Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

[Ice-Wolf]

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.

Is your Dad a Richmond supporter?

 

[Falcon3518]

Well it’s a clear goal the ball goes behind the post before it even gets to the top of the post in the second pic nice…



So much for the haters and maths wizards on here

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[spudmaster]

Because he knew he missed…he would have watched it off his boot and known.

Same reason none of his team mates were interested either.



Out of interest, can anyone recall what the Goal Umpire said?

‘I think it’s a goal but I just want to check….’ ?

"Check out the bird three rows back!"

 

[Elixuh]

Well it’s a clear goal the ball goes behind the post before it even gets to the top of the post in the second pic nice…

View attachment 1497421


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

That picture looks doctored, it’s got big yellow circles on it

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

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.

It may have been 2 meters behind the post on that footage.

 

[Elixuh]

It may have been 2 meters behind the post on that footage.

What is the prevailing theory re why the AFL didn’t want Richmond to progress past the EF?

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

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

The ball was spinning so it could have missed an extended post.
I reiterate, the ump called a goal , the review gut took an educated guess. An educated guess doesn't = definitive.
Once the ump calls a goal you need definitive ,overwhelming, conclusive evidence.

 

[Falcon3518]

That picture looks doctored, it’s got big yellow circles on it

It was from a vid on Twitter from a random girls phone. So it’s not. The Gabba is a dump of a ground when an iPhone has better quality than it. The actual video was clear as crystal.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Grrr]

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.

The umps arm did not move. He had it out the whole time. Lynch did not move outside his line.

 

[Grrr]

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.

And did he not run over the mark. The ump had not moved and had not called play on.

 

[Elixuh]

It was from a vid on Twitter from a random girls phone. So it’s not. The Gabba is a dump of a ground when an iPhone has better quality than it. The actual video was clear as crystal.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

What are the yellow circles then? I’m dubious

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

What is the prevailing theory re why the AFL didn’t want Richmond to progress past the EF?

There was none of that. The main question is why did the review guy go rogue and take a guess when the rule states that if there is any doubt, you go by the original decision.

 

[Falcon3518]

What are the yellow circles then? I’m dubious

Somebody taken a screenshot from the video and photoshopped them on so you can see. I tried to post the vid on here but idk how to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Grrr]

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.

not sure what you were watching.

 

[Falcon3518]

What are the yellow circles then? I’m dubious

Oh actually it’s on the Richmond board it’s on 1 of 2 threads with that pick. I think page 160-165 or something. The vid I mean.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Elixuh]

Somebody taken a screenshot from the video and photoshopped them on so you can see. I tried to post the vid on here but idk how to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I think if the ball was as big as the circles tho it definitely would have hit the pole so idk what the persons point is with the circles

 

[Dangerousfield]

What is the prevailing theory re why the AFL didn’t want Richmond to progress past the EF?

1. They really wanted all of us to hear some more whinging from Hardwick

2. They want Richmond to have a reasonable first rounder to include in the package to GWS (the AFL's own team) for Taranto - IF he decides he wants to go there rather than to the more attractive Pies

 

[The Passenger]

Tigers fans claiming footage from a phone camera shows it's a goal, whilst disputing the validity of multiple cameras worth ten's of thousands of dollars and centuries worth of trigonometry.

That's the world we live in.

 

[Falcon3518]

I think if the ball was as big as the circles tho it definitely would have hit the pole so idk what the persons point is with the circles

For the full vid. Look at the Richmond board thread ‘umpire error that cost us our season’ page 5. Done


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Seeds]

This is why the video ref exists. Not to confirm the goal Umps decisions. But to correct a goal umpires mistake with the game on line.

video ref big winner on the night.

 

[jim boy]

Well it’s a clear goal the ball goes behind the post before it even gets to the top of the post in the second pic nice…

View attachment 1497421

So much for the haters and maths wizards on here

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

LoL - that second photo appears to show the ball in front of the goal post, not behind - can I recommend spec savers?

 

[The Passenger]

LoL - that second photo appears to show the ball in front of the goal post, not behind - can I recommend spec savers?

At the very least the one thing we should all be able to agree on is that the ball was above post height when it went across the line. That's surely not even in dispute. The footage from the ARC system would not even be close to possible if the ball passed the line 1-2 metres below the goalpost.

Therefore clearly the second photo is whilst the ball is still on its way to the goal post.

 

[upnsmoke]

Why is the media and tigers coach crying that technology doesn't work.... when the rules specifically states ball over the goal post is a behind.

Pathetic professionals or so they claim to be.

 

[RandB]

A lot of people in the media saying there was a breakdown in process.

Where did the process break down?

 

[FrustratedTiger]

No idea but let's blame the loss on the 3 nuffies that Daniher managed to kick between down the other end rather on this nonsense