Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

[Blackhawk42]

I have a friend who is an AFL goal umpire. Said he had 'no idea what that umpire was doing' calling it a goal.

Can we put this to bed already?

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

The goal review rules are fine. What is not fine is the reviewer not following the rules he is given.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

I have a friend who is an AFL goal umpire. Said he had 'no idea what that umpire was doing' calling it a goal.

Can we put this to bed already?

It doesn't matter. The rules are if it is called a goal by the umpire, then it can only be overturned if there is definative evidence.

 

[jerry springer]

Clearly a poster, not sure what all the fuss is about, great game of football to watch

 

[Zevon]

It doesn't matter. The rules are if it is called a goal by the umpire, then it can only be overturned if there is definative evidence.

You know I love your work AP, but given they had 3 separate angles that all showed the ball above the goal post, then mathematically that is definitive evidence. In fact they really only needed two different angles, both with ball directly above goal post, for this to be the case.

The decision was right (most agree on that much), but in my opinion the process used to arrive at that decision was correct too.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

You know I love your work AP, but given they had 3 separate angles that all showed the ball above the goal post, then mathematically that is definitive evidence. In fact they really only needed two different angles, both with ball directly above goal post, for this to be the case.

The decision was right (most agree on that much), but in my opinion the process used to arrive at that decision was correct too.

Well the definition of definative is something that is conclusive.
It may well have been a point , but the reviwer went beyond his remit .

 

[flamethrower]

The most conclusive thing to come from that decision is that the goal umpire needs some "re-education". He was poorly positioned to make an accurate call.

 

[Mantastic]

 

[Mantastic]

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

It doesn't matter. The rules are if it is called a goal by the umpire, then it can only be overturned if there is definative evidence.

I think people need to understand the term definitive before rolling it out in every sentence to try and justify their position.

 

[Jackington]

Well the definition of definative is something that is conclusive.
It may well have been a point , but the reviwer went beyond his remit .

As was shared in this earlier post:

* this is annoying. We witnessed a really good game last night and it's overshadowed by this crap.

credit to u/Hoodnight

The mathematical evidence IS conclusive. The only thing that would say it isn't is if you don't believe the cameras are synced correctly, which I'm sure someone would have figured out by the end of the fourth quarter and rectified anyway.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Pause the video at 10 seconds then slowly frame by frame it yourself to 13 seconds. It's definitive for mine.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

I think people need to understand the term definitive before rolling it out in every sentence to try and justify their position.

Definitive = conclusive. Conclusive means you can see a deviation off the post or you hear it on snicko, not by looking at a players reaction.

 

[Iago]

The man famous for not understanding what an intercept mark is, not knowing that the whole ball has to be over the whole of the goal/boundary line, and who gets players' names wrong on the regular.

In BT the nuffs trust.

He used the term "verse". As in Brisbane verse Richmond.
Also called a kick a foot touch.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Pause the video at 10 seconds then slowly frame by frame it yourself to 13 seconds. It's definitive for mine.

The Richmond supporters on the best angle cheer a goal . The point is that it is too close to call, so the devision reverts back to the umpires original decision.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

Definitive = conclusive. Conclusive means you can see a deviation off the post or you hear it on snicko, not by looking at a players reaction.

Says who? Just making stuff up now.

 

[hawkman]

Definite goal as it makes it funnier that Richmond lost because of it

 

[Rusty Brookes]

That's the best angle so far - a red ball would have been so much easier to track. The yellow ball gets lost in the lights and against the goal post but it looks to me as though that was a goal.

 

[kickazz]

It doesn't matter. The rules are if it is called a goal by the umpire, then it can only be overturned if there is definative evidence.

Which there was, see the diagram above. The ARC dude actually said you can see it clearly going over the post.

*Richo's two cents worth after the game is not a part of the official process, BTW.

 

[Blackhawk42]

The Richmond supporters on the best angle cheer a goal .

Supporters will cheer anything resembling a goal. I'm still perplexed at how often supporters don't absorb the full picture in front of their eyes and celebrate a goal that results in a 50 metre penalty. Usually everybody around the player with the ball has stopped, the opposition supporters have reacted to what should be their free kick, plus there is a whistle repeatedly being blown. ANYTHING close to a goal will be cheered.

Perhaps Tom Lynch should have gone the country footy approach. If it looks close just celebrate and there is a chance you'll con the umpire.

 

[Elixuh]

Well the definition of definative is something that is conclusive.
It may well have been a point , but the reviwer went beyond his remit .

Yeah but your definition of conclusive is tied to what BT thinks is conclusive and as other have said, he doesn't even understand what an intercept mark is.

There is a reason why the ARC was showing 3 angles of the shot...its because that's how you determine conclusively whether it was a behind or goal.

 

[Meds]

Definitive = conclusive. Conclusive means you can see a deviation off the post or you hear it on snicko, not by looking at a players reaction.

It's funny how you use a mathematical expression but then go on to completely ignore mathematics as definitive proof.

If you can observe the ball as being directly over the post from two different angles at the same time (calibrated to a common frame) then that is mathematical and definitive proof that the ball is adjudged to have hit the post.

 

[kickazz]

The more I look at this video the more I am convinced that had the post been a metre higher, that ball is smacking into it and coming back into the field of play. No way it's glancing on the way through for a point/goal - let along missing all together

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

It's funny how you use a mathematical expression but then go on to completely ignore mathematics as definitive proof.

If you can observe the ball as being directly over the post from two different angles at the same time (calibrated to a common frame) then that is mathematical and definitive proof that the ball is adjudged to have hit the post.

Ever heard of depth of field? How did the review dude know that from a tv replay?

 

[danster168]

Post. Only person at the ground who thought it was a goal was the horribly out of position goal umpire.

how was he out of position?