Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

[BF Tiger]

Apart from a handful of tinfoil wearing dimwits it’s not controversial

Take that view, but no complaints when you're in disagreeance with a video review.

 

[Shaq attack]

The correct decision was made. Umpire was horribly out of position and had no conviction in his call as a goal. /thread

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Take that view, but no complaints when you're in disagreeance with a video review.

If that happens I’ll try to keep from coming in here and crying for days

 

[Grrr]

What about the other umpire?

I watched the game, the other umpire put his hands up for play on (and was controlling the art shot) while the one you've put a picture was controlling the 10m protected area.

Honestly mate and I sincerely mean this, I'm happy to have a debate and be wrong, but if you are both blatantly wrong and then whip out a screenshot which cuts out the proof so it can suit you're argument then that's extremely average on your part.

Just rewatched and you are correct didn't see the other ump so honest mistake. But why did he call play on. Lynch went well inside his arc and kicked exactly over if not before the mark... not that it probably made any difference.

 

[BF Tiger]

If that happens I’ll try to keep from coming in here and crying for days

Like you were crying here about rule interpretations in a close loss...

Shouldn’t have to explain to Pendlebury to not stand there tackling Carlton’s ruckman before the ball is thrown up. Just pay the free ffs

Stand rule dead

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Like you were crying here about rule interpretations in a close loss...

From the match thread, as the match was in progress…

Pretty sure Carlton had a goal overturned in that game on review, from goalpost snicko. Not certain though - I didn’t spend days hyperfixing on it

 

[BF Tiger]

From the match thread, as the match was in progress…

Pretty sure Carlton had a goal overturned in that game on review, from goalpost snicko. Not certain though - I didn’t spend days hyperfixing on it

Ok.

You're welcome to continue crying in here about others perceived "crying". Carry on.

 

[Conan Troutman]

Take that view, but no complaints when you're in disagreeance with a video review.

It's not a view in this case, it's a fact. The ball went over the goal post.

The "view" here is some people believing that the video ref came to his conclusion based on body language or whatever else, rather than the far easier and more conclusive method of using his knowledge of maths.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

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

credit to u/Hoodnight

 

[Gman]

Not conclusive, umpires call should have stood

The other issue that stood out to me was as soon as Lynch took his first step, Andrews started to charge at him...

Lynch did not go off his mark with his first step, it is not play on until the umpire calls it and that wasn't until a few seconds later, but Andrews had taken 5-6 steps towards Lynch that may have made Lynch quick sooner than first anticipated...

Just adding to the controversy here

 

[BF Tiger]

It's not a view in this case, it's a fact. The ball went over the goal post.

The "view" here is some people believing that the video ref came to his conclusion based on body language or whatever else, rather than the far easier and more conclusive method of using his knowledge of maths.

How thick are you? I'm not arguing the result. I'm arguing for a better system so as people will not be able to have a wrong "view". FMD.

 

[Conan Troutman]

How thick are you? I'm not arguing the result. I'm arguing for a better system so as people will not be able to have a wrong "view". FMD.

Lol. Yeah like I said, the system worked - so well in fact, that the conclusion is not (or shouldn't be) up for debate.

So why are you suggesting it needs fixing then, if worked exactly as it should?

 

[AstonSouffle]

Just rewatched and you are correct didn't see the other ump so honest mistake. But why did he call play on. Lynch went well inside his arc and kicked exactly over if not before the mark... not that it probably made any difference.

I'm assuming the conclusion from the umpires is that he did go off his line???

20.5 KICKING FOR A GOAL
20.5.1 Line of The Mark

Where a Player from the Attacking Team is Kicking for a Goal after being awarded a Mark or a Free Kick, the Kick shall be taken along a direct line from The Mark to the centre of the Attacking Team’s Goal Line, except in the following cases:

• (a) where the Mark or Free Kick is awarded within or on a line of the Goal Square, the Kick shall be taken from directly in front of the Goal Line from a spot horizontally across from where the Mark or Free Kick was awarded;
• (b) where the Kick will occur after the siren, the Player shall be entitled to approach The Mark from any direction, as long as the location of the Kick does not improve the angle to the goal posts.

The rulebook is not helpful, and is incredibly light on content - surely they need stronger wording, I always thought since they changed the rules in 2019 on this that all attempts at a snap were going off your line except after the siren. Although rule book says the bold part, but definetely doesn't say everything else I said and it's super unclear, what's the ruling around approach the mark from any direction in normal play? Is it play on? Honestly not sure.

 

[BF Tiger]

Lol. Yeah like I said, the system worked - so well in fact, that the conclusion is not (or shouldn't be) up for debate.

So why are you suggesting it needs fixing then, if worked exactly as it should?

Firstly, the fact that there is debate indicates that the system hasn’t worked as well as it could have. There are plenty of neutrals who can see the issue(s), not just Richmond supporters.

Secondly, it might not work “as it should” next time. Better cameras, more angles… more data, less controversy/debate. Only an idiot couldn’t understand this. Are you an idiot?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Firstly, the fact that there is debate indicates that the system hasn’t worked as well as it could have. There are plenty of neutrals who can see the issue(s), not just Richmond supporters.

Secondly, it might not work “as it should” next time. Better cameras, more angles… more data, less controversy/debate. Only an idiot couldn’t understand this. Are you an idiot?

Wow, resorting to insults now.

Have you thought this through?

If the result went the other way, do you think people would not argue they got it wrong, so no matter what the decision, it was going to get an argument.

I could resort to insults, but I will refrain from that.

 

[Thornton Melon]

The ball went over the goal post

Correct, and it's very obvious on the replay. The fact that so many Tiger fans have deluded themselves into believing otherwise just shows how willing people are to abandon reality if their delusions comfort them.

 

[Conan Troutman]

Firstly, the fact that there is debate indicates that the system hasn’t worked as well as it could have. There are plenty of neutrals who can see the issue(s), not just Richmond supporters.

Secondly, it might not work “as it should” next time. Better cameras, more angles… more data, less controversy/debate. Only an idiot couldn’t understand this. Are you an idiot?

Haha, no maybe the idiot is the one who ignores that the video ump had pretty much indisputable evidence from which to make his decision, and then says the review system is broken and needs to be fixed.

This whole thing shouldn't even be a discussion. The body language side of it is irrelevant, the new angles are irrelevant. The evidence was there for all to see on the night.

Great call ump - this is exactly what the video review system is for, job well done, let's move on. There shouldn't even be an after thought. If anything it's a shining example of system working perfectly.

It's just that some people don't seem to stopping to think for a second. That's nothing to do with the review system.

 

[Red mist]

Win/win for the AFL. The amount of media engagement regarding goal line technology would be the same if there was none and it was down to a goal umpire alone. They do not care. The result of the game is superfluous.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Not conclusive, umpires call should have stood

The other issue that stood out to me was as soon as Lynch took his first step, Andrews started to charge at him...

Lynch did not go off his mark with his first step, it is not play on until the umpire calls it and that wasn't until a few seconds later, but Andrews had taken 5-6 steps towards Lynch that may have made Lynch quick sooner than first anticipated...

Just adding to the controversy here

The only way it isn't conclusive is if the laws of physics and mathematics work significantly differently at the Gabba than at anywhere else on Earth.

It isn't theoretical physics we are dealing with its just the basics.

 

[Grrr]

I'm assuming the conclusion from the umpires is that he did go off his line???

20.5 KICKING FOR A GOAL
20.5.1 Line of The Mark

Where a Player from the Attacking Team is Kicking for a Goal after being awarded a Mark or a Free Kick, the Kick shall be taken along a direct line from The Mark to the centre of the Attacking Team’s Goal Line, except in the following cases:

• (a) where the Mark or Free Kick is awarded within or on a line of the Goal Square, the Kick shall be taken from directly in front of the Goal Line from a spot horizontally across from where the Mark or Free Kick was awarded;
• (b) where the Kick will occur after the siren, the Player shall be entitled to approach The Mark from any direction, as long as the location of the Kick does not improve the angle to the goal posts.

The rulebook is not helpful, and is incredibly light on content - surely they need stronger wording, I always thought since they changed the rules in 2019 on this that all attempts at a snap were going off your line except after the siren. Although rule book says the bold part, but definetely doesn't say everything else I said and it's super unclear, what's the ruling around approach the mark from any direction in normal play? Is it play on? Honestly not sure.

As you can see he starts a good 2m inside his mark and is still 1m inside his mark on his kicking step. So no improvement of angle, quite the opposite hence why the closest umpire still had his arm up and no other player encroached. The ump 20m away couldn't help himself even though he must have know his fellow up was in a better position.

A bit like the Baker 50m earlier. An ump was 15m away from Baker, but the central ump who was 40+m away called the 50m. Couldn't help himself, my bet it was the same one. Some umps can't help themselves.

 

[Purple Suit]

As you can see he starts a good 2m inside his mark and is still 1m inside his mark on his kicking step. So no improvement of angle, quite the opposite hence why the closest umpire still had his arm up and no other player encroached. The ump 20m away couldn't help himself even though he must have know his fellow up was in a better position.

A bit like the Baker 50m earlier. An ump was 15m away from Baker, but the central ump who was 40+m away called the 50m. Couldn't help himself, my bet it was the same one. Some umps can't help themselves.

Did you read the rule? He can only be off the line of the mark if the kick is taken after the siren. He shouldn’t have been 2m inside but when he moved around the umpire called play on.

Every player runs around a few steps to open up the angle. 9/10 they kick the goal, Lynch is the one who made the biggest mistake here out of all involved. Maybe just blame him and it’ll save a lot of heart ache.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

The only way it isn't conclusive is if the laws of physics and mathematics work significantly differently at the Gabba than at anywhere else on Earth.

It isn't theoretical physics we are dealing with its just the basics.

lol, anyone telling you they know if it was a goal or not is delusional

when it is that close, only the goal ump has any chance of making the call, and that call has to be respected, as the best we can do in a bad situation.

utter debacle to see the 4th ump overrule on blurry footage taken 10s of metres away

 

[Noidnadroj]

It's not a view in this case, it's a fact. The ball went over the goal post.

The "view" here is some people believing that the video ref came to his conclusion based on body language or whatever else, rather than the far easier and more conclusive method of using his knowledge of maths.

Whatever happened … if you think the ARC reviewer has any advanced grasp on maths or angles I think that’s pretty optimistic. It took him all of 8-seconds to analyse….

To his naked eye it appeared over the post so that is what he called. If you think he considered any form of mathematical equation, angles or depth perception I’d suggest there’s zero chance that happened.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Purple Suit]

lol, anyone telling you they know if it was a goal or not is delusional

when it is that close, only the goal ump has any chance of making the call, and that call has to be respected, as the best we can do in a bad situation.

utter debacle to see the 4th ump overrule on blurry footage taken 10s of metres away

The goal umpires decision was to ask for it to be reviewed. The Arc said it was a point.

Glad we’ve cleared up that up so please don’t argue or you aren’t respecting what the goal umpire wanted.

 

[Forward Press]

The goal umpires decision was to ask for it to be reviewed. The Arc said it was a point.

Glad we’ve cleared up that up so please don’t argue or you aren’t respecting what the goal umpire wanted.

This is the same guy that used a fan's mobile phone footage as conclusive proof that it was a goal - the resolution was about 5 pixels, I'm not even making it up.

I'd just ignore him from now on.