Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

[Orange Agent]

Looked more point than goal. I'm more bugged that supporters would rather win on a technicality than accept that the correct decision was reached.

 

[Meds]

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

I have. If the review dude only had one tv replay then your point would be valid.

But he had two. And with two you can accurately say that the ball was directly above the post and was therefore conclusively a behind.

 

[Elixuh]

I have. If the review dude only had one tv replay then your point would be valid.

But he had two. And with two you can accurately say that the ball was directly above the post and was therefore conclusively a behind.

How big were his TVs though? Could distort the position of the ball, eg if it is a curved tv the ball could look on top but its just an optical illusion.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

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

Depth of field caused by you having two eyes offset from eachother so that you view things from two slightly different angles... Almost like having two cameras viewing things from slightly different angles?

How does this help your dumbass argument again?

 

[Grrr]

Lynch increased the angle because he was doing a banana.
The ump never called play on because Lynch kicked over his mark.
Why then was Harris Andrews

31

Harris Andrews

Age

28

Ht

200cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.8

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.6

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

151.7

2star

D

17.0

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.0

3star

D

9.8

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

4.8

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

1.6

4star

MG

94.0

2star

allowed to move over the mark before Lynch kicked it by a good metre or two.
50m every day, no ifs or buts.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

Lynch increased the angle because he was doing a banana.
The ump never called play on because Lynch kicked over his mark.
Why then was Harris Andrews allowed to move over the mark before Lynch kicked it by a good metre or two.
50m every day, no ifs or buts.

Good so we finally move on from the point, to it now being 50. Should also check the angle he probably marked it in the goal square.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Lynch increased the angle because he was doing a banana.
The ump never called play on because Lynch kicked over his mark.
Why then was Harris Andrews allowed to move over the mark before Lynch kicked it by a good metre or two.
50m every day, no ifs or buts.

Hah you made me go watch it, if you want to get super technical - the umpires arms went up with a play on signal and Andrews moved while play on call was being said. That's not a 50.

 

[I Remember Bluey]

BREAKING NEWS: New vision has emerged.

 

[Coach_Required]

Have been arguing all day about this clip and have to be honest that is the best close up vision I have seen and happy to admit I'm completely wrong.

That was a point.

**** Footy. LOL

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Have been arguing all day about this clip and have to be honest that is the best close up vision I have seen and happy to admit I'm completely wrong.

That was a point.

* Footy. LOL

the person in the best position of anyone called a goal, may have been right or wrong as is the case in any human decision, but that was his call, zero chance of any camera overruling it definitively, especially not that one, no depth information whatsoever directly behind the kick.

 

[BG32]

Point! Richmond LOSE

 

[Coach_Required]

the person in the best position of anyone called a goal, may have been right or wrong as is the case in any human decision, but that was his call, zero chance of any camera overruling it definitively, especially not that one, no depth information whatsoever directly behind the kick.

Maybe but when you take into account both ARC still shots and this close up clip its hard to disagree that the right decision has been made unfortunately.

The disappointing thing is it came down to having a decision like this overshadowing a great game.

 

[AstonSouffle]

the person in the best position of anyone called a goal, may have been right or wrong as is the case in any human decision, but that was his call, zero chance of any camera overruling it definitively, especially not that one, no depth information whatsoever directly behind the kick.

Going to throw something out here - but you'd rather Richmond have won on a technicality even though they came to the correct decision?

 

[JyeDye]

Maybe but when you take into account both ARC still shots and this close up clip its hard to disagree that the right decision has been made unfortunately.

The disappointing thing is it came down to having a decision like this overshadowing a great game.

Yeah it sucks. It was such a good game and yet this is all anyone's talking about. The worst thing is that it was the right decision.

 

[Tomnat Tigers]

Hah you made me go watch it, if you want to get super technical - the umpires arms went up with a play on signal and Andrews moved while play on call was being said. That's not a 50.

If you want to get really technical, at 7 seconds Lynch takes three steps forward slightly to the right of his mark, at 10 seconds he take his first step forward which now put him back on his original line, at the same time Andrews starts charging towards him. It only once he kicks the ball he is definitely off his line.

 

[The Passenger]

Point. Posters are going to take a long time to come up with a diagram that shows the ball inside the goals yet two angles 90 degrees from each other showing the ball over the goalposts.

That being said, I'm surprised there isn't another angle on the goal line with cameras dedicated to the top of the behind and goal posts and showing the moment the ball crosses the line. Much like the camera they have for touched ball but from much further back.

Also, Damien Hardwick is wrong when he says if the technology isn't good enough we shouldn't have it. No technology is perfect and on the off chance it was actually a goal last night, there is still far less controversy over goal umpiring decisions than there has been in the past because there are many other crucial touch-and-go decisions that we know we are 100% getting right.

 

[Falcon3518]

Because there was TWO angles.

It is exactly the same thing with our human vision. One eye can't do it, two eyes working together can.

Look at the diagram again. Try to place the footy somewhere, other than on the post, such that lines drawn from each of the cameras BOTH go through the footy, and BOTH go through the post. Try it. Screenshot your solution and paste it here.

By knowing the ball was actually over the post when the TWO images show it to be from there perspective, we know it was ACTUALLY over the post at that time, and as such, we know the depth, we know it was over the goal line, etc, etc.

I think the cameras would have to be perpendicular for you to be correct. An extreme example is like two cameras 1mm apart from each other looking at the ball that’s 100m away. You would still not know how deep the ball goes. Could be meters behind and you wouldn’t know.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Duskfire]

My dad is a mathematician (this is no joke, I unfortunately have not followed in his footsteps in anyway) and so I asked him his thoughts on the manner. I assumed his views on angles and things of that nature would be of benefit. He told me he didn't care so bugger off. so that sounds like he is saying post to me.

 

[speedpeck23]

It was probably a point, but no way there is enough evidence to overturn what the goal umpire believed it was.

I really do hope it was a goal though, and that the Tigers got screwed out of a finals win, that would make me smile.

What's all the fuss. The Goal Umpire who called it a goal also requested a review. The technological evidence is irrefutably clear. It's a point. The technology relies on correlating multiple views to assess the true trajectory of the ball, as demonstrated so well by the diagram from a previous poster. Its not a case of looking at 3 separate views and then individually making a decision on each one........

 

[FourthTimeAround]

How big were his TVs though? Could distort the position of the ball, eg if it is a curved tv the ball could look on top but its just an optical illusion.

The TV was flat, just like the earth is.

 

[speedpeck23]

I think the cameras would have to be perpendicular for you to be correct. An extreme example is like two cameras 1mm apart from each other looking at the ball that’s 100m away. You would still not know how deep the ball goes. Could be meters behind and you wouldn’t know.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Multiple views allow you to assess the depth ......think about it a bit more.... xyz axis

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

At which point could both cameras see the ball over the post without it being over the post?

It wasn't definative as you can't tell when it went past the post.

 

[Kanga Commando]

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

credit to u/Hoodnight

Schrodinger's ball ?

 

[Testekill]

It was over the post on multiple angles and Lynch's reaction to it going through indicates that he thought it was a behind.

 

[Chief]

It wasn't definative as you can't tell when it went past the post.

It's not going to go over the line then back over the post.