Autopsy Roast & Toast v Collingwood R2 & Changes for Hawthorn

[Marcel Proust]

to be fair that still doesn't prove anything. Can't even see the ball or his hands.

the benefit of the doubt should go with the player marking? like cricket

not higgins fault the afl cant work out how cameras work

does the whole of the ball go over the line before it goes in his hands? dun think so

 

[peternorth]

Lynch OUT of the woods

 

[tiger_tough]

the benefit of the doubt should go with the player marking? like cricket

not higgins fault the afl cant work out how cameras work

does the whole of the ball go over the line before it goes in his hands? dun think so

Not really. When it's that tight it should go with the umpires call, as it does with DRS in cricket. Not sure there was conclusive evidence to overturn the decision. If the camera used for the review is mounted in the middle of the goal post which I believe they are then by the time you look past the padding on the opposing goal post in a direct line of sight than there has to be a blind spot. Saying the ball didn't cross over before he got hands on it isn't definitive when looking from that angle. If he got fingers to it in the blind spot, it will still look like a mark from the goal poast camera. Excuse the crude pic.



FWIW I thought it was a mark. Nice to get a review go our way for once.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

Not really. When it's that tight it should go with the umpires call, as it does with DRS in cricket. Not sure there was conclusive evidence to overturn the decision. If the camera used for the review is mounted in the middle of the goal post which I believe they are then by the time you look past the padding on the opposing goal post in a direct line of sight than there has to be a blind spot. Saying the ball didn't cross over before he got hands on it isn't definitive when looking from that angle. If he got fingers to it in the blind spot, it will still look like a mark from the goal poast camera. Excuse the crude pic.

View attachment 893304

FWIW I thought it was a mark. Nice to get a review go our way for once.

I agree with your principal in the drawing, but its a little different.
The back of the padding is in line with the back of the line, so padding doesn't cover any space past the goal line...
But your right, the camera angle is not a straight line but on an angle

 

[lumpinee]

Dogs dumped him before his contract was up, so he would've been cheap. Before landing the big fish at RFC, I would've backed us to get him right for our fwd line.

once his mate Johannisen was given 700 a season ,Stringer went shopping for the 600,the dogs said no,then came the other stuff

 

[tiger_tough]

I agree with your principal in the drawing, but its a little different.
The back of the padding is in line with the back of the line, so padding doesn't cover any space past the goal line...
But your right, the camera angle is not a straight line but on an angle

Fair enough, thanks. The principle still applies, just at a smaller margin.

 

[Bojangles17]

to be fair that still doesn't prove anything. Can't even see the ball or his hands.

Well you can’t see the ball in front of posts or behind , his arms are extended forward , other angles demonstrated a steel trap single grab that went C L U N K , of course it was a bloody mark

 

[amc11]

Not really. When it's that tight it should go with the umpires call, as it does with DRS in cricket. Not sure there was conclusive evidence to overturn the decision.

FWIW I thought it was a mark. Nice to get a review go our way for once.

I guess the umpire had enough doubt about his call otherwise he would not have asked for the score review to check if the mark had been taken before the ball was fully across the line. Personally speaking I love that he had that doubt.

 

[Charlie Pannam]

I guess the umpire had enough doubt about his call otherwise he would not have asked for the score review to check if the mark had been taken before the ball was fully across the line. Personally speaking I love that he had that doubt.

Reckon the reviewers got this one right- side angle is always more accurate than behind the goals and it shows the ball not fully over.
Anyway the ball can fully cross the goal line untouched hit the padding and is awarded a behind so where exactly is the line these days

 

[JazMac]

Not really. When it's that tight it should go with the umpires call, as it does with DRS in cricket. Not sure there was conclusive evidence to overturn the decision. If the camera used for the review is mounted in the middle of the goal post which I believe they are then by the time you look past the padding on the opposing goal post in a direct line of sight than there has to be a blind spot. Saying the ball didn't cross over before he got hands on it isn't definitive when looking from that angle. If he got fingers to it in the blind spot, it will still look like a mark from the goal poast camera. Excuse the crude pic.

View attachment 893304

FWIW I thought it was a mark. Nice to get a review go our way for once.

Wow. In your diagram the padding around the post is about 2m in diameter. No wonder the camera can't see anywhere near the point line in your diagram. I think the AFL/MCG put slightly less padding on than you think.

 

[Serenity_Now]

Not really. When it's that tight it should go with the umpires call, as it does with DRS in cricket. Not sure there was conclusive evidence to overturn the decision. If the camera used for the review is mounted in the middle of the goal post which I believe they are then by the time you look past the padding on the opposing goal post in a direct line of sight than there has to be a blind spot. Saying the ball didn't cross over before he got hands on it isn't definitive when looking from that angle. If he got fingers to it in the blind spot, it will still look like a mark from the goal poast camera. Excuse the crude pic.

View attachment 893304

FWIW I thought it was a mark. Nice to get a review go our way for once.

They had front on footage synced with the goal line camera, so the reviewer knew exactly when the ball was in his hands in relation to the goal line footage.

 

[Serenity_Now]

Reckon the reviewers got this one right- side angle is always more accurate than behind the goals and it shows the ball not fully over.
Anyway the ball can fully cross the goal line untouched hit the padding and is awarded a behind so where exactly is the line these days

Pretty sure the back of the goal line is lined up with the back of the padding now. I remember it didn’t used to be that way.

 

[tiger_tough]

Wow. In your diagram the padding around the post is about 2m in diameter. No wonder the camera can't see anywhere near the point line in your diagram. I think the AFL/MCG put slightly less padding on than you think.

I'm sure you can grasp the gist of it. Feel free to knock something up to the millimeter in Photoshop if it helps.

 

[tiger_tough]

They had front on footage synced with the goal line camera, so the reviewer knew exactly when the ball was in his hands in relation to the goal line footage.

And the front on footage is even less helpful. The only conclusive footage would be from above.

 

[This Is Anfield]

As they say... it's in the book!

 

[Charlie Pannam]

Pretty sure the back of the goal line is lined up with the back of the padding now. I remember it didn’t used to be that way.

Ok, didn’t realise that. it makes sense

 

[Rayzorwire]

Lynch good to play?

'Nothing to see': Key Tiger shrugs off foot concerns, dismisses reports

Tom Lynch will take his place in Thursday night's clash with Hawthorn, despite undergoing scans on a minor foot injury

www.afl.com.au

Whichever way it works out re. playing this week, I suspect we've seen the last of him rucking, couldn't possibly have looked more uncomfortable in the role.

Ferrari on a washed out gravel donkey trail kinda uncomfortable.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

In the last 2 minutes he's jumping into packs punching the ball fwd. Soldo looked to able to run out the game. Leave that selection for a few weeks. I want to see Jack Ross IN for Graham.

Fridge will not be dropped.

 

[Waca Jr]

Not really. When it's that tight it should go with the umpires call, as it does with DRS in cricket. Not sure there was conclusive evidence to overturn the decision. If the camera used for the review is mounted in the middle of the goal post which I believe they are then by the time you look past the padding on the opposing goal post in a direct line of sight than there has to be a blind spot. Saying the ball didn't cross over before he got hands on it isn't definitive when looking from that angle. If he got fingers to it in the blind spot, it will still look like a mark from the goal poast camera. Excuse the crude pic.

View attachment 893304

FWIW I thought it was a mark. Nice to get a review go our way for once.

Umpirw was inbetween point and goal post. Right call

 

[DontArgue4]

Whichever way it works out re. playing this week, I suspect we've seen the last of him rucking, couldn't possibly have looked more uncomfortable in the role.

Ferrari on a washed out gravel donkey trail kinda uncomfortable.

for what its worth, in his presser today he said he enjoyed being back up ruck and will continue to do it

 

[Rayzorwire]

for what its worth, in his presser today he said he enjoyed being back up ruck and will continue to do it

Wow, OK, good on him.

I thought he looked really out of place, but he can only improve I guess and it can only get easier after starting with Grundy.

One good aspect looking long term is that it can bring him into the game a bit when things get quiet in the deep forward line, but I'm not sure that offsets the higher potential for injury.

 

[JazMac]

I'm sure you can grasp the gist of it. Feel free to knock something up to the millimeter in Photoshop if it helps.

The gist of it is that the camera had vastly less blind spot area than your diagram portrayed. Why bother doing a diagram if it is misleading? Oh, never mind....

 

[cairo tiger]

Teams ?

 

[VB_longneck]

this was one of the worst game ive ever seen

jack not making the distance from 29 metres out was hilarious but not as hilarious as pies not kicking a goal for 3 quarters and higgo marking the ball from the fence

 

[This Is Anfield]

this was one of the worst game ive ever seen

jack not making the distance from 29 metres out was hilarious but not as hilarious as pies not kicking a goal for 3 quarters and higgo marking the ball from the fence

_ykciR