The umpiring error that cost us our season

[jc12]

Petty, childish, unprofessional campaigners.

How they can be employed at an organisation that exists to serve the clubs and yet act like this towards a club is a disgrace.




Surely their broadcast partners that pay billions for the tv rights would be demanding this vision too.

The sad thing is they are the employers themselves

 

[jc12]

Stop gaslighting, I simply asked for your perspective on this logic, that was clearly outlined with a screenshot:

1. The first time the ball goes in line with the post, it is clearly in front of the post
2. The ball remains in line with the post until the ball is coming down from the top of its arc
3. The ball crosses the goal line before the kick reaches the top of its arc
4. Therefore, it is impossible that the ball did not go over the post.

This is irrelevant to ARC or 'secret evidence', simply assessing whether it was a goal or a behind. By the above logic, that twitter video is conclusive evidence that it was a point, and nothing so far in this thread disproves the above logic.

To reiterate, I understand this twitter video was not available to ARC, and the question as to whether they had conclusive evidence at the time is different. It's also worth noting that you literally quoted me saying that it's hard to argue they had conclusive evidence.

Get it through your head mate. The fact we are having this argument already means the footage was NOT 100% conclusive that's the point.

To your eyes you might see it's a point but to many others they don't think it's 100% clear.

Again that is the point.

Thus process should of been followed and umps call should of remained. I don't get why that's so hard to understand ffs

It's ****ing obvious they ****ed up

 

[Dunger]

The sooner the AFL show their conclusive vision, the sooner this will be put to bed and we can move on.

 

[T4P]

Get it through your head mate. The fact we are having this argument already means the footage was NOT 100% conclusive that's the point.

To your eyes you might see it's a point but to many others they don't think it's 100% clear.

Again that is the point.

Thus process should of been followed and umps call should of remained. I don't get why that's so hard to understand ffs

It's ******* obvious they *ed up

I don't disagree with you.

I'm simply explaining why the Twitter footage is conclusive that it was a point.

As I said, that's a different argument to the ARC's potential process error.

 

[Livonski]

You say there’s a limit to how close you can look at this footage yet you are adamant it was a point. We have shown you images of the ball obscured by the post. You have not shown one image of the post obscured by the ball. Look at the two images you attatched that don’t show the post obscured by the ball and consider the angle the footage was taken from and the nature of the kick as has been explained many times.

The view from Cheryl’s vision shows the ball cannot possibly be behind the post before it went thru. Or before it reached its peak.

 

[Livonski]

Another angle, * we were shafted

This angle clearly shows the ball didn’t go behind the post before it crossed the line.
Cheryl is on the wing, perpendicular to the ball flight. Doesn’t prove it’s not a goal but when matched with Felgates tweet it shows it clearly went over the post.

 

[Long Shot Louie]

The view from Cheryl’s vision shows the ball cannot possibly be behind the post before it went thru. Or before it reached its peak.

Incorrect. The only thing that Cheryls video establishes is that the crowd behind Lynch thought it was a goal. The fact the Felgate video shows the ball is obscured from view means it had crossed the GOAL LINE before before reaching post height. It doesn’t mean it came within a bees dick of literally grazing the back of the post. If anything Cheryls video shows that the ball went through comfortably when you consider what we know from the Felgate video.

Lunch did a similar snap I believe against the Hawks. Was at the game with mates and it just confused the * out of us all but was in fact a goal as was this. He absolutely slams these close range snaps and they don’t start curling until they’re past the goals. In this Cheryl video the ball was well past the goals and curling away from the camera when it appears at face value to be post height. Gotta remember he’s a lot closer than what this video makes it look, he was 5 metres out. Think of the distance it had to travel and how long it takes a full power kick to reach its apex. The footage from behind Lunch is 1000x more conclusive but even this footage if your at a game and you see this you instinctively know it’s a goal as the crowd indeed did.

Absolutely correct. I estimated, from the other fan video, that the ball was travelling at 22.86 metres per second and, in Cheryl's video, the ball takes 1.07 seconds to reach goal post height. This means that the ball travels in the vicinity of 24 metres before it reaches goal post height. Given that the top of the left-hand goal post (the mythical hovering point) is less than 20 metres from where Lynch kicks the ball, the time that elapses must mean that the ball is behind the goal line by the time it's at post height.

Look at the crowd footage from behind Lynch. The post obscures the ball from their view when it is about here. Meaning it’s behind the goal line.View attachment 1499915
Cheryl was not directly behind the goals and he was not kicking it parallel to the goals. He was kicking it through the goals and curling it away further once already through. You can not judge from cheryls angle how high the ball was when it went through unless you have calculated the time-distance in relation to the footage from behind Lynch as has been done here.

When I time stamped Cheryl's video, I got the following:

1. From leaving Lynch's boot to passing the right-hand behind post: 0.37 seconds (estimated distance: 11.31 metres) (30.57 metres per second)
2. From right-hand behind post to right-hand goal post: 0.37 seconds (E/D: 8.43 metres) (22.78 mps)
3. From goal post to goal post: 0.38 seconds (E/D: 6.71 metres) (17.66 mps)
4. From left-hand goal post to left-hand behind post: 0.43 seconds (E/D: 6.48 metres) (15.07 mps)

The trouble is the estimated distance that the ball travels. From the video, I can only see the horizontal and vertical movement of the ball. I can't see the extent to which the ball is moving away from the camera. But because the speed figures don't look right for sections 2, 3, or 4, the only conclusion that makes sense to me is that the ball is moving away from the camera and travels faster and further than it appears. The extra distance can only be towards the goal and this would explain why several members of the crowd behind the goals, who have a near perfect vantage point, appear to celebrate a goal about one second after the ball leaves Lynch's boot. At this point, the ball is midway between the goal posts (from Cheryl's vantage point).

 

[Long Shot Louie]

You don't think either of those screenshots show that the ball is in line with and in front of the post?

No. And neither does anyone with functioning eye sight. What the hell is wrong with you man. I sincerely wish you well as a fellow Tigers supporter but you are becoming tiresome and I’m not going to respond to you any further.

 

[Defibrillate]

I don’t think anyone should come on here and tell people to “get over it”. Following the Tiges is a pretty personal thing which means more to some and less to others. I get the frustration - but I’m glad we have a respectful place to vent and people to express an opinion. Funnily and oddly and without trying to sound too heavy - it’s a grief process. And if you are worried about people not getting over it - don’t come to this forum! Walk away and move on - but don’t insult people who feel aggrieved.

Personally I’m over it and moved on - but I’m here for the laughs. Groupie and Smasha in good form, and through all this bull shit, to have a laugh is the best medicine!

Now I’m done making inconclusive comments.

 

[T4P]

No. And neither does anyone with functioning eye sight. What the hell is wrong with you man. I sincerely wish you well as a fellow Tigers supporter but you are becoming tiresome and I’m not going to respond to you any further.

I won't claim to be responsible for everyone else's opinion, but you're clearly too set in your opinions to consider the facts objectively. All the best.

 

[Livonski]

Incorrect. The only thing that Cheryls video establishes is that the crowd behind Lynch thought it was a goal. The fact the Felgate video shows the ball is obscured from view means it had crossed the GOAL LINE before before reaching post height. It doesn’t mean it came within a bees dick of literally grazing the back of the post. If anything Cheryls video shows that the ball went through comfortably when you consider what we know from the Felgate video.

The only crowd you see in Cheryls video is the bloke directly in front of her...who hopes its a goal then puts his hands on his head. You can't see crowd behind Lynch...too far away. I think you're confusing it with Felgate video which is right behind Lynch and they all go up.
Cheryls video directly above shows the ball going from right to left and is never behind the post from the umpires perspective.
Felgates video cant show the ball behind the stick because from CHeryls video it's still on the way up and over the height of the post.

 

[T4P]

Incorrect. The only thing that Cheryls video establishes is that the crowd behind Lynch thought it was a goal. The fact the Felgate video shows the ball is obscured from view means it had crossed the GOAL LINE before before reaching post height. It doesn’t mean it came within a bees dick of literally grazing the back of the post. If anything Cheryls video shows that the ball went through comfortably when you consider what we know from the Felgate video.

The Felgate video doesn't show the post obscuring the ball. The low res means that when the ball and the post are aligned you can't differentiate them - this means the ball could equally be in front of the post at this point. When you look at the next frame that you are able to differentiate the ball from the post, the ball is still in front of the post.

 

[Gunit]

Can we get a comment from the goal umpire. Who is he, someone needs to kidnap him.

 

[T4P]

I don’t think anyone should come on here and tell people to “get over it”. Following the Tiges is a pretty personal thing which means more to some and less to others. I get the frustration - but I’m glad we have a respectful place to vent and people to express an opinion. Funnily and oddly and without trying to sound too heavy - it’s a grief process. And if you are worried about people not getting over it - don’t come to this forum! Walk away and move on - but don’t insult people who feel aggrieved.

Personally I’m over it and moved on - but I’m here for the laughs. Groupie and Smasha in good form, and through all this bull s**t, to have a laugh is the best medicine!

Now I’m done making inconclusive comments.

Well said, although the 'respectful' element is sometimes questionable

 

[BearMe]

I have repeatedly looked at couple different angles and vision now available, I could not believe how quick they made a decision to overturn umpires call. There is no way footage is conclusive so how was it turned over.

AFL are only damaging there own brand allowing this to continue, I certainly would look at legal options particularly as AFL seam to have closed there eyes in this matter.

 

[Punt rd end]

I have repeatedly looked at couple different angles and vision now available, I could not believe how quick they made a decision to overturn umpires call. There is no way footage is conclusive so how was it turned over.

AFL are only damaging there own brand allowing this to continue, I certainly would look at legal options particularly as AFL seam to have closed there eyes in this matter.

Just show us the footage that shows the ball at the line which they said at the time, what are they waiting for

 

[biaseddustyfan]

afl's secret footage

taking them a long time to release it coz they're having one of the intern's CGI some footage

 

[richard parker]

Thank you for your insult-free genuine response, I look forward to discussing our relative disagreements.

The reason I believe the crowd/twitter video is conclusive is by tracking when the ball starts moving in line with the post to when the ball moves out of line with the post.

The ball is a goal if it either goes through before it's in line with the post, or goes through after it's in line with the post.

The latter is easier to rule out - the ball only moves out of line with the post after the top of the kick's arc, when it is higher than the post, by which time the ball has gone well past the goals (as you said, he smashed it).

Therefore, we must look to when the ball first becomes in line with the post to determine whether it is in front, or behind, the post. The attached screenshots (one from OP, one from me) show the ball in line with the post, in front of the post. Critically, this is whilst the ball is still moving right-to-left relative to the post.

It's therefore impossible for the ball to not be going over the post, in line with the post, as the ball doesn't start curving back left-to-right (relative to the post) until the ball is at the top of its arc, which we've established is way past the goalline.

The time between the ball going in line with the post and out of line with the post is low-res, and appears like the ball disappears behind the post, but I believe that's simply a function of poor resolution - there's a limit to how closely you can look at this footage!

After further consideration of your posts and attached images, as well as realising there is other footage showing the ball does go just above the goal post as it passes the line, I am changing my opinion substantially. I now think it was most likely a point. I still think it is not absolutely conclusive and shouldn't have been overturned though. I also cannot stand the lack of transparency within the AFL in general and this incident adds fuel to the fire in this regard.

 

[Area51]

Th

Thank you for your insult-free genuine response, I look forward to discussing our relative disagreements.

The reason I believe the crowd/twitter video is conclusive is by tracking when the ball starts moving in line with the post to when the ball moves out of line with the post.

The ball is a goal if it either goes through before it's in line with the post, or goes through after it's in line with the post.

The latter is easier to rule out - the ball only moves out of line with the post after the top of the kick's arc, when it is higher than the post, by which time the ball has gone well past the goals (as you said, he smashed it).

Therefore, we must look to when the ball first becomes in line with the post to determine whether it is in front, or behind, the post. The attached screenshots (one from OP, one from me) show the ball in line with the post, in front of the post. Critically, this is whilst the ball is still moving right-to-left relative to the post.

It's therefore impossible for the ball to not be going over the post, in line with the post, as the ball doesn't start curving back left-to-right (relative to the post) until the ball is at the top of its arc, which we've established is way past the goalline.

The time between the ball going in line with the post and out of line with the post is low-res, and appears like the ball disappears behind the post, but I believe that's simply a function of poor resolution - there's a limit to how closely you can look at this footage!

The crowd twitter post is irrelevant. It wasn't available to be used in making the decision by ARC. We can say that with certainty.

The decision to overrule was incorrect as the footage available to ARC was inconclusive. If they have other footage where is it?

We saw the AFL **** up the process with Cripps - they didn't provide him with procedural fairness and so could not suspend him. The situation is similar here - the only way we are likely to get a decision in our favour is to take this through a legal process. The club should do this immediately rather than wait for Brad Scott to step us through it "at some stage" - when the **** is that going to be? I don't care if it threatens to derail the whole finals season - its not like we are not already in their bad books and the integrity of the finals is compromised without it.

 

[Long Shot Louie]

The only crowd you see in Cheryls video is the bloke directly in front of her...who hopes its a goal then puts his hands on his head. You can't see crowd behind Lynch...too far away. I think you're confusing it with Felgate video which is right behind Lynch and they all go up.
Cheryls video directly above shows the ball going from right to left and is never behind the post from the umpires perspective.
Felgates video cant show the ball behind the stick because from CHeryls video it's still on the way up and over the height of the post.

Read post#510 for the explanation to Cheryls angle.
Cheryl was in the worst position on the planet to ascertain how high the ball was when it crossed the goal line and all her footage shows is that the fans behind Lynch we’re celebrating a goal.

 

[DickieKnee]

The sooner the AFL show their conclusive vision, the sooner this will be put to bed and we can move on.

The fact they have not shown it and put it to bed suggests it's not conclusive.

 

[T4P]

After further consideration of your posts and attached images, as well as realising there is other footage showing the ball does go just above the goal post as it passes the line, I am changing my opinion substantially. I now think it was most likely a point. I still think it is not absolutely conclusive and shouldn't have been overturned though. I also cannot stand the lack of transparency within the AFL in general and this incident adds fuel to the fire in this regard.

Thoroughly agree.

 

[T4P]

Th

The crowd twitter post is irrelevant. It wasn't available to be used in making the decision by ARC. We can say that with certainty.

The decision to overrule was incorrect as the footage available to ARC was inconclusive. If they have other footage where is it?

We saw the AFL * up the process with Cripps - they didn't provide him with procedural fairness and so could not suspend him. The situation is similar here - the only way we are likely to get a decision in our favour is to take this through a legal process. The club should do this immediately rather than wait for Brad Scott to step us through it "at some stage" - when the * is that going to be? I don't care if it threatens to derail the whole finals season - its not like we are not already in their bad books and the integrity of the finals is compromised without it.

Lol AFL and procedural fairness are a long way from going together. On the ground, the rules the umpires have to adjudicate make it impossible to achieve. Off the ground, the organisation does all it can to obfuscate good process.

Getting angry about this ARC decision won't achieve much. We need to channel that anger into the broader poor process management. Primarily, making the game simpler to umpire so that there are less opportunities for ****ed up controversies like this

 

[T4P]

Read post#510 for the explanation to Cheryls angle.
Cheryl was in the worst position on the planet to ascertain how high the ball was when it crossed the goal line and all her footage shows is that the fans behind Lynch we’re celebrating a goal.

Cheryl's footage isn't helpful for when it crosses the goal line, it's helpful for showing that the ball doesn't go behind the post until it's above the height of the post. Combine that with the other footage and you have a hit invisible post

 

[Tony Stark]

Expect to be absolutely shafted by the umpires next season if we continue to push this, have witnessed the umpiring backlash following Balme's outburst.

Unfortunately the AFL can't continue to be Teflon coated, blind Freddy can see that they cocked this up. We all make mistakes, why can't they just come out and say so rather than trying to justify things based on little tidbits of information without substantiating anything.