Mods can edit the title now to remove the word "contender" 
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Was Chris Yarran's goal of the year contender even a goal?
- Thread starter Blaz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Anyone who says that was out need their eyes checked.
- Oct 16, 2008
- 10,658
- 6,375
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Clearly out.
- May 10, 2004
- 24,853
- 5,691
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Pistons/Hammers/Sri Lanka/The Exers
Ball definitely was not all the way over the line. Clear goal for mine.Clearly out.
Yeah ... sorry dude; krisholio14 is right.
Plenty of ways to verify this. Not sure why some people still don't get it. Oh well!
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
Using a 2 dimensional grid to assess a 3 dimensional image with a curve is stupid.
Also just occurred to me he takes 15 steps without a bounce. Very close.
Also just occurred to me he takes 15 steps without a bounce. Very close.
Rear angle looks clearly in, front angle looks clearly out; because both camera angles skew the ball's position relative to the boundary line and create an optical illusion due to shooting across the line from a distance, rather than along the line. This distortion though can be sorted out by overlaying a grid on the image and lining the ball up with Yarran's foot.
Here we can see the ball, while partially over the line, has not crossed the line completely, which it is required to do to be called OOB. The ump of course, was in perfect position looking down the line and wouldn't have been fooled by the camera angle like so many less inquiring viewers have been.
killer.
/thread
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #33
Honestly such nitpicking. Umpire had a good view, made a good call on a close decision. Forget the grids, angles and all the paraphernalia. This game on the whole has been umpired by interpretation for over 100yrs. Umpires make close calls on rapidly occuring action all the time. This is a good call for mine. I for one wouldn't care if some boffin used a slide rule or whatever to show the ball may have been out. It was deemed in and that is how it stays. Fantastic play and goal. Enjoy that rather than examining things that don't matter
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #34
I'm not so good at this media stuff, but feel free to freeze frame this footage before and after and you'll see the still I've provided is at the same point as the still below from the front angle ...
Rear angle looks clearly in, front angle looks clearly out; because both camera angles skew the ball's position relative to the boundary line and create an optical illusion due to shooting across the line from a distance, rather than along the line. This distortion though can be sorted out by overlaying a grid on the image and lining the ball up with Yarran's foot.
Here we can see the ball, while partially over the line, has not crossed the line completely, which it is required to do to be called OOB. The ump of course, was in perfect position looking downthe line and wouldn't have been fooled by the camera angle like so many less inquiring viewers have been.
And what if it was denied despite it being in? As the grid overlay shows, the ball was in according the the rules of the game. No point looking at a camera angle shooting across the line from distance and saying that's an accurate picture of the ball relative to the boundary line; particularly when the reverse angle shows the exact opposite.
I'm astounded so many posters aren't able to assess the decision despite the grid being laid out before their very eyes. It's like the Invisible Gorilla, some people just can't come to terms with the fact their senses deceive them.
MK you shouldnt be astounded as your grid only provides an approximation not proof. As I said above I think this whole argument is guff, the umpire called it in and no one can absolutely prove otherwise either way. That's how umpiring works and the goal is a beauty, legal, legit and stunning.
The trouble with simply overying a grid on this photo is you don't know that the horizonatal axis of the photo is parallel with the axis of the playing surface. The ground is cambered and we dont know exactly the cameras horizontal axis to that. It's fair to assume there wont be much discrepancy but it's not certain. If it is a little out so will be the vertical axis of ball to boundary line.
A similar example would be the finishing line camera at Flemington. Move it slightly off the line of the finish line and it will deceive the appearance of first past the post.
It doesn't matter as the ball is adjudged in and that's the end of the story. The camera can't provide absolute proof one way or the other.
Geez, it's a closer approximation than the naked eye. Using the vertical axis gives you a far better approximation of where the ball was from this angle relative to Yarran's feet than does the naked eye - which is what many have preferred to do. This along with the rear angle of similar distortion to the front angle showing the ball "clearly in" to the naked eye, certainly does leave me astounded as to how anyone can claim the ball was "clearly out" as so many in this thread have tried to do. Sorry, but your post hasn't lessened my astonishment.
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #36
Don't disagree that it isn't a good approximation but its not absolute. Real point is why everyone is bothering with something that can't be established with certainty. The umpire had a good view and made a good call end of story. That's how our game works and it's the best way.
Ball and player are so far over the line it's not funny. Good grief.Clearly out.
Desmodromico
Team Captain
If you are a Richmond supporter, it was OUT. For Bluebaggers, it was IN
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #41
ok.
lol, what happened to "forget the grids"?
As I reiterated in the post this argument is guff. Ball was in on umpires call , sensational goal.
Just pointing out that futher to that idea it gets sillier when you try and make it "scientific" but use a flawed measure.
I reckon it's not worth Cartlon supporters getting involved in the nitpicking. All you need to say was it was in and a goal, end of story.
the technique is sound but no one's pretending it's mm perfect. it does, hwever, illustrate "perspective" to those who see the ball on the right hand side of the line and simplistically judge the ball to be out (it's scary, but yes, there are such ppl on bigfooty).
Gone Critical
Moderator
- Moderator
- #43
the technique is sound but no one's pretending it's mm perfect. it does, hwever, illustrate "perspective" to those who see the ball on the right hand side of the line and simplistically judge the ball to be out (it's scary, but yes, there are such ppl on bigfooty).
It's not sound because without knowing the horizontal axis we can't know if the vertical axis is correct. It doesn't make much sense to bring in measurement to work out if the ball is over the line or not when the measure is an estimate. This technique could also call the ball in when it was out. Its akin to placing the photo finish camera roughly not precisely on the finish line and then saying that should be better than the naked eye of the judge.
The grid has the same flaw as the photo's, the umpires eye and the video.
The umpire called it in, it's in. That's how our game operates. Just accept it.
we have accepted it. and we accept the geometry. relax, it might be collingwood's turn next year.
take your own advice and "Forget the grids, angles and all the paraphernalia".
Similar threads
