Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

[Elixuh]

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!

Didn’t he kick a banana, so the ball was spinning. But you’re claiming it stopped spinning right at the moment it crossed so as not to hit the post.

I want to believe.

I was on the fence but you’ve convinced me with your Microsoft paint drawing. Certain goal.

 

[JohnZ]

Don't complicate it

It's simple, camera view was inadequate

One camera angle is always inadequate. It's why we have two eyes, multiple camera angles gives us a much better accuracy in determining location and depth.

So when two synced cameras show the ball over the post, then we know the ball is over the post. Because unlike the AFL, laws of physics don't bend for the Richmond footy club.

 

[Chief]

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!

Quite possible, but that wasn't the call on the night.

A third camera would confirm it.

 

[Gman]

One camera angle is always inadequate. It's why we have two eyes, multiple camera angles gives us a much better accuracy in determining location and depth.

So when two synced cameras show the ball over the post, then we know the ball is over the post. Because unlike the AFL, laws of physics don't bend for the Richmond footy club.

If one grainy low resolution camera from afar supposedly shows a dot hovering above a stick and a second camera camera shows a similar image frame then that tells me the technology is inadequate to overturn an umpire standing directly behind the post looking up and seeing the ball inside the post... Your "physics theory" does not hold up when an individual sitting in a room, viewing a smeared, pixelated image with so much noise, deciding if this dot is cms behind the stick or just above it, there is no depth technology, no close up clear frames, no behind the goal camera angle... Well basically not enough sufficient evidence to overturn such a crucial deciding factor at such a crucial moment. This would have been thrown out in any court if there was even one ounce of doubt, a guess will not suffice
Should have stayed with Goal umpires call
Incident is closed, decision was made, we move on from that but must improve technology if we are to rely on it as evidence

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Pretty funny that Richmond are still complaining the fact that the correct decision was made, and insist that the better outcome would have been for the wrong decision to stand.

 

[HairyO]

Pretty funny that Richmond are still complaining the fact that the correct decision was made, and insist that the better outcome would have been for the wrong decision to stand.

While ignoring the fact that Lynch kicked the ball 2m over the goal post from 5m out, and one minute later 5 defenders failed to rush the ball from 2m out against a single lanky opponent.

 

[Forward Press]

While ignoring the fact that Lynch kicked the ball 2m over the goal post from 5m out, and one minute later 5 defenders failed to rush the ball from 2m out against a single lanky opponent.

If we apply Hardwick's reasoning, Tom Lynch and those 5 defenders cost the club 'millions of dollars' and possibly peoples jobs too.

If one grainy low resolution camera from afar supposedly shows a dot hovering above a stick and a second camera camera shows a similar image frame then that tells me the technology is inadequate to overturn an umpire standing directly behind the post looking up and seeing the ball inside the post... Your "physics theory" does not hold up when an individual sitting in a room, viewing a smeared, pixelated image with so much noise, deciding if this dot is cms behind the stick or just above it, there is no depth technology, no close up clear frames, no behind the goal camera angle... Well basically not enough sufficient evidence to overturn such a crucial deciding factor at such a crucial moment. This would have been thrown out in any court if there was even one ounce of doubt, a guess will not suffice
Should have stayed with Goal umpires call
Incident is closed, decision was made, we move on from that but must improve technology if we are to rely on it as evidence

Grainy ARC camera = not evidence
Grainy fan mobile phone camera = evidence

Also good thing this isn't a court of law eh? The moment you start throwing legal terms around is the moment you're not understanding the rules of sport. Rules of evidence do not apply in sporting decisions by umpires.

 

[Gman]

While ignoring the fact that Lynch kicked the ball 2m over the goal post from 5m out, and one minute later 5 defenders failed to rush the ball from 2m out against a single lanky opponent.

One camera angle is always inadequate. It's why we have two eyes, multiple camera angles gives us a much better accuracy in determining location and depth.

So when two synced cameras show the ball over the post, then we know the ball is over the post. Because unlike the AFL, laws of physics don't bend for the Richmond footy club.

Do explain this law of physics...

And not your Microsoft paint image but a reliable factual source

 

[Engimal v3]

Is this the first time the ARC has used this "multiple angles" decision? I totally understand what people are saying regarding the ball being in line with the post, however I only recall the ARC overruling in cases where there was clear contact between the ball and the post/player.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Do explain this law of physics...

And not your Microsoft paint image but a relianle factual source

It was amazing that the goal review guy used all his physics and trigonometry training and was able to make a decision in 8 seconds.
He must be the smartest scientist in the world.

 

[Chief]

It was amazing that the goal review guy used all his physics and trigonometry training and was able to make a decision in 8 seconds.
He must be the smartest scientist in the world.

He didn't have to invent the idea from first principles.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

He didn't have to invent the idea from first principles.

Chief, Leigh Mathews and others said it was an incorrect decision to overturn on the evidence available.

 

[Chief]

Chief, Leigh Mathews and others said it was an incorrect decision to overturn on the evidence available.

HOLY ****!!!!! LEIGH MATTHEWS!!!!

He probably owns a car. I will ask him what to do about the slow leak in my front right tyre.

 

[Checkered]

Yes the technology needs to improved
Yes technically it wasn't 100% conclusive, but as close to it as we can get
Yes technically it shouldn't have been overturned
Yes the goal umpire shouldn't be able to make a soft call if he's honestly unsure
Yes the right call was made in the end

A big yes to Lynch should have just kicked a basic goal. An even bigger yes to 5x defenders shouldn't have struggled so hard to punch a ball through from 10m out

 

[Checkered]

While we're whinging about shit, what's the go with the Pickett non-call rushed behind? Yeah he was within the 9 and under pressure, but if you take it from outside the 9, run in to the 9 and rush it then surely that doesn't count. He clearly gets the ball just outside of the square and momentum takes him into the 9 before rushing

That should be a free imo

 

[HairyO]

Chief, Leigh Mathews and others said it was an incorrect decision to overturn on the evidence available.

People who get paid more the more drama there is said something to increase the drama?

Shocking.

What do they have which puts their opinion ahead of ours? Were they in the ARC room watching all the footage? Or did they see what we saw and therefore are just a couple of opinions?

Even some of those who said the ARC screwed up still said it was probably the right decision.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

People who get paid more the more drama there is said something to increase the drama?

Shocking.

What do they have which puts their opinion ahead of ours? Were they in the ARC room watching all the footage? Or did they see what we saw and therefore are just a couple of opinions?

Even some of those who said the ARC screwed up still said it was probably the right decision.

There was no extra footage. The rules should be the same for everyone. Once you start going against your own rules and protocols, your integrity comes into question.

 

[HairyO]

There was no extra footage. The rules should be the same for everyone. Once you start going against your own rules and protocols, your integrity comes into question.

Except the ARC team clearly were sure it was a behind.

They dont base their judgement on your opinion or the opinion of talking heads.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Except the ARC team clearly were sure it was a behind.

They dont base their judgement on your opinion or the opinion of talking heads.

So would the MRP bet their life on it? No, because it was not definative and they were taking an educated guess based on the players reaction and 3 x 2 dimensional images from long distance.

 

[Gman]

While ignoring the fact that Lynch kicked the ball 2m over the goal post from 5m out, and one minute later 5 defenders failed to rush the ball from 2m out against a single lanky opponent.

There was no opposition contesting the ball, Daniher was rewarded for not contesting

Had the umpire not called touched on the incoming kick, a mark may have been attempted, but the attempt changed to a spoil or tap for a behind as the ball was in mid flight... 3 defenders went up unopposed

Had the ball been successfully punched through, he would have been hung, but a weak effort ensured he be given the hero status... Blessed

 

[Gman]

Grainy ARC camera = not evidence
Grainy fan mobile phone camera = evidence

Also good thing this isn't a court of law eh? The moment you start throwing legal terms around is the moment you're not understanding the rules of sport. Rules of evidence do not apply in sporting decisions by umpires.

So we throw out tribunal judiciary outcomes??

And we prefer grainy mobile phone footage over a grainy tv camera, gotcha

 

[Chief]

So would the MRP bet their life on it? No, because it was not definative and they were taking an educated guess based on the players reaction and 3 x 2 dimensional images from long distance.

In what universe would they need to bet their life on this call?

All they have to do is look at the balance of probabilities don't they? Unless they satrt from benefit of the doubt and build points in favour of a behind vs a goal?

 

[PhilX]

So would the MRP bet their life on it? No, because it was not definative and they were taking an educated guess based on the players reaction and 3 x 2 dimensional images from long distance.

"Betting your life on it" is a ridiculous standard, and is not the one used. If I was in ARC and had to bet my life on a decision, I would NEVER overule the umpire on the field, no matter what the evidence appeared to show.

 

[Forward Press]

So we throw out tribunal judiciary outcomes??

And we prefer grainy mobile phone footage over a grainy tv camera, gotcha

The tribunal is not a court and it does not follow legal principles of things like rules of evidence, standard of proof etc etc, much less the ARC. 'Conclusive' is not a legal test.

Plenty of posters in this and the other thread were doing zoom-ins of the fan's phone footage to 'prove' it was a goal. All of them supporting Richmond, of course, who were also happy to call into question the quality of the ARC footage.

 

[Forward Press]

"Betting your life on it" is a ridiculous standard, and is not the one used. If I was in ARC and had to bet my life on a decision, I would NEVER overule the umpire on the field, no matter what the evidence appeared to show.

Some are using words like 'beyond reasonable doubt' which proves how patently ridiculous this whole thing is that they are using phrases from legal procedural shows for a video review system for a sporting match. I love how the moaning is now into its second week...