Not Worth A Thread - Random Bulldog Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure how you disagree with it but fair enough I don't think we're going to get anywhere with that discussion.
A laser is a 3d beam of light.
Aww don't give up, you convinced me on the camera angle - and that the decision was not conclusive! :D To prove whether the ball crossed the line, the laser only *needs* to be 2D - horizontal and vertical. The third dimension, though theoretically present, ie the front on width, could be infinitely small.
 
Aww don't give up, you convinced me on the camera angle - and that the decision was not conclusive! :D To prove whether the ball crossed the line, the laser only *needs* to be 2D - horizontal and vertical. The third dimension, though theoretically present, ie the front on width, could be infinitely small.
No it'd need to be the thickness of the goal line because the rules state that all of the ball needs to be over all of the line.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

No it'd need to be the thickness of the goal line because the rules state that all of the ball needs to be over all of the line.
Not if you only want to tell if the ball is over the line
 
Not if you only want to tell if the ball is over the line
I guess you could set it at the very edge of the line but even something with an infinitesimally small width and depth is still a 3 dimensional object. In order for it to register whether something has crossed it, it would have to be able to measure information on all three dimensions.
 
Last edited:
I guess you could set it at the very edge of the line but even something with an infinitesimally small width and depth is still a 3 dimensional object.
But it would be less 3D than the camera ..... infinitely small 3D - ness doesn't really influence the process does it?
 
No a camera picture is 2d it gives information about width and height but absolutely nothing on depth.
A lazer would measure all three by its very nature as a 3d object.
Hmmm
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

No a camera picture is 2d it gives information about width and height but absolutely nothing on depth.
A lazer would measure all three by its very nature as a 3d object.
So you the problem is even if the camera was centred it can create an illusion re the ball position depending on the distance between it and the ball? Sorry, I was thinking of width / lateral axis as the third dimension. :oops:
I can't see that this is going to be a problem.
If the ball is over the line, there will still be a gap between ball and line, it will just be smaller the further the ball is from the camera. Depth perception will not cause the ball to appear over the line when it isn't?? [I did try it with an object on a table.]
And the ump will only be better able to judge than a camera if he manages to have his eyes in the centre of the line??
 
On the 2017 members renewal BLK aren't listed as a sponsor but asics are. I'm assuming that asics will make the jumpers...
Are we definitely changing jumper sponsors?
Because the new stuff from BLK at St Kilda and Brisbane has this horrible white collar thing (i.e. toilet seat) going on...

160919-sliders-1160x573-HERO-new-da5d-1.jpg


160324_Clash_Campaign_Webstory_Hero_tile_Launch.jpg
 
Are we definitely changing jumper sponsors?
Because the new stuff from BLK at St Kilda and Brisbane has this horrible white collar thing (i.e. toilet seat) going on...

160919-sliders-1160x573-HERO-new-da5d-1.jpg


160324_Clash_Campaign_Webstory_Hero_tile_Launch.jpg
Aren't St Kilda with ISC? Was Tigers, Us, Giants, Lions, Crows and Gold Coast with BLK this year from memory.
 
Are we definitely changing jumper sponsors?
Because the new stuff from BLK at St Kilda and Brisbane has this horrible white collar thing (i.e. toilet seat) going on...

160919-sliders-1160x573-HERO-new-da5d-1.jpg


160324_Clash_Campaign_Webstory_Hero_tile_Launch.jpg
Those are horrible. That bottom one reminds me of this Man United kit which clearly only had the black on it to make the nike logo stand out more.

Co56SaJ.jpg
 
Firstly the camera isn't exactly in the centre of the line. Secondly the angle of the ball in relation to the camera obfuscates the edge of the line. And the ball is closer to the camera than the far part of the line we see making it appear bigger while also being further away from the near part of the line which appears thicker. 2d image of a 3d world doesn't work. Has to be more clear cut than this.
View attachment 303968

For example if you look at the image below the 3d representation is still drawn in 2d making it look like the circle sits right on the y axis (ignoring the cube that says otherwise) and really far away from the x axis. But we know from the other representation that it is equally distant from both. It's just a problem with that type of representation.
View attachment 303971
Nicely put. The other problem with the decision was the angle of the ball being affected by Laidler's fist. It was around vertical in the frame before the one you've shown. The impact of his fist made the ball substantially more diagonal and allowed the top right corner of the ball to be in play in the frame you've shown. If the ball had still been near vertical until the moment he'd punched it (which it could've been, but we can't tell what happened between the frames), it could've been completely over the line between the frames. It really wasn't enough information to overturn.
 
I have four tickets available for purchase at a discounted price for the Sons of the West function at Lakeside Receptions this Thursday night if anyone's keen. It's a three course meal and drinks with guest appearances from Bont, Murph, Stringer and Tony Liberatore.

https://www.trybooking.com/Booking/BookingEventSummary.aspx?eid=210617

Tickets are $135 per head but I'm selling four tickets at $100 each. The bad news is that you will be on a table with me.

PM me if you're interested in a ticket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top