Should the AFL invest in HD, slow-motion goal line cameras?

[Goldfish]

Show the other angle. Conflicting vision therefore cant override goal umpire. Move on Princess.

See post above, princess. Didn't realise we were in Bay, thought this was the 'Umpiring, MRP, Tribunal and Rules' board.

Regardless, here's the other angle. Not sure it helps your cause...

 

[kickazz]

Personally I think the opportunity cost is too great - there are so many other ways the money could be better spent.

 

[Outback Footy]

Sorry, but the decision was indisputably wrong. That's not simply my opinion or a probability or an educated guess, it's basic physics applied to the available vision.

The too close to call, revert to umpires call verdict was based on a false premise, that it wasn't possible to determine if the ball was completely past the post when McGovern got his hand to it. The goal line is the legislated defining measure and as the back of the goal line is equal to the back of the padding around the goal past then a ball level with the back of the goal post above the padding MUST be ahead of the back of the goal line. Neither the ARC reviewer nor the TV commentators seemed to be aware of this basic fact.

This wrong application of the rules is getting brushed away because this is a home and away match. But if that was a Grand Final winning kick there would be absolute pandemonium.

I was of the opinion earlier that the goal umpire did nothing wrong, but perhaps he did. All he had to go on to make the call was the ball, the hand and the goal post. He could not use the line directly because that was impossible in the circumstances. Therefore if he he couldn't tell definitively if the ball had passed the the back of the post before it was touched he should have then called it a behind. Why a behind? Because he had been standing between two goal posts for 90 minutes and would know very well that the back of the goal post above the padding was clearly inside the goal line. There would have needed to be a noticeablegap between post and ball to call it a goal.

I could just as equally say the free kick in the ruck in the dying minutes, the 30m run Ryan was allowed, the failure to pay incorrect disposal a dozen times, the failure to pay English' mark were all INDISPUTABLY WRONG. Move on Princess. Umpires make mistakes, generally evens out, didnt on sunday they were desperate to get you over the line and still couldnt. Or dont move on and continue crying. The milk is spilt, weve got the points, boo hoo so sad for you. Give up now, your seasons over boo hoo. FFS.

 

[Outback Footy]

See post above, princess. Didn't realise we were in Bay, thought this was the 'Umpiring, MRP, Tribunal and Rules' board.

Regardless, here's the other angle. Not sure it helps your cause...

But is he actually touching it there or is his hand just looking like its close? You guys got ripped off for one decision! Im so sad! Dont pretend WC dont get the run of umpires, dont even try, even sunday night they were desperate to get you over the line, shame whatsisname cant kick under pressure (or mark for that matter)

Back tot he issue. HD cameras please!

 

[Ricky112]

Gil too busy with the big issues like planning AFL spring break on the Gold Coast.

 

[Pottering]

I could just as equally say the free kick in the ruck in the dying minutes, the 30m run Ryan was allowed, the failure to pay incorrect disposal a dozen times, the failure to pay English' mark were all INDISPUTABLY WRONG. Move on Princess. Umpires make mistakes, generally evens out, didnt on sunday they were desperate to get you over the line and still couldnt. Or dont move on and continue crying. The milk is spilt, weve got the points, boo hoo so sad for you. Give up now, your seasons over boo hoo. FFS.

You could say whatever you want, does not change the fact that the ARC system failed badly. This wasn't an error of judgement, they can never be eliminated. This was a classic case of an official not knowing the rules. Would you be happy with a judge who didn't know the law?

ps. Calling everyone Princess is pretty childish, you need some new material. See you in the finals, or maybe not.

Late breaking news; just watched the ARC stuff it up again in the Crows/Giants game, wrong vision looked at for goal that was touched. But not to worry, the AFL will tick it off like the Bont goal because they've invested too much to admit it is flawed!

 

[Outback Footy]

You could say whatever you want, does not change the fact that the ARC system failed badly. This wasn't an error of judgement, they can never be eliminated. This was a classic case of an official not knowing the rules. Would you be happy with a judge who didn't know the law?

ps. Calling everyone Princess is pretty childish, you need some new material. See you in the finals, or maybe not.

Late breaking news; just watched the ARC stuff it up again in the Crows/Giants game, wrong vision looked at for goal that was touched. But not to worry, the AFL will tick it off like the Bont goal because they've invested too much to admit it is flawed!

Youre right it'll never be perfect. Like the umpiring. Is it an improvement over nothing? Yes. Can it be improved with better cameras? Yes. Do mistake still get made? Yes. JJ was robbed in a GF :0. Arguably more important. Hope we see you in the finals, just not in Perth

PS I call all my mates Princess

 

[Pottering]

Youre right it'll never be perfect. Like the umpiring. Is it an improvement over nothing? Yes. Can it be improved with better cameras? Yes. Do mistake still get made? Yes. JJ was robbed in a GF :0. Arguably more important. Hope we see you in the finals, just not in Perth

PS I call all my mates Princess

You're missing the point. The ARC system is not the issue. In both the Bont goal and the touched goal last night the technology worked perfectly. The issue is having reviewers who don't know what they're doing. Both reviewers looked like they'd been dragged in off the street with no knowledge of what to do. Both errors were not iof judgement but errors of basic knowledge. No point having the system if the people operating have no idea what they are supposed to be doing. Not knowing that goal post is inside the goal line is unexcusable as is the AFL backing the call to cover their arses. Also I'd suggest keeping what you call your mates to your actual mates, I often refer to mine as bastards.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Agree, just stick with umpires call.

Or even better just change the rule so we can cease this tiresome sideshow - touched off the boot by opposition, still a goal.

Tend to agree.

It's farcical beyond belief when they use technology to verify a human interpretation - only to see a human interpret the technology!

That Bulldogs-West Coast one was just beyond belief.

 

[Wallaby]

It is an interesting argument. If you are going to go down the road of using technology, of course you use the best possible technology.

MInd you, it brings up some interesting anomalies. Technically, the goalposts are NOT in the field of play (if the ball even brushes the goalpost, it's a behind). This means, that in actuality, the goalline is made up of the back edge of the white line drawn between the posts, and the ouside surface of each goal post (the outside surface of each behind post is out of play). So the actual goalline looks like this:


And that's only at ground level. The posts narrow as they go up (not just padding, but they taper as well), If the ball goes over the post - it is deemed a behind. But define 'over the post'. Is it the width of the post at ground level (ie fat post plus padding) - or the width of the post at its top (narrow post, no padding)?

If we are talking about using technology, eventually we will be using that level of technology. And when we use it, we had better have our definitions worked out. (The easiest and most common sense solution would be to move the goalline to align with the front of the goalposts - the goalposts are not in play, so get them off the field).

We are still using the same means of defining and outlining a goalline that we were 160 years ago - and that worked fine for 150 years until we decided to use technology to 'help' out umpires. And in most other sport that use 'technology' - it really hasn't helped to be honest.

 

[LoungeLizard]

No matter how accurate the technology there are always going to be ambiguous calls.

One of the many problems with the current system is the misinterpretation of the goal line - it aligns with the back of the padding, not the post. The review system has been making this error since its inception.

The goal line is the line they go on as the rule states

 

[Pottering]

The goal line is the line they go on as the rule states

That is correct, in theory. Problem is the ARC reviewer used the post and not the line to adjudictate and worryingly the AFL ticked it off.

 

[LoungeLizard]

That is correct, in theory. Problem is the ARC reviewer used the post and not the line to adjudictate and worryingly the AFL ticked it off.

How do you know what he used?

All i saw on the 2 shots was 2 different conclusions, both didn't show when contact was made.

You would hope the cameras are in sync, if not they are useless, if so, then they are not aligned, so that needs to change.

So by what we saw on tv, the reviewer made the right decision, umpires call, so the goal stands, if the goal umpire had called a behind, then that would also be the right call.

 

[Goldfish]

How do you know what he used?

All i saw on the 2 shots was 2 different conclusions, both didn't show when contact was made.

You would hope the cameras are in sync, if not they are useless, if so, then they are not aligned, so that needs to change.

So by what we saw on tv, the reviewer made the right decision, umpires call, so the goal stands, if the goal umpire had called a behind, then that would also be the right call.

If there is any doubt do you think it should be a goal or a point? I'm of the opinion it should be the lesser score unless it can be proved otherwise (and was of that opinion before the weekend). I think we're one of the only sports in the world that would still pay a goal if there was any doubt in the footage.

 

[flamethrower]

If there is any doubt do you think it should be a goal or a point? I'm of the opinion it should be the lesser score unless it can be proved otherwise (and was of that opinion before the weekend). I think we're one of the only sports in the world that would still pay a goal if there was any doubt in the footage.

The goal umpire had the best view - he was in perfect position and saw where the ball was touched in 3D. The 2 cameras only see the image in 2D and unless the cameras are in a perfect position right on the goal line, the view will be distorted. That is why one camera appeared to show a clear gap between the ball and the goal post, while the reverse angle appeared to show the defender touching the ball before it had completely traversed the goal line. By the rules of the game, the correct decision was made to go with "umpire's call".

Having better quality cameras won't really help - to get a accurate read, multiple cameras are required to recreate a 3D image of where the ball was when first touched by the defender.

 

[Pottering]

How do you know what he used?

All i saw on the 2 shots was 2 different conclusions, both didn't show when contact was made.

You would hope the cameras are in sync, if not they are useless, if so, then they are not aligned, so that needs to change.

So by what we saw on tv, the reviewer made the right decision, umpires call, so the goal stands, if the goal umpire had called a behind, then that would also be the right call.

Respectfully disagree. Reviewer said there was insufficient evidence to overturn the umpire's call. But that conclusion could only be drawn if he was comparing the ball to the back of the post. If the post was the defining parameter I'd agree with that, it as too tight to determine if it had been touched before passing the back of the post .

But the back of the post is at least 5 cm inside the back of the line which is the actual parameter that must be used. Therefore a ball touched at the very back of the post can only be said to be touched before the back of the line.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Respectfully disagree. Reviewer said there was insufficient evidence to overturn the umpire's call. But that conclusion could only be drawn if he was comparing the ball to the back of the post. If the post was the defining parameter I'd agree with that, it as too tight to determine if it had been touched before passing the back of the post .

But the back of the post is at least 5 cm inside the back of the line which is the actual parameter that must be used. Therefore a ball touched at the very back of the post can only be said to be touched before the back of the line.

View attachment 957781

Do you ever wonder when these decisions are made, it is nearly always the club on the wrong end complains about it?

Nearly all neutrals say the right decision was made, does that tell you something?

 

[Pottering]

Do you ever wonder when these decisions are made, it is nearly always the club on the wrong end complains about it?

Nearly all neutrals say the right decision was made, does that tell you something?

The neutrals are not overly interested and probably go with the flow and accept that it was not possible to see it the ball was touched before the back of the post. Almost certainly most of them are unaware that the back of the post is a) not the defining parameter and b) the back of the post is about 5cm inside the correct parameter, the back of the goal line. I can't blame the average supporter, the TV commentators got it wrong as did the ARC reviewer, so they're in good company.

A well known logical fallacy is the Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum). Appeal to popularity is making an argument that something is the right or correct thing to do because a lot of people agree with it. The sun revolving around the earth used to be a pretty popular theory. Likewise that earth was flat.

 

[LoungeLizard]

The neutrals are not overly interested and probably go with the flow and accept that it was not possible to see it the ball was touched before the back of the post. Almost certainly most of them are unaware that the back of the post is a) not the defining parameter and b) the back of the post is about 5cm inside the correct parameter, the back of the goal line. I can't blame the average supporter, the TV commentators got it wrong as did the ARC reviewer, so they're in good company.

A well known logical fallacy is the Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum). Appeal to popularity is making an argument that something is the right or correct thing to do because a lot of people agree with it. The sun revolving around the earth used to be a pretty popular theory. Likewise that earth was flat.

I am not just talking about this decision mate, it happens nearly every review there is.

I saw both angles of the review WE were shown, and if true, what i heard on the ABC about 2 weeks ago about the reviewer has different cameras to look at, then i have no problem with the decision, as i also said before, if the goal umpire called a behind, i would have no problem with that either.

But it seems like it always the club that gets the wrong end of the stick that wants AFL house pulled down.

 

[Pottering]

I am not just talking about this decision mate, it happens nearly every review there is.

I saw both angles of the review WE were shown, and if true, what i heard on the ABC about 2 weeks ago about the reviewer has different cameras to look at, then i have no problem with the decision, as i also said before, if the goal umpire called a behind, i would have no problem with that either.

But it seems like it always the club that gets the wrong end of the stick that wants AFL house pulled down.

Are you shocked that Doggies supporters aren't clamouring for the ARC reviewers to know their job? If people don't make it known that a blatant error has occurred then they have no right to expect anything might change, even to their team's detriment salt some point.

Yes, I'm an Eagles supporter, but I'm also someone who thinks that rules are there for purpose. And if they're thee then use them, don't ignore them. How do you explain the vision that clearly shows a touch on the ball ahead of the back of the goal line? Should that be ignored in preference for grainy vision that only showed the post?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Are you shocked that Doggies supporters aren't clamouring for the ARC reviewers to know their job? If people don't make it known that a blatant error has occurred then they have no right to expect anything might change, even to their team's detriment salt some point.

Yes, I'm an Eagles supporter, but I'm also someone who thinks that rules are there for purpose. And if they're thee then use them, don't ignore them. How do you explain the vision that clearly shows a touch on the ball ahead of the back of the goal line? Should that be ignored in preference for grainy vision that only showed the post?

Have you actually read any of my replies.

Your replies to me make me believe even more you are just a whiny supporter who thinks they were wronged.

The reviewer has to be certain, ie: it has to be clear, for him to overturn a umpires call.

Can you tell me with 100% certainty, that the ball touched the hand before crossing the line?

And like i said before, if the umpire had called a behind, then the behind would also be the right call.


So, let me dumb it down for you, the reviewer did not say it was not touched, he said he cannot on what he saw overturn the umpires call.

 

[Pottering]

Have you actually read any of my replies.

Your replies to me make me believe even more you are just a whiny supporter who thinks they were wronged.

The reviewer has to be certain, ie: it has to be clear, for him to overturn a umpires call.

Can you tell me with 100% certainty, that the ball touched the hand before crossing the line?

And like i said before, if the umpire had called a behind, then the behind would also be the right call.


So, let me dumb it down for you, the reviewer did not say it was not touched, he said he cannot on what he saw overturn the umpires call.

I have read your replies and it seems you are the one whining that I don't simply accept your conclusion. If the reviewer is ignoring the relevant vision and going on vision that cannot be used for a judgement then that is an error by the reviewer.

On TV they showed three angles. The first showed the line, the ball, the hand and the post. On seeing that vision I immediately declared it was going to be a behind because the ball clearly hadn't crossed the goal line. The second piece of vision was a close up of the ball, the hand and the POST. What was that supposed to tell us when the LINE is the determining factor? This vision was then zoomed in on to a very grainy image where it was almost impossible to tell if they ball had past the POST or not. Again, what relevance was that? The call was then made that it was umpire's call. After the all clear another piece of ball, hand, post and line vision was shown which again clearly showed the ball had not crossed the LINE.

But why did they reviewer call for post only vision and why did he call for that vision to be zoomed in on? We both know why, he was trying to see if the ball had been touched before it past the back of the POST! Once he had that idea in his mind he was doomed.

I've never said that decision alone cost us the match, there are myriad decisions that can affect a match. Can an umpire/reviewer make an an error of judgement. They can and do. Should the reviewer know what reference pints he should concentrate in an instance like that? Absolutely! Did he seem to know what reference points to use? Absolutely not. No error of judgement, a lack of knowledge.

 

[Big Cox 88]

Clear touch again the VFL side is given the 50/50 soft call on field. The comp is rigged.

 

[flylikeaneagle]

How do you know what he used?

All i saw on the 2 shots was 2 different conclusions, both didn't show when contact was made.

You would hope the cameras are in sync, if not they are useless, if so, then they are not aligned, so that needs to change.

So by what we saw on tv, the reviewer made the right decision, umpires call, so the goal stands, if the goal umpire had called a behind, then that would also be the right call.

I saw 2 clear and obvious shots with the same conclusion - the ball needs to cross the goal line, NOT the post.

 

[flylikeaneagle]

It is an interesting argument. If you are going to go down the road of using technology, of course you use the best possible technology.

MInd you, it brings up some interesting anomalies. Technically, the goalposts are NOT in the field of play (if the ball even brushes the goalpost, it's a behind). This means, that in actuality, the goalline is made up of the back edge of the white line drawn between the posts, and the ouside surface of each goal post (the outside surface of each behind post is out of play). So the actual goalline looks like this:
View attachment 957108

And that's only at ground level. The posts narrow as they go up (not just padding, but they taper as well), If the ball goes over the post - it is deemed a behind. But define 'over the post'. Is it the width of the post at ground level (ie fat post plus padding) - or the width of the post at its top (narrow post, no padding)?

If we are talking about using technology, eventually we will be using that level of technology. And when we use it, we had better have our definitions worked out. (The easiest and most common sense solution would be to move the goalline to align with the front of the goalposts - the goalposts are not in play, so get them off the field).

We are still using the same means of defining and outlining a goalline that we were 160 years ago - and that worked fine for 150 years until we decided to use technology to 'help' out umpires. And in most other sport that use 'technology' - it really hasn't helped to be honest.

Posts will be holograms one day - no more injuries and no more Rampe incidents.

A laser in the centre of the hologram will detect posters, and another will detect the goal line.