maskmcgee]

ball exactly above post in each.

So how come the ball is behind the post, not above it in the bottom left angle?

 

[pixels]

I think part of the issue is that the goal reviewer knew what they were doing and made a decision quickly based on what they knew to be conclusive evidence.

There was no rocking back and forth and viewing all the angles. Simply because they'd seen enough. This gives the illusion to those not trained that there was no conclusive evidence.

 

[numbat06]

View attachment 1496728

Are you trolling? the ball isn't at the goal post at that point.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

I think part of the issue is that the goal reviewer knew what they were doing and made a decision quickly based on what they knew to be conclusive evidence.

There was no rocking back and forth and viewing all the angles. Simply because they'd seen enough. This gives the illusion to those not trained that there was no conclusive evidence.

Those that understand how this works saw no illusion however.

This thread demonstrates quite clearly that those who really don't want to understand something will certainly not understand.

 

[maskmcgee]

Those that understand how this works saw no illusion however.

This thread demonstrates quite clearly that those who really don't want to understand something will certainly not understand.

I like how you claim to be an engineer, and apparently have conclusive indisputable evidence of the outcome of the video, but refuse to post it. It's almost like you're lying.

 

[pixels]

Those that understand how this works saw no illusion however.

This thread demonstrates quite clearly that those who really don't want to understand something will certainly not understand.

Yeah exactly

 

[TRP1996]

I’ve solved it, guys.

What you do is you put a really strong laser pointer on top of the post, pointing directly upwards.

Then, if on replay the ball intersects with the laser, it’s a behind. Simples.

 

[Big Sauce 21]

View attachment 1496728

That's a few good frames before it even reached the goal line

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I’ve solved it, guys.

What you do is you put a really strong laser pointer on top of the post, pointing directly upwards.

Then, if on replay the ball intersects with the laser, it’s a behind. Simples.

Who is going to climb up the post to put the laser beam on top of it?

 

[fs88]

I’ve solved it, guys.

What you do is you put a really strong laser pointer on top of the post, pointing directly upwards.

Then, if on replay the ball intersects with the laser, it’s a behind. Simples.

BREAKING: 2023 ARC improvements to be bolstered by

 

[jc12]

I get it. it's a hard pill to swallow. just don't get angry because you refuse to or don't understand why.

Lol I know already the afl made the wrong call no amount of trolling from you can change that. It was called a goal and was overturned on non definitive evidence. The tougher pill for you to swallow would be when we beat you in the granny , pf and qf so I'd rather be in our position than yours

 

[Bearded Clam]

there is absolutely no conclusive evidence in any of those camera angles to overturn the umpires call..

you’d need to have a corresponding camera angle from side on to be more certain.. and even then its would still be doubtful

shouldve been returned down to the field as “umpires call” and thus a goal.

the league is a complete joke. this is yet another example of the constant inconsistencies in the decision making of those in charge at AFL house and the minions they employ.

inconsistencies in umpiring, reporting, suspensions, goal reviews.. hell, even the way each club counts their fxxkn membership numbers is inconsistent!.. you never know what result you’re gonna get in anything.

its so amateurish its not funny.

 

[Back One Out]

It's just a shame that an epic final and a brilliant Brisbane victory has been overshadowed by the AFL's inadequate goal review system.

Thanks Gill

 

[Hoops]

It's a bit hard to get my head around honestly. Intuitively for some reason I thought there would need to be a side camera to see when the ball breaks the plane of the goal line, despite the three angles and the triangles etc. Not smart enough.

Picture a triangle with the far point being the top of the goal post. The only time a dot (ball) looks to be in line with both of the adjacent triangle sides from the point is when the ball is directly over that point. You can place the dot anywhere else and it might line up with one of the adjacent sides but never both unless it over the point of the triangle.

That's why we know the ball went over the post.

 

[db26]

That's a few good frames before it even reached the goal line

So why wasn't it returned to the goal umpires call then if there was no evidence being a point or goal ?.

 

[Jugada]

Poor bloke doing the video review. Absolutely nails the correct decision in a huge moment which should be an endorsement for the system but still ends up copping it because of nuffies who dont understand why he was right. Cant win