Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

[kickazz]

Ever heard of depth of field? How did the review dude know that from a tv replay?

Because there was TWO angles.

It is exactly the same thing with our human vision. One eye can't do it, two eyes working together can.

Look at the diagram again. Try to place the footy somewhere, other than on the post, such that lines drawn from each of the cameras BOTH go through the footy, and BOTH go through the post. Try it. Screenshot your solution and paste it here.

By knowing the ball was actually over the post when the TWO images show it to be from there perspective, we know it was ACTUALLY over the post at that time, and as such, we know the depth, we know it was over the goal line, etc, etc.

 

[danster168]

I was perplexed it was even called a goal. Was clearly a point to my eyes. Vision was conclusive enough too. So correct call in the end.

is it really that perplexing? the goal umpire has about 0.5s to make a call on a ball the sprayed off Lynches foot from 10m out. There's no way he can cover both posts in that period of time.

 

[kickazz]

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

credit to u/Hoodnight

Can we sticky this post?

 

[Elixuh]

Ever heard of depth of field? How did the review dude know that from a tv replay?

The ball has a small GPS transponder in it which can show on 3d modelling where the ball crossed relative to the posts. That is only available in the ARC. It is kind of similar to the technology that is in your ankle bracelet.

 

[kranky al]

Is there some rule where if the ball appears to "hit" the imaginary lengthened goal post, it is deemed to have hit it?

I keep hearing this asserted but never understood it to be a rule. Please enlighten me.

Some goal posts are shorter some taller - doesnt matter - the posts extend as far as the ball can fly for adjudication purposes

 

[jim boy]

Definitive = conclusive. Conclusive means you can see a deviation off the post or you hear it on snicko, not by looking at a players reaction.

That's why the ARC invested in technology so they can see the flight from three different camera angles simultaneously and go through those cameras frame by frame.
That's why the ARC team are dedicated, because they get training in how to use that evidence to determine with absolute certainty as to where the ball is in relation to the goal posts.
It was proven to be a point, no amount of hand-wringing and wilful ignoring of the hard evidence on your part is going to change that. You can either accept that and move on or forever dwell in self pity and a bitterness borne from denial of facts.

 

[kranky al]

Yeah but your definition of conclusive is tied to what BT thinks is conclusive and as other have said, he doesn't even understand what an intercept mark is.

There is a reason why the ARC was showing 3 angles of the shot...its because that's how you determine conclusively whether it was a behind or goal.

Bt stating something as conclusive means it definitely didnt happen.

Knob

 

[Ralll]

how was he out of position?

Considering the Lynch kick could have been directed at the right-hand goalpost just as quickly, the umpire has moved into a great position considering the time he had to react.
He was clearly in the best position out of anyone to judge whether it was a goal or not from his vantage point looking up the post.

 

[Purple Suit]

The goal review rules are fine. What is not fine is the reviewer not following the rules he is given.

The goal review rules are fine. What is not fine is that Richmond did not win the game.

 

[Always Ballin]

The AFL should extend the goalposts so that they're 50 meters high. How cool would that be?

 

[Ginnieboy]

I think it hit the post but I didn’t like it being overturned based on the evidence provided.

Also, those bagging the goal umpire and his positioning, where was he supposed to be standing?

 

[Purple Suit]

Considering the Lynch kick could have been directed at the right-hand goalpost just as quickly, the umpire has moved into a great position considering the time he had to react.
He was clearly in the best position out of anyone to judge whether it was a goal or not from his vantage point looking up the post.

The best vantage point would have been where Lynch was standing and we all know how he reacted.

 

[God Mode]

The best vantage point would have been where Lynch was standing and we all know how he reacted.

Footage is out of said angle. Clear as day it's a point.

 

[Chief]

Ever heard of depth of field? How did the review dude know that from a tv replay?

At which point could both cameras see the ball over the post without it being over the post?

 

[PHanevski]

Whether it was a goal or a point I guess we will never know (Just like the Libba point or goal all those years ago), but the question I have is, if the goal umpire had signalled a goal and seen as every goal is reviewed, would the ARC have called it a point before the ball was bounced?

Why not just call everything that the goal umpire thinks is a goal a goal and if they are wrong the arc will pick it up before the next bounce. If they need more time they can tell the umpire to hold the bounce and that way we only get a delay when the umpire calls a point and wants to check if maybe it was a goal or out of bounds on the full.

Simple process and ends the rubbish delays.

 

[Ralll]

The best vantage point would have been where Lynch was standing and we all know how he reacted.

Nope, not even close.
If he kicked it dead straight he would have a great vantage point, just as good as the umpire standing at the base of the post looking directly up it.
Unfortunately, as it was a banana kick with the ball swinging, Lynch's position would have quickly become a poor position as the ball swung to the right.

 

[SSwans2011]

The correct decision was made, but at the end of the day there's a very simple solution - get rid of the soft signal. If on review they are still unsure, then do what they used to do, which IIRC was call it a behind.

 

[SSwans2011]

The AFL should extend the goalposts so that they're 50 meters high. How cool would that be?

And still put lasers on top just for shits.

 

[PhatBoy]

The last time I remember a furore like this was the Ben Stokes non dismissal at Headingley.

At the time and still periodically the whole saga was blamed on Paine and Cummins burning Australia’s last review but in general the blame has been laid on the umpire who incorrectly gave Stokes not our leg before wicket.

Rightly, while the system was criticised in the aftermath and Australia’s use of it was too, the overriding message was that the umpire made a mistake and the incorrect decision was given, and unable to be changed and it still gets brought up 3 years on.

Had last night remained a goal, once more the decision would have been incorrect: wouldn’t that be a bigger injustice than arriving at the correct decision but using the system wrongly to do it?

 

[jim boy]

The AFL should extend the goalposts so that they're 50 meters high. How cool would that be?

Better still - Space elevators!

 

[JyeDye]

The last time I remember a furore like this was the Ben Stokes non dismissal at Headingley.

At the time and still periodically the whole saga was blamed on Paine and Cummins burning Australia’s last review but in general the blame has been laid on the umpire who incorrectly gave Stokes not our leg before wicket.

Rightly, while the system was criticised in the aftermath and Australia’s use of it was too, the overriding message was that the umpire made a mistake and the incorrect decision was given, and unable to be changed and it still gets brought up 3 years on.

Had last night remained a goal, once more the decision would have been incorrect: wouldn’t that be a bigger injustice than arriving at the correct decision but using the system wrongly to do it?

But was the system even used incorrectly? They looked at multiple angles, all show the ball above the point post. Therefore that's where the ball is, there isn't another possibility here. It's decisive, it's a behind.

It's exactly the same as what they do in other sports with ball tracking. We just don't have a good graphic to go with it and instead have BT screaming about something he has no idea about.

 

[Elixuh]

But was the system even used incorrectly? They looked at multiple angles, all show the ball above the point post. Therefore that's where the ball is, there isn't another possibility here. It's decisive, it's a behind.

It's exactly the same as what they do in other sports with ball tracking. We just don't have a good graphic to go with it and instead have BT screaming about something he has no idea about.

Yeah, they used the system properly. The issue is that most people don't understand the system and think its some arbitrary eye test.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The Goal umpire made an error, how the review could definitely correct that error is the question.

I think that is more the point than whether it was goal or not. The review system is inadequate and the AFL needs to invest in a better system.

 

[MarcMaverick]

A Post. If it was taller it would have hit it flush as kickazz said. Even Tom Lynch's body language indicated as much. That's not what caused the loss though. Not having any body on Joe Daniher did.

 

[Purple Suit]

I think that is more the point than whether it was goal or not. The review system is inadequate and the AFL needs to invest in a better system.

Maybe just explaining the systems, especially to BT so he doesn't convince an entire supporter base that they were robbed.