Use some common sense. Right decision but I would have given it a goal.
Eddie Betts Decision - Right or wrong?
- Thread starter it_is_the_light
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jun 23, 2008
- 33,485
- 27,225
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Norwood, Everton, Detroit Red Wings
Definitely falls into the "who gives a s**t?" category at this time of year IMO.
It doesn't solve the problem at all, you still have the perspective problem where you are viewing the line at an angle. The moment you get off that line you are doing little better than guessing.
End of the day, the goal umpire thought he was going to have a situation where a NM play would be making a dive to touch a potential dribbler kick because Betts was going to be making an attempt on goal while under pressure. Now as it turns out, Betts actually managed to get some potency for the kick and drilled the goal umpire. Bounced back into play, it's play on, sorry but you can't make a rule for that which gives you 100% certainty across all cases, therefore we stick with the rule that has been in existence since the advent of football.
It's one of those nightmare scenarios for goal umpires that everyone hopes never happens to them, but it can. If there had been a contest on the line for the ball, there is nowhere else you can be to adjudicate it properly.
Sorry, but that is wrong. The length of the shadow behind the line is obviously much longer than 44cm, to the same ratio that the length of the whole shadow is longer than the umpire's height. The fact that the shadow is being cast at an angle is accounted for by this ratio.
I would agree that nothing clear and decisive can be drawn from from the photo because of insufficient information, but you are wrong about being concerned over the angle (the effect of the angle is accounted for by using ratios). Perhaps if you had studied some aspects of engineering drawing and perspective for at least a year as I have you might follow this better.
I would contend that analysing the bulk of the evidence with a correct understanding of perspective and projections, on balance it looks as though the ball did fully cross the line.
Which is what I said in the very first place. Unlike you I have actually got some evidence to back up my view, and through my education at least some appreciation of how to properly evaluate that evidence.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,382
- 2,598
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
How does the ratio between shadow length and body height account for the difference between the direct distance between the umpire and the line and the actual line the shadow is on?
This whole thing doesn't seem to make sense. Let's assume we have a 2m tall goal umpire, standing directly in the middle of the goal and a metre back from the line, casting a 5m-long shadow directly forward (the sun is directly behind the goal umpire). By your logic, we simply take the 5:2 ratio, and say the umpire is behind the line by 40% of his body height, which is 80cm: an erroneous conclusion. Your principle is "The ratio of the umpire's height versus the whole length of the shadow is necessarily the same ratio as the distance the umpire is behind the line versus the length of the shadow behind the line." - but with the scenario I've presented, the length of the shadow can still vary (based on the position of the sun) yet the length behind the line remains the same (1m of the shadow is behind the line, whether the whole shadow is 1.1m or 5m or 20m or whatever), when for your axiom to be correct that can't be the case. There's something clearly amiss here.
I don't see how you have come to the conclusions you have correctly, given you don't seem too bothered by the fact the shadow is being measured from a part of the umpire that is clearly further back than the part of his body it actually hit, or by the problems I've raised above about your shadow-ratio claims and the idea that the ratio aspect somehow accounts for the difference between a straight line and an angle. You may be correct in saying you've got greater technical expertise than I do in this area, but that alone means nothing without sufficient substantiation, and I don't think you've successfully refuted the issues I've raised with your argument.
What? You are horribly confused. If the goal umpire is 2m tall and his shadow on the ground is 5m long because of the angle of the sun with respect to the ground, and only 1m of his shadow is behind the goal line, the distance of shadow (along the ground) from his feet to the goal line compared to the total length of shadow along the ground will be 5:1 or 20%. This will be the case no matter what direction the shadow runs in. You have got the two factors mixed ... you get the ratio of shadow length 1 to shadow length 2 and use it to infer height 1 to height 2, you don't cross-mix a height with a length along the ground. Boy are you ever confused.
If the direction of the sun is such that it casts a shadow at 45 degrees, so that the shadow is the same length along the ground as the umpire is high, and the 2m tall umpire is standing 1m behind the goal line, then 50% of the length of the shadow along the ground will be behind the line (in this case the shadow is perpendicular to the goal line). Later in the day if the direction/angle of the sun changes such that the shadow is now 10m along the ground (five times as long as before) and the umpire is standing in the same place, then only 10% of the length of the umpire's shadow along the ground will be behind the goal line.
Edit: Sorry that underlined bit was wrong, you have got me confused now. The percentage of the shadow behind the line will still be 50% ... but the angle will be very different. To get 50% of a 10m long shadow behind the line it would have to be running along the ground at a very oblique angle to the goal line.
Now that is embarrassing given that I too got confused and made a mistake. Oh dear. I offer you my sincere apologies.
Last edited:
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,382
- 2,598
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
"You don't cross-mix a height with a length along the ground" - isn't that what your own maxim says to do, though?
"The ratio of the umpire's height versus the whole length of the shadow is necessarily the same ratio as the distance the umpire is behind the line versus the length of the shadow behind the line." By that reasoning, the relationship between the umpire's height and the distance he is behind the line is equivalent to the relationship between the whole length of the shadow and the length of the shadow behind the line - a direct "cross-mixing" of ground distances and heights. Clearly, this is not correct, as you yourself say - see my response to the second part of your post...
Well, no actually, I think you had it right the first time - or, at least, it depends on in what way you change the angle of the sun. If we assume that, by some convenience, the sun is descending directly in line with the umpire, then his shadow will elongate without the angle it's on changing, surely? And if that's the case, and we assume that angle to (again, conveniently) be directly perpendicular to the goal line, then there would indeed be only 10% of the shadow behind the line.
To attempt to avoid further confusion - what exactly is it that we're trying to use this method to establish in this scenario? We want to establish how far back the umpire is from the line. So we take the height of the umpire, and compare it to the length of the shadow. We determine how much of the shadow's length is behind the line, then take that same percentage of the umpire's height and that there is our distance between umpire and line. That's what you're saying, right? That, because 25% of the shadow is behind the line (I'm not sure on that, either, the image isn't clear enough to tell), therefore the umpire is behind the line by 25% of his height?
Assuming I've got that right - and I've been careful to examine your posts to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly - I still don't think it makes sense. Take the elongating shadow point from above - the umpire does not move, so the distance he is behind the line does not change, but the proportion of shadow behind the line does (your edit to your post is one other circumstance, in which the proportion remains constant, but the fact that that's not always the case is enough to show the claim you're making can't be universally applied). We can, in theory, go from having 99% of the shadow being behind the line to 1% of it being behind the line without the distance changing - the distance doesn't shift from being 99% of the umpire's height to 1% of it, fairly self-evidently.
I also still think you're not adequately taking into consideration that the shadow is cast by the right foot, and that it's cast on a sharp angle. Straighten the shadow out so that's it's perpendicular to the line, rather than on the angle it is (because clearly the distance doesn't alter by virtue of the direction in which the shadow is cast, yet your theory would suggest it does, since it treats 25% behind when perpendicular to the line as equivalent to 25% behind when nearly parallel to the line in terms of determining distances), and I think it's fairly clearly less than 25%. That seems to me a fairly straightforward geometric principle, it's the same reason the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is longer than the other two sides...
If the umpire is 2m tall and standing 1m behind the goal line and the shadow is always perpendicular to the boundary line as the sun's angle changes (west is directly behind the umpire) then you would have the following situations as the time of day gets later:
(1) if the shadow cross the boundary line at 50% of the shadow, then the shadow will be 2m long altogether (sun is at 45 a degree angle).
(2) if the shadow cross the boundary line at 25% of the shadow, then the shadow will be 4m long altogether.
(3) if the shadow cross the boundary line at 10% of the shadow, then the shadow will be 10m long altogether.
(4) if the shadow cross the boundary line at 5% of the shadow, then the shadow will be 20m long altogether.
The ratios still work.
Now suppose the sun is in a position so that the shadow is at an angle to the boundary line, such that the shadows happen to be twice as long as they were in the case above where shadows are perpendicular to the boundary line.
(5) if the shadow cross the boundary line at 50% of the shadow, then the shadow will be 4m long altogether.
(6) if the shadow cross the boundary line at 25% of the shadow, then the shadow will be 8m long altogether.
(7) if the shadow cross the boundary line at 10% of the shadow, then the shadow will be 20m long altogether.
(8) if the shadow cross the boundary line at 5% of the shadow, then the shadow will be 40m long altogether.
The ratios still work.
In the situations where 25% of the shadow is behind the line it makes no difference if the shadow is perpendicular (#2 above, in which case the shadow will be 1m long behind the line and 4m long altogether) or at an angle (#6 above, in which case case the shadow will be 2m long behind the line and 8m long altogether).
In the photo which I showed, the shadow was at an angle to the line and 25% of the umpires shadow was behind the line, roughly equivalent to case #6 above.
- May 16, 2013
- 5,172
- 7,165
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
I am actually surprised that only 3/4 don't know the rules of the sport they watch, would've thought it'd be more.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,382
- 2,598
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
The percentages change, yet the distance doesn't. How do you reconcile that with your claim that "if 25% of the length of the shadow is behind the line (no matter how long the actual shadow is) this means that the umpire must be behind the line by 25% of his height"? Let me remind you again - in this scenario, the umpire does not move. By the logic you are applying in the linked statement there, you are committed to saying that the umpire is getting closer or further from the line dependent on the length of his shadow - surely I don't need to spell out again why that conclusion is so ridiculous?
Of course "the ratios still work" when you ignore what it is you're arguing in relation to them. Yes, if 25% is behind then the shadow is shorter than if 10% is behind, obviously, but that's not what's in dispute here. But you are saying we can determine distance from those percentages, when this hypothetical clearly spells out that distance doesn't change yet your percentages do.
It of course follows from the above points that your point about angled shadows is similarly flawed. Remember here that we are trying to measure distance: the distance the umpire is from the line still needs to be measured perpendicular to the line, even though the shadow is cast on an angle. As I said, it's like the hypotenuse of a triangle - the goal line and the perpendicular distance we're trying to ascertain are both shorter than the line of the shadow, that's basic triangle geometry. So if the entire 5m shadow is on an angle such that the end of the shadow is touching the boundary line, the distance between umpire and goal line is actually 3m, yet 100% of the shadow is behind the line - yet by your logic the umpire is only 2m back from the line (100% of his body height).
You will need to actually argue against these points, not simply restate the concept of a percentage proportion of a shadow again, if you are to substantiate what you're claiming. I've read over your posts again, and your argument still doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
- Banned
- #113
Common sense is not your strong point is it... Either that or you don't give a stuff about what's fair and just.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Who's said that so far?
didaksrightfoot
Premiership Player
- Sep 12, 2013
- 4,902
- 5,555
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- SA Spurs, Juventus
I am in the minority that think this was not a goal... and am a little bit worried about the implications of introducing a "common sense" rule.
And yes I acknowledge that this is incredibly unfair on Betts in this situation.
In many sports the umpire is just considered as part of the field/ground... Umpires do as best they can to make sure they are never in the way of the play, but if the ball hits them, its just an unfortunate occurrence and you play the bounce of the ball.
Trying to use a "common sense" model without any actual guidelines is just fraught with danger - you either have a rule or you don't. As soon as you say "use common sense", you well get instances where it is not clear and either side can argue because the umpire may just be going with "common sense" instead of the actual letter.
What if the ball bounces off an umpires foot on the goal line? Yes, in most instances it would've gone through if the umpire wasnt there... but how many times do we see a ball bounce at an angle back into play? It is not always predictable how a footy's going to bounce. Do you use "common sense" and say that 95% of the time it would go through, or do you acknowledge that if you can't 100% garauntee it would have been a goal - then you really can't call it a goal. What if a player is going for a smother, but instead hits the umpire who was standing on the line? What if the umpire is standing next to the post, and its not clear whether the ball would've gone through or hit the post. (although I have seen that happen, and think there is a precedent... can't remember the call, think it was called a point).
My point is that when you try and leave something to "common sense" you just leave so much grey area that is open to interpretation - and thus criticism. The rules are there for a reason - just stick with them. If you want to do something about this situation - try and find a way to ensure that the goal umpire never has to step into play. (maybe a 2nd goal umpire, maybe better goal line technology).
---
And a decision over a score is the most important decision the umpires make in a game. (given that this is the actual objective of the game, and the way we determine the winner of the contest). This is the one facet of the game that should be the least open to interpretation.
And yes I acknowledge that this is incredibly unfair on Betts in this situation.
In many sports the umpire is just considered as part of the field/ground... Umpires do as best they can to make sure they are never in the way of the play, but if the ball hits them, its just an unfortunate occurrence and you play the bounce of the ball.
Trying to use a "common sense" model without any actual guidelines is just fraught with danger - you either have a rule or you don't. As soon as you say "use common sense", you well get instances where it is not clear and either side can argue because the umpire may just be going with "common sense" instead of the actual letter.
What if the ball bounces off an umpires foot on the goal line? Yes, in most instances it would've gone through if the umpire wasnt there... but how many times do we see a ball bounce at an angle back into play? It is not always predictable how a footy's going to bounce. Do you use "common sense" and say that 95% of the time it would go through, or do you acknowledge that if you can't 100% garauntee it would have been a goal - then you really can't call it a goal. What if a player is going for a smother, but instead hits the umpire who was standing on the line? What if the umpire is standing next to the post, and its not clear whether the ball would've gone through or hit the post. (although I have seen that happen, and think there is a precedent... can't remember the call, think it was called a point).
My point is that when you try and leave something to "common sense" you just leave so much grey area that is open to interpretation - and thus criticism. The rules are there for a reason - just stick with them. If you want to do something about this situation - try and find a way to ensure that the goal umpire never has to step into play. (maybe a 2nd goal umpire, maybe better goal line technology).
---
And a decision over a score is the most important decision the umpires make in a game. (given that this is the actual objective of the game, and the way we determine the winner of the contest). This is the one facet of the game that should be the least open to interpretation.
Last edited:
- May 16, 2013
- 5,172
- 7,165
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Common sense is that the rules are the rules and must be followed as such. You can't just skip around the rules because it doesn't fit your definition of common sense. Can you imagine what a madhouse the game would be if the umpires just ignored the rules and did whatever they thought seemed like a good idea at the time? It would turn the game into an absolute farce. We have rules for a reason. If you don't think we should have them, you're the one who won't "give a stuff about what's fair and just."
Yes, the AFL probably SHOULD change the rule so that in the future an incident like this will be regarded as a goal. But the umpires should NEVER ignore the rules that are in force mid game just because it doesn't make sense to them at that exact moment.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I did read. The tweet you posted didn't have anything to do with umpires making decisions on the field about what rules to ignore based on common sense. It's about a rule change by the league.
I just can't understand the mentality of anybody who thinks it was right for that goal to be disallowed. Even the bloody AFL themselves have admitted there needs to be a rule change. This thread should be locked already.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,382
- 2,598
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
You are aware of the difference between "needs to be a rule change" and "decision was incorrect", yes? What "should have happened" here is what did happen - namely that no goal was scored, and play continued - because the umpires have to enforce the laws of the game, and that is unequivocally what the law states should happen. What "should happen" from here on is that we should consider whether the rule can be amended to avoid undesirable situations like this in the future without that change having a detrimental effect on other aspects of the game, and in the meantime keep the goal umpires off the field as much as possible. Failing to distinguish between a bad decision (which this isn't, since it accords with the rules) and a bad situation (which this is, since clearly it ought to have been a goal but for the fact it hit the umpire) seems to be the problem here.
billy fragos
Premiership Player
- Jun 2, 2014
- 3,922
- 2,823
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Technically it was no goal, the rule states its play on if the ball makes contact with the umpire. As an adelaide fan I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't happen again EVER.
totally gonna get a job as a goal umpire and officiate as many Port games as possible and become a psuedo goal keeper by jumping in the way of all their shots on goal
play on!
play on!
Having thought about it and gone through it more thoroughly, I do agree that the original premise was incorrect.
Yes. On an angle though, for some positions of the sun, the effect of the lengthening of the shadow (due to the angle and the sun being lower in the sky) roughly cancels out the effect of the angular versus the perpendicular measurement.
It is this effect that first threw me what seemed to be in proportion was merely an illusion due to two opposing effects more-or-less cancelling each other out over a range of possible positions of the sun in the sky. Somewhat paradoxically, it is this effect which still makes it a reasonable estimate that the umpire was standing far enough behind the line for the ball to have crossed the line.
- May 16, 2013
- 5,172
- 7,165
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
The rules are the rules and if we say they don't need to be followed in this case, then we're saying they don't need to be followed any other time? I don't understand the mentality of anyone who can't understand that mentality. It was RIGHT for that goal to be disallowed, because that is what the rules are. It is RIGHT that there should be a rule change, but because the results of that rule have proven farcical. These two things are NOT mutually exclusive.
