Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

[stfan]

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….

Sorry but this simply is not "advanced maths or knowledge of angles". It is very basic trigonometry. And even more basic in this instance as there is absolutely no calculation required.


And yes it is very quick as there actually is no calculation in this particular exercise. It is simply looking at two camera angles at the same point in time, and if they both show the ball is over the post, then it has to be over the post. No ifs, buts or maybes.

Triangulation is nothing mysterious. Many of us use it regularly in very simple applications. ie Maps on a hike, navigation marks when I am out in a boat. Laying out a building project. Though GPS uses it in a quite complex way.

Back many years ago when I was a Scout Leader I would very quickly teach 10 year olds how to do it. .

 

[catstragic]

Can they just put cameras in the top of the posts and lasers going straight up the same diameter as the posts? If the you see a laser hit the ball... it's interrupted the vertical plane of the posts... no judgement needed.

 

[GastevsBeard]

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.

Let’s see if the cats get a dubious goal review - you might appreciate the frustration with your biases aside

 

[Grrr]

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.

Franklin tells the umps what he is doing with his big arc, no play on. Even on Thursday night another player who I can't remember told the umps he was coming in from an angle as per his normal run up. It has always been as long as you kick over your mark it is not play on. He was not trying to improve the angle and it was a normal set shot routine for a banana kick. One ump got it, the other not.

 

[Conan Troutman]

Let’s see if the cats get a dubious goal review - you might appreciate the frustration with your biases aside

It's not dubious though, that's the point.

 

[GastevsBeard]

It's not dubious though, that's the point.

It’s maybe the most ambiguous kick since the score review was introduced

 

[Toffee Lion]

If the goal umpire was able to make a non-decision on that shot and allow ARC to fully decide the result, I think there would be less outrage IMO.

A simple "I don't believe I have enough evidence to make a decision, can we get a score review?"

It's clearly gone over the goal post, a behind was decided by ARC. You would end up with the same result but no "overturning" would be included in the process.

 

[Conan Troutman]

It’s maybe the most ambiguous kick since the score review was introduced

Its one of the most conclusive cases I've seen. It's black and white, no matter how hard you want it to be different, the maths does not lie. The question is whether you understand the maths or not.

 

[Gman]

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.

Don't complicate it

It's simple, camera view was inadequate

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Don't complicate it

It's simple, camera view was inadequate

Except it was. To those that matter.

 

[maskmcgee]

Oh ffs I hope you're never called into jury duty.

Hope I am, hope you're the defendant and hope you're innocent because I'll convict you regardless.

 

[Gman]

If the goal umpire was able to make a non-decision on that shot and allow ARC to fully decide the result, I think there would be less outrage IMO.

A simple "I don't believe I have enough evidence to make a decision, can we get a score review?"

It's clearly gone over the goal post, a behind was decided by ARC. You would end up with the same result but no "overturning" would be included in the process.

So from that distance, looking at a terribly pixelated footage, that you watch on a screen, you're telling me, that basically you can judge whether the ball was over and not a few inches behind the post?
You must have exemplary eagle vision

Yet, the goal umpire according to you, directly behind the post with the best view is wrong calling it a goal

Interesting take

Anyway, the goal umpire saw it as a goal that's why he said what he did

 

[Long Live HFC]

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?

because better overwhelming evidence has stopped people believing nonsense about JFK, 911, the moon landing, AGW, the shape of planets, the holocaust, the outcome of the 2020 US election...

 

[Long Live HFC]

Triangulation is nothing mysterious. Many of us use it regularly in very simple applications. ie Maps on a hike, navigation marks when I am out in a boat. Laying out a building project...

...not bumping into things when we move.

 

[stfan]

...not bumping into things when we move.

Correct.

Now I had always assumed when watching Tiger supporters stumbling around bumping into things after a game that they were just drunk.

It turns out after reading this thread, it is just because that they cannot understand basic trigonometry

It paints a whole new perspective on the one-eyed football supporter. Turns out they are just Trigonometrically Challenged.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Correct.

Now I had always assumed when watching Tiger supporters stumbling around bumping into things after a game that they were just drunk.

It turns out after reading this thread, it is just because that they cannot understand basic trigonometry

It paints a whole new perspective on the one-eyed football supporter. Turns out they are just Trigonometrically Challenged.

well, i hate to quote myself and all but....

I am proposing a new branch of mathematics: Tigernometry.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

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.

yep and has been widely acknowledged that the 4th umpire overreached, no certainty was possible from the footage.

There have been no doubtful overrules since then, so the message has gone out at least for the other games.

AFL never admit guilt, but you can always tell when it has been addressed behind closed doors.

 

[Long Live HFC]

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Its one of the most conclusive cases I've seen. It's black and white, no matter how hard you want it to be different, the maths does not lie. The question is whether you understand the maths or not.

what branch of maths?

An understanding of uncertainty inherent in any measurement is relevant.

 

[Long Live HFC]

what branch of maths?

Tigernometry.

 

[thedreamisreal]

Back many years ago when I was a Scout Leader I would very quickly teach 10 year olds how to do it. .

I’ll bet you taught them all sorts of things that stuck with them for a lifetime…
Sorry I’ve arrived late to this thread guys and gals but I can close it right now b/c I drew the scenario to mm accuracy (see below). Yes, the footage is out of sync otherwise it defies the laws of physics. But all you kents would rather see The Tigs fail than fix a clearly broken system.
Also I was at the game tonight and it’s made me forget about the distress of Thursday. Eat ‘em alive Cats!

 

[PetterdHoisted]

I’ll bet you taught them all sorts of things that stuck with them for a lifetime…
Sorry I’ve arrived late to this thread guys and gals but I can close it right now b/c I drew the scenario to mm accuracy (see below. Yes, the footage is out of sync otherwise it defies the laws of physics. But all you kents would rather see The Tigs fail than fix a clearly broken system.)
Also I was at the game tonight and it’s made me forget about the distress of Thursday. Eat ‘em alive Cats!

And it doesn’t matter if your estimate matches another persons by +/- millimetres, the statement that ‘the ball clearly goes over the post’ is a fabrication

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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 also predicted Mike Pyke would have no career in AFL football. I’m sure Mike gets his 2012 premiership medal out of the drawer whenever he feels sad about that.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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.

Just be thankful it’s not soccer, where the crowd will leap to their feet and cheer a shot on goal that Blind Freddie could see, from the moment ball left boot, was never going to go under the cross bar.

 

[HugeJohnson]

Why don't we put nets in like giant soccer goals, that way we know for sure if it's a goal or not. You kick it too high, bad luck. Adds a greater degree of difficulty to the game and at the same time it eliminates any issues like the one on Thursday in the future. It also removes the need for goal umpires which is quite frankly an outdated tradition nowadays where the financial stakes are much higher, and any contentious decision gets referred to a video umpire anyway, so really, what is the actual purpose of goal umpires now?