Blaz
Cancelled
Here is the video, you decide if he ran out of bounds.
-
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
Don't just watch the vision from the front. Also watch the vision from a similar reverse angle.
You'll get a more balanced view of how camera angles skew perception.
Ump in perfect position too.
Lulz. I'm in rush out to dinner. Voted yes, as in "it's in play".
Should be a no!
You'll get a more balanced view of how camera angles skew perception.
Ump in perfect position too.
Lulz. I'm in rush out to dinner. Voted yes, as in "it's in play".
Should be a no!
Would've been a worthy nomination for goal of the year had the ball been kept in play. Sorry, but that was clearly outside the boundary line.
Heisenberg_
17🏆19🏆20🏆
Post would have more credibility if it was frame by frameDon't just watch the vision from the front. Also watch the vision from a similar reverse angle.
You'll get a more balanced view of how camera angles skew perception.
Ump in perfect position too.
Lulz. I'm in rush out to dinner. Voted yes, as in "it's in play".
Should be a no!
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 down the line and wouldn't have been fooled by the camera angle like so many less inquiring viewers have been.
Yet assessing the footage scientifically from all available angles shows such definitive comments aren't much value.
Schulzenfest
TheBrownDog
Yarran 100% definitely ran out of bounds, the question is whether he carried the ball out of bounds. If he did it was only for a split second.
Seems odd that his inside foot is clearly outside the boundary line in that screenshot and yet according to the grid the ball that he's holding in his outside hand is inside. The only way I can think to explain that is that he was holding the ball a fair way out in front of his body at the time and that doesn't show up from a front-on view.
Seems odd that his inside foot is clearly outside the boundary line in that screenshot and yet according to the grid the ball that he's holding in his outside hand is inside. The only way I can think to explain that is that he was holding the ball a fair way out in front of his body at the time and that doesn't show up from a front-on view.
- Sep 5, 2007
- 16,277
- 13,189
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Nashville predators
It was a class goal so happy for it to be paid. Like the Jetta goal, you just enjoy it for what it was. Both possibly shouldn;t have been goals, but who cares. They were class, great to watch, just enjy it I say.
It's like the Ablett mark a few years ago. Probably not a mark, but still great to watch
It's like the Ablett mark a few years ago. Probably not a mark, but still great to watch
- Banned
- #10
That rationale is fine, but what if that was the winning goal in a grand final?
- Sep 5, 2007
- 16,277
- 13,189
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Nashville predators
True. Can't argue. I guess I just enjoy good footy like that. You're right though, if it cost a grand final it would be wrong.
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.
- Banned
- #13
For the record, I don't think the ball went out. I haven't even seen the 'grids' you are referring to, but I know that obviously the camera angle they show on the TV is distorted because your eyes see the curved line in the background and assume that the ball must have been over. I was really commenting on someone saying along the lines of "Both possibly shouldn't have been goals, but who cares. They were class, great to watch"
I'm fine with the Yarran goal, but the rules are there in case something similar happens where the ball actually does go over
Ahh fair enough then. To be honest, I wouldn't care if a decision like that was line ball, even if it cost my team a flag. If was clear as dogs balls though, then yes, I'd be ropeable or understanding of those who were.
I'd love to have seen what kind of meltdown would have taken place had BF been around in 79'
FWIW the grids are laid over the image about 4 posts above yours.
LOL
Grid technique worked great for the AFL in the Stevie J goal incident early this year, didn't it.
Grid technique worked great for the AFL in the Stevie J goal incident early this year, didn't it.
I don't know what you're talking about. I'd have to see your example before I can comment.
One thing for sure, trying to account for the distorted view is absolutely required if you want to assess the play. You'd have to be a genuine nitwit to think relying on your naked eye from that angle is gonna give you any clue.
- Aug 24, 2007
- 5,588
- 1,089
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, LA Clippers, Baltimore
I thought it was out and the time, however if I go back and check the footage and check the scores then it says it was a goal... so it was a goal.
I didn't say that, I just said that the 'grid technique' is a fail-and-a-half unless you have a completely undistorted picture. (your's wasn't)
Like I said. Give me the example and allow me to critique it for myself.
http://www.afl.com.au/it's your call/tabid/17455/default.aspx#playvideo
starts about 1.20, the 'grid/line technique' was used on a distorted picture to find a measurement of 5.4m. It was later found (and admitted/corrected - but I can't find that article without spending 30min searching) that the real distance was about 4m.
Eh? That wasn't a grid at all. It was someone drawing diagonal two lines, one of which didn't even appear to line up with the centre of the goalposts (actually it appears to be guided more by the assumption that the umps setting of the angle was dead accurate), which is the reference they use for establishing the measurement.
This doesn't say anything like you suggested.
Then I've searched for the article that corrects it, which doesn't see to exist online, mostly not because I don't believe you, but because I'd be interested in what method was used to clarify the real distance. For all I know it was actually a genuinely superimposed grid that sorted it out.
looks in
Similar threads
