Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

[radiojake]

I remember being around 13 and goal umpiring for my younger brother's school footy game - kid had a set shot that went directly over the post - I had no idea what to call it, and told the field umpire "it sort of went straight over the post" , to which he told me "call a point, then"

For whatever reason my brother's teammates thought it was hilarious and for the rest of the season whenever they saw me they'd invariably say to me in a mocking tone, "it sort of went straight over the post"

Thanks Lynch, for bringing back a long forgotten memory

 

[Chief]

Are there any published guidelines or rules for the ARC?

Surely they have a "We start from point A, then move to point B if there is enough evidence" guide?

 

[SSwans2011]

I enhanced the still from above to confirm what everyone knows.

View attachment 1497627

Ironically, this actually does kind of work as evidence that it hadn't passed the post. You can see the shadow from the ball on the post.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

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?

No it's not the balance of probabilities, it has to be conclusive to overturn, that's the rule.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

"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.

Wasn't definative evidence though was it?

 

[PhilX]

Wasn't definative evidence though was it?

The person whose decision is the only one that mattered seemed to think it was.

 

[Forward Press]

No it's not the balance of probabilities, it has to be conclusive to overturn, that's the rule.

Wasn't definative evidence though was it?

If you think the camera angles from either wing were not in sync, though, that's your belief and we can argue until the cows come home about it.

However, this is basic trigonometry.

 

[Chief]

No it's not the balance of probabilities, it has to be conclusive to overturn, that's the rule.

Define conclusive?

90%? 80%? 50%+?

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

The person whose decision is the only one that mattered seemed to think it was.

Yes and was incorrect.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

If you think the camera angles from either wing were not in sync, though, that's your belief and we can argue until the cows come home about it.

However, this is basic trigonometry.

The goal reviewer didn't see that chart.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Define conclusive?

90%? 80%? 50%+?

Definative and conclusive means close to 100%

 

[Forward Press]

The goal reviewer didn't see that chart.

Great. But some are still insisting it was a clear goal.

Fine, question the process. But the correct result was arrived at, in spite of what some would try to have you believe.

 

[Gman]

While we're whinging about s**t, 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

While your whining this how about we mention Lynchs kick at goal and Andrews charging at him as soon as he commenced his 1st step towards goal...

Look at the video, umpire calls play on whilst Andrews took 4-5 steps...

50 meters on every other occasion

 

[Chief]

Definative and conclusive means close to 100%

Where is that definition from? Do they have a pubished set of guidelines?

(Notwithstanding that it's close to physically impossible for the ball to be where it is in two different images from two different angles WITHOUT it being over the post.)

 

[PhilX]

The goal reviewer didn't see that chart.

Probably not that exact one. What is your evidence that they hadn't seen something similar, and weren't aware of the principle?

 

[Purple Suit]

Definative and conclusive means close to 100%

Nothing is 100%, it's more like 90-95%.

So if the operator in the ARC has 90-95% confidence in the decision because he knows about different cameras showing position & they are suppose to be synced. He can make the call and the process is fine. In the unlikely event that the cameras are synced then there is the missing % of certainty.

I find two things very funny.

• Dimma has previously complained about the ARC taking too long. When they make this decision in 15 seconds he loses his mind.
• The AFL wants to fix the process. The part they want to change is that the umpire doesn't have to give a soft signal if they are unsure. The ARC is fine, which should be a great indicator on where the true issue is.

 

[nut]

Probably not that exact one. What is your evidence that they hadn't seen something similar, and weren't aware of the principle?

The ball also spins and it’s possible for the body of ball be to be inline with part of the post, yet spin pass it with out hitting it.

 

[campbell]

Are there any published guidelines or rules for the ARC?

Surely they have a "We start from point A, then move to point B if there is enough evidence" guide?

A nice little algorithm .

 

[PhilX]

The ball also spins and it’s possible for the body of ball be to be inline with part of the post, yet spin pass it with out hitting it.

Did you quote the wrong person? I'm not sure what a billion-to-one possiblity that the ball spins around the post has to do with whether or not the ARC staff are trained to use trigonometric principles.

 

[Elixuh]

The only issue here is that the umpire has to make a soft call. The umpire was not in the best position to make a call in this instance and shouldn’t have been required to. The ARC probably reached the right conclusion.

Under the current rules, Richmond may have even robbed - who knows because we don’t know how the ARC reached its decision. Dimma coming out and sooking with uninformed nonsense isn’t helping anyone - let alone tigers fans who have now been conned into posting their entire manifestos on bigfooty.

The only recourse available to them now is to find the ARC people from that night and exact yellow and black justice. The AFL should do the right thing and offer them up.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Great. But some are still insisting it was a clear goal.

Fine, question the process. But the correct result was arrived at, in spite of what some would try to have you believe.

Wrong. The umpire had made decision , the review guy went beyond his remit. If there's any doubt, the umpires call stands. That's the rule.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Probably not that exact one. What is your evidence that they hadn't seen something similar, and weren't aware of the principle?

He didn't look at any charts, he spent 8 seconds to make a decision. We all know the review guy broke his own rules because of Tom Lynch's expression so at least admit that and that he broke his own protocols.
All the media commentators agree that he broke his protocols.

 

[PhilX]

He didn't look at any charts, he spent 8 seconds to make a decision. We all know the review guy broke his own rules because of Tom Lynch's expression so at least admit that and that he broke his own protocols.
All the media commentators agree that he broke his protocols.

You don't need to look at the chart once you understand the chart.

I don't know that the review guy broke his own rules. Certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt. Would you bet your life on the fact that he did? If you answer yes, then you're clearly not qualified to have an opinion.

 

[Purple Suit]

Wrong. The umpire had made decision , the review guy went beyond his remit. If there's any doubt, the umpires call stands. That's the rule.

The umpires decision was to ask for a review because he wasn't sure. The review guy was sure, he had no doubt.

All rules followed.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

The umpires decision was to ask for a review because he wasn't sure. The review guy was sure, he had no doubt.

All rules followed.

Incorrect. The umpire called it a goal. You're persisting with an incorrect argument.