You're persisting with the argument that everyone is able to read the mind of the ARC guy, and we all somehow know with certainty what they were really thinking.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Millky95
Starchild > You
Huge drama as goal review overrules late Lynch shot
Controversy in the final stages as Tom Lynch's kick gets deemed a behind
www.afl.com.au
Rewatched the video. Umpire says "I believe it's a goal, just check which side of the post it went over".
Then based on the video evidence, it went over the post.
Only issue with the whole thing was the umpire believing it was a goal first. If he said behind we wouldn't be here.
If it only took 8 seconds to make the decision, must have been a very easy one to call. Plenty have been deliberated over for ages such a touched off the boot calls.
I couldn't hear him call the goal but the field umpire says "umpires call is a goal". You can hear the goal umpire say "check which side of the post it went" before the field umpire signals a review.
Someone asking to see which side of the post it went obviously isn't really confident.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Pugnacious1874
Dreamin'
Yay - you are both right. Goal umpire "called it a goal" AND "asked for a review because he wasn't sure".
Goal umpire process all followed nicely. (because calling for a review when goal umpire is sure slows the game down and we can't have that)
Now you can carry on about whether ARC had to be certain enough to give up their first born in order to over rule the goalie's best hunch.
Dimma not doing the whole debate any favours. First born level of proof and it's cost Richmond 1 trillion dollars.
I want to see the interview with the people who lose their jobs because of the ARC.
- Jun 22, 2011
- 4,105
- 5,245
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Man City, Cleveland Browns
Just shows how poorly run Richmond are if they had people's livelihoods riding on the result of that game. I mean, I'm assuming those people were losing their jobs based on any loss, not just ARC result based losses. That would be silly.
Engimal v3
Brownlow Medallist
Maybe they just took Grade 7 maths
- Jul 18, 2011
- 4,842
- 3,651
- AFL Club
- Essendon
On the viewers angles shown, it was inconclusive. Can't overturn that.
- Aug 18, 2009
- 2,157
- 5,673
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Reckon this is an underrated point
Half of my melty-ness is how much the process seemed to go off broadway. It circumvented all expectation. Usually you see the ARC-man moving backwards and forwards in time over the key moment. None of this happened, we got an instantaneous call that people are now just assuming deferred to trigonometry
Going to be very interesting if we have a game influencing contentious score review in the coming finals
You would think they are trained to use multiple angles for this exact scenario. Doesn’t happen all that often.
I don't mean this to sound inflammatory, but players don't often kick the ball over the post from that close in. I think at a greater distance or on less of an angle, everyone (goal umpire especially) would be able to read the trajectory a lot better. it makes sense to me that the ARC reviewer would be across the maths of these simultaneous angles = the ball must be in this position, the speed of the review supports that, but I agree that it's not a good look when they don't verbalise the process they go through so we know their reasoning
- Aug 18, 2009
- 2,157
- 5,673
- AFL Club
- Richmond
that's a fair point too - it would be exceedingly rare for a banana to cross the goal lines above post height, & I suppose somewhat freakishly, in such close proximity of the actual post
It is such an uncommon scenario, that it lends me to believe perhaps the ARC was not equipped to adequately adjudicate it
But to your point, if they verbalise their rationale then at least we know, & Richmond fans can move on
He doesnt need to. He's doing his job, and clearly knows how it works, hence his decision.
This chart is for people like yourself. Like I said earlier, the only question here, is do you understand the maths? Your responses, like this one, show that you clearly do not.
- Oct 19, 2020
- 31,998
- 43,698
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #315
You seem to fail to grasp that the current rules are that to overule the umpire you need to have definitive evidence.
'Gerard Whateley said the goal review system is inherently flawed and there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn the goal umpire’s decision.'
Like I said before, maths does not lie.
It's a rare situation where conclusive evidence based on maths can be used, making it a no brainer to overrule.
Yeah, I saw Whateley. Someone needs to send him the chart.
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
It’s not in Gerard’s interests to do that. This ARC thing has given him a week of free content for his show.
What maths?
Can you indicate what maths was used by the ARC or are you referring to you Microsoft Paint picture?
LOL
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
To be clear, you're saying that in your opinion, the ball was clearly either over the post or on the point side, and not on the goal side, and thus there was conclusive evidence to overrule the original call?
Dr Tigris
Brownlow Medallist
Few points
My conclusion is that they should either go with the umpire and give the goal because with all their technology etc they couldn't tell (how hard is it to have a drone flying in line with the kicker these days?), and where was the snicker thing?
The AFL should be ashamed about how poorly they have dealt with this. (Shame is something the AFL isn't aware of, except that anyone criticising them should be ashamed)
End story, what a stuff up! Game decided by a dodgy system that basically failed to provide clear evidence in a situation that is exactly why they have the system.
P.S. Man on the mark ran in = 50. But that rule is so dodgy nowadays I don't know what to think.
- Lynch didn't react because he couldn't see the ball in the lights. So his reaction is not worth anything much.
- Look at the phone footage from almost directly behind and the ball passes the goal line about 3/4 way up the post. Therefore any argument about the ball being ABOVE the post must mean that the ball has passed the goal line.
- None of the vision we have is directly behind the kicker, so parallax error comes into play. So if the ball looks directly in line with the post from a different angle it must not be in line with the post if you go from the kicker. That's how trigonometry works.
- The ball didn't appear to deviate and it was on the inside of the post. But it might have snicked the post - did they have the snicker thing there? if so did it show a snick? (not so far as I know)
- It was too close for us to be sure, so without a good angle and/or the snicker we can't really ever know
- Just my opinion, it went inside the post about 3/4 way up and didn't deviate so most likely a goal (say 80%)
My conclusion is that they should either go with the umpire and give the goal because with all their technology etc they couldn't tell (how hard is it to have a drone flying in line with the kicker these days?), and where was the snicker thing?
The AFL should be ashamed about how poorly they have dealt with this. (Shame is something the AFL isn't aware of, except that anyone criticising them should be ashamed)
End story, what a stuff up! Game decided by a dodgy system that basically failed to provide clear evidence in a situation that is exactly why they have the system.
P.S. Man on the mark ran in = 50. But that rule is so dodgy nowadays I don't know what to think.
- Aug 18, 2009
- 2,157
- 5,673
- AFL Club
- Richmond
All this being said, wouldn't it be nice for the AFL to articulate clearly their reasoning?
You can argue all that you want "it's clear & obvious from the vision" - which is a dubious claim insofar as there are alternative interpretations of the footage, assumptions around camera synchronisation, frame-rates & applicability of mathematical principles with these assumptions... & not just from Tiger fans!
Therefore I think it is, or very infuriatingly, was incumbent upon the AFL to release a short statement saying "the decision was correct, we based our adjudication on x, y & z" - with particular emphasis on how it justifiably over-ruled the original decision of the goal umpire
It's a pretty ugly precedent if here on in, the AFL feel no need to explain anything in terms of officiating decisions (especially ones of significant consequence)
Dr Tigris
Brownlow Medallist
You say your thing Chief and that's all good. To me it was clear which side of the post the ball went on, and that it didn't deviate or go over the post until after it went past the line. Which is more about how they made the decision, which hasn't come out. Do the trigonometry and see where you come out.
Similar threads
