Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

[Altum Volantes]

View attachment 1497630

Well there’s your conclusive evidence.

 

[BF Tiger]

It was most likely a point, so the correct decision was arrived at, despite the mechanism for getting to that decision being ridiculously flawed.

FIX THE SYSTEM FFS!

 

[AstonSouffle]

The umps arm did not move. He had it out the whole time. Lynch did not move outside his line.

Look at the second umpire, there's two there controlling the protected area. If you're going to double down you have to be right and you're not.

 

[AstonSouffle]

not sure what you were watching.

I watched the game, the other umpire put his hands up for play on (and was controlling the art shot) while the one you've put a picture was controlling the 10m protected area.

Honestly mate and I sincerely mean this, I'm happy to have a debate and be wrong, but if you are both blatantly wrong and then whip out a screenshot which cuts out the proof so it can suit you're argument then that's extremely average on your part.

 

[Chief]

Definitive proof:

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Tigers fans claiming footage from a phone camera shows it's a goal, whilst disputing the validity of multiple cameras worth ten's of thousands of dollars and centuries worth of trigonometry.

That's the world we live in.

MAKE RICHMOND GREAT AGAIN!

 

[db26]

Goal to me robbed , we have a incompetent organisation running the sport.

 

[Falcon3518]

Goal to me robbed , we have a incompetent organisation running the sport.

Yeah it is. Don’t even bother with these posters. They don’t WANT it to be a goal even if it is.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[JasRulz63]

View attachment 1497570

Ball didn’t go over the post. That’s the ball BEHIND the post that comes from a video someone took in the crowd. Did they even use ultra edge?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Igavemyloveachicken]

MAKE RICHMOND GREAT AGAIN!

Richmond fans to storm AFL House like Trump supporters storming The Capital.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Goal to me robbed , we have a incompetent organisation running the sport.

right in front of you!

 

[FireKrakouer]

I take back everything I've said. This photo taken from a nearby grassy knoll shows it to clearly be a goal:

 

[Contador]

I think a lot of the confusion with ARC comes from using terms like "conclusive evidence" or "definitive proof". Nothing will ever really be entirely definitive in these reviews - what they're really looking for is "strong" evidence that the goal umpire has made an error.

Is a little spike on Edge really definitive proof that a ball hit the post? No, there are plenty of other possibilities, but it is strong evidence.

Is vision which appears to show a deflection really conclusive? No, we can easily be tricked by optical illusions, gaps between frames etc., but it is still strong evidence.

There's no definitive proof that lynch missed, and there never will be, but there is strong evidence from multiple angles.

 

[Purple Suit]

It was most likely a point, so the correct decision was arrived at, despite the mechanism for getting to that decision being ridiculously flawed.

FIX THE SYSTEM FFS!

How? The 3rd umpire needs to be sure, he was when his 3 cameras lined up the ball over the post in a frame. He made the decision in 10 sec, far longer than 99% of decision are made on the field. The outcome for Richmond shouldn’t discredit the process.

The funny thing is Hardwick has been anti score reviews for awhile and often bagged how long it takes. This one was quick and everyone loses their mind.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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

Pretty much. Right result, for the wrong reason.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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.

Has anyone outside broadcast commentators said it was judged partly on player reaction? Or are we taking commentary guesswork as gospel.
It did look to be a point, though personally not strongly enough to overturn it.

 

[Seeds]

Goal to me robbed , we have a incompetent organisation running the sport.

You are literally posting a pic showing it being a point?

 

[JackFlash]

Pretty much. Right result, for the wrong reason.

It looked like a point to me and to everybody else, but the Goal Umpire. The first thing i thought after he kicked it was "He's overdone it" and kicked the belly of the ball when he was only just metres out. It wasn't that difficult a shot and the lack of excitement from Lynch really tells the story..

 

[Blues_Man]

Yeah it is. Don’t even bother with these posters. They don’t WANT it to be a goal even if it is.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

And you lot don't want it to be a point even though Lynch thought it was

 

[Blues_Man]

Pretty much. Right result, for the wrong reason.

Goal Umpire needs to be brought into question, for giving an obvious point a goal ..he was guessing

 

[BF Tiger]

How? The 3rd umpire needs to be sure, he was when his 3 cameras lined up the ball over the post in a frame. He made the decision in 10 sec, far longer than 99% of decision are made on the field. The outcome for Richmond shouldn’t discredit the process.

The funny thing is Hardwick has been anti score reviews for awhile and often bagged how long it takes. This one was quick and everyone loses their mind.

It just shouldn’t be this controversial. Get high def cameras and get enough of them. Better cameras, better angles.

It’s worked out correct in this case but next time who knows. I’d rather just not have the controversy.

This isn’t me arguing that “Richmond was robbed”. This is me arguing that the AFL needs to do better. The score review might have come back as a goal and then we’d still have this controversy.

 

[Falcon3518]

And you lot don't want it to be a point even though Lynch thought it was

No I don’t care. We weren’t winning the flag without Prestia. Rather get the pick. It’s still a goal though.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[living_in_syd]

Might be right result, but geez it was the wrong process getting there as you shouldnt be over ruling Umpires Call unless its obvious in 30 seconds decison. I mean the triangulation stuff, afl umpires would have no idea on that lol.

Hows it handled in cricket? I thought there was instances when ball tracking looks like its hitting wicket but they cant over rule umpires decison unless its pitching in line or something like that?

 

[Beer n Skittles]

It just shouldn’t be this controversial. Get high def cameras and get enough of them. Better cameras, better angles.

It’s worked out correct in this case but next time who knows. I’d rather just not have the controversy.

This isn’t me arguing that “Richmond was robbed”. This is me arguing that the AFL needs to do better. The score review might have come back as a goal and then we’d still have this controversy.

Apart from a handful of tinfoil wearing dimwits it’s not controversial

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Might be right result, but geez it was the wrong process getting there as you shouldnt be over ruling Umpires Call unless its obvious in 30 seconds decison. I mean the triangulation stuff, afl umpires would have no idea on that lol.

Hows it handled in cricket? I thought there was instances when ball tracking looks like its hitting wicket but they cant over rule umpires decison unless its pitching in line or something like that?

Cricket has its own issues, particularly with catches. Clear edges have been given not out because the technology was unable to show a spike on snicko or anything on hotspot (a problematic technology itself).

With LBW the "projected path" part of the technology is not reliable, but clear definitions (on line and height, a defined portion of the ball has to be hitting based on projection) are given on when to overturn even though they are based on those unreliable projections. Similar projections are a bit tougher with footy in 3D, the ball isn't round (a cricket ball isn't quite round but close enough).