Mark?

[aCunningPlan]

He was on the line when he jumped for the ball, and was going backwards as he went for the mark.

I understand from the image below there is a sliver of the ball that is obscured at the time, and if that was a mark between the goalposts and closer to the camera it would be a mark...but given the distance from the camera and the fact that the goal line and behind post gets narrower in an image like this the further away it is then it would be fair to say it is clearly over the line.

If the goalpost was out of the way and you could judge the mark based on the behind post for a real perspective it would have been a clear cut behind.


Honestly because it was an unusual occasion with an element of doubt it should have just been umpire's call.

 

[PiesUserName]

Let’s avoid thwe fact that your boys couldn’t kick a goal for 56 minutes, one touch is always a mark.......

What difference does it make in what intervals goals are scored?
If we were goaless in the 1st, 3 goals in the 2nd and 2 goals in the 3rd quarter....we still would have ended with 36 points like Richmond

 

[Coops93]

It's impossible to tell. The padding on the goal post obscures the view of the ball/Higgins hands and blocks the line. There's no way for any of us to see where he first touched the footy in relation to the line.

Fwiw the goal umpire was on the other side of the post, clearly the best view of anyone, and said he thought he touched it behind the line.

It should've been umpires call, not overturned or confirmed.

 

[LoungeLizard]

But it was conclusive based on the rules. Because he took it cleanly, the moment it touched his hands, it's considered a mark assuming that the whole ball wasn't over the line.

From the replay, the post (which is part of the goal line) obscures the view of the ball when he first touches it. The next frame/s, it shows Higgins with his arms bent with the ball in his hands, and maybe the whole ball over the line. Therefore the first point of contact was made before the whole ball crossed the line, while it was obscured by the post.

Carey summed it up very well live. This exact same argument can be used for a mark taken on the boundary line.

I don't really care to argue if it was a mark or not, but this is a stupid post, if the post obscured the ball, then how can you know for sure he didn't juggle it for a second?
So by your evidence, it can't be overruled.

 

[mr bagcroft]

BT is a campaigner

 

[kosifantutti]

The camera is in the wrong place to be able to determine points.

Draw yourself a diagram looking from above. If the camera is in the middle of the goalpost, you are judging on a line from middle of goalpost to back of other goalpost. That’s not even close to the line from back of goalpost to back of behind post which is the line it should be judged on.

There’s no way you could conclusively overturn the umpire’s decision. ‬

 

[docks]

Let’s avoid thwe fact that your boys couldn’t kick a goal for 56 minutes, one touch is always a mark.......

Your boys went goalless for two quarters as well, will we avoid that too because it’s completely irrelevant.

 

[Unknown Identity]

The camera is in the wrong place to be able to determine points.

Draw yourself a diagram looking from above. If the camera is in the middle of the goalpost, you are judging on a line from middle of goalpost to back of other goalpost. That’s not even close to the line from back of goalpost to back of behind post which is the line it should be judged on.

There’s no way you could conclusively overturn the umpire’s decision. ‬

Give this man a medal.
You get it! Majority of fans and clearly the AFL don't.

Spend all this money on technology to not even be able to have the camera's set at angles that would actually make correct decisions.

At this point they are better having a drone flying above the goal posts looking straight down to determine whether the ball has crossed the goal line.
Probably cheaper and would be more accurate.

 

[Do the Dew]

I don't really care to argue if it was a mark or not, but this is a stupid post, if the post obscured the ball, then how can you know for sure he didn't juggle it for a second?
So by your evidence, it can't be overruled.

Because you can see that he didn't from the initial view looking down the ground.

 

[tigs2010]

Should give him Mark of the Year to get some real foaming going.

 

[Jpw22511]

It was a Mark just to piss off Collingwood and Eddie and it worked.

 

[Oraaaaazio]

Meh, didn't look like it had completely crossed the line & he one grabbed it. No chance I'm overturning the initial call though based on the evidence. Wasn't the worst call ever though. Didn't kick a goal for 56 minutes, that's your problem.

 

[00Stinger]

probably not but it was bloody close

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The camera angles are useless. There’s one on the goal line and the view is obscured by the post. You have to go with the opinion of the goal and boundary umpires, they had a far better view than the camera and hence the review team.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Because you can see that he didn't from the initial view looking down the ground.

A front on view does not show separation, you need a side on view for that.

As i said earlier i don't really care, for me close enough is good enough.

 

[Underarm]

The camera angles are useless. There’s one on the goal line and the view is obscured by the post. You have to go with the opinion of the goal and boundary umpires, they had a far better view than the camera and hence the review team.

They don't have the benefit of freeze frame though. The umpires are capable of getting this wrong.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

They don't have the benefit of freeze frame though. The umpires are capable of getting this wrong.

of course they are, but in this case the camera angles available are useless. The umps had a far better view.

 

[Coach_Required]

Best mark I have seen this year.

 

[living_in_syd]

Get a screenshot of the the two cameras simultaneously as they are synced

 

[SloppyJoe]

It's impossible to tell. The padding on the goal post obscures the view of the ball/Higgins hands and blocks the line. There's no way for any of us to see where he first touched the footy in relation to the line.

Fwiw the goal umpire was on the other side of the post, clearly the best view of anyone, and said he thought he touched it behind the line.

It should've been umpires call, not overturned or confirmed.

I think this is the right answer.

For mine, the vision is not conclusive and therefore you go with the umpire's call. I think a majority of people would agree.

Obviously, the umpire watching the replay was in the minority. It's happened before and it'll happen again.

 

[D-N-R]

When they review the goals they run the replays simultaneously - so the view from the post is happening at the same time as the view from the front.

If you can't see if he is juggling the mark from the goalpost camera then you can look at the other view (which is synchronised) , which tells you he isn't.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Back of the goal line is at the back of the padding. The ball is clearly not completely over the line when the player takes the one grab clean mark. Absolutely the correct decision. There'd be nowhere near the amount of hysteria if the idiots in the commentary box didn't carry on about it nearly as much as they did.

 

[tigs2010]

Back of the goal line is at the back of the padding. The ball is clearly not completely over the line when the player takes the one grab clean mark. Absolutely the correct decision. There'd be nowhere near the amount of hysteria if the idiots in the commentary box didn't carry on about it nearly as much as they did.

Classic BT in his Collingwood beanie.

 

[Final Siren]

What amazes me is how the TV umpire says, "The ball was CLEARLY marked before crossing the back of the behind line." He even stresses the word CLEARLY.

Must have bloody good eyesight.

 

[wittsfan]

Ok just want to ask the question.
Does the introduction of the review create an opportunity to create or fabricate a narrative in a game. It’s a television production.
It’s now the biggest talking point in an utterly forgettable game.
Great story though around young Higgins. The back story of the brain injury and his comeback game. Higgins is great television, give him the mike, or talk about his three quarter time jokes, great character.
Does the pause in the game create an opportunity for a producer to make the call. Pay the mark let’s see where this goes.
Should have been inconclusive and Umpires call, but this is a better story.
it just looked contrived.