Rules Score Review (ARC) Thread - Lions v Tigers Elimination

[MC Extra Dollop]

Why no Edge? Possibly as pointed out above the umpire was contacting the post and this may affect it.

If that was the reason, surely the goal umpires would be directed to avoid touching the goalposts especially when a shot at goal was in the air.

 

[Profop]

I swear there was a review at one point earlier in the year where they said they couldn’t use edge technology because the crowd was too loud

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I swear there was a review at one point earlier in the year where they said they couldn’t use edge technology because the crowd was too loud

They need to ban fans from bringing goalposts and footballs into the ground with them.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

Let’s think about the series of events that would have unfolded if it had of gone the other way.

1. The umpire calls it a goal
2. goes to the score review
3. vision shows it more likely than not went over the post,
4. but it’s not definitive so the goal stands.

Just like the goal umpire made the wrong decision which would’ve cost us the game…

The arc made the wrong decision that cost you the game.

As it turns out the goal umpire probably made the wrong call, as did the arc.

At the end of the day, it was more likely a goal than not based on the vision of three camera angles. Therefore the lions would have been more hard done by than the tigers.

Move on…

The Lynch kick I think if the footage is inconclusive (which it was) you take the goal umpires call standing under the post. He has the best view out of everyone to make the call.

In the game on the weekend with the Bailey goal I'm fine with the ARC calling it a goal, even if the umpire didn't call it a goal I'd have still thought they should over rule him. He had no idea, wasn't even looking at the ball. Edge would have been nice. Without it I'm still ok with calling it a goal.

 

[D-N-R]

If that was the reason, surely the goal umpires would be directed to avoid touching the goalposts especially when a shot at goal was in the air.

Maybe. They could also be reasoning that if the goal umpire is in that position he will be best placed to see the ball go through, so the edge isn't needed in that situation.

Really the problem is the system lacks transparency and when something contentious happens the AFL don't address it, leading to wild speculation ( including my own).

 

[GOTHELIONS16]

The Lynch kick I think if the footage is inconclusive (which it was) you take the goal umpires call standing under the post. He has the best view out of everyone to make the call.

In the game on the weekend with the Bailey goal I'm fine with the ARC calling it a goal, even if the umpire didn't call it a goal I'd have still thought they should over rule him. He had no idea, wasn't even looking at the ball. Edge would have been nice. Without it I'm still ok with calling it a goal.

That is an incorrect assumption that the goal umpire would always be in the best position. With the ball flirting with the top of the post, it might be the guy in row S of section…The AFL have come out and said today that they might have an altered review process next year where the umpire doesn’t have to make a call and can just send it right up. This is how it was for the lynch kick, the umpire was none the wiser than the slow mo vision, and wouldn’t have made a call if he didn’t have to. He didn’t know. The footage if you like it or not, is the most accurate vision of the reality that took place and that vision says behind. Lynch fluffed the kick and unless we have slow mo of the goal umpires imaginary head cam showing what he thought he saw, in the speed of the footballs flight, we will never have a definitive conclusion. Lynch didn’t know if he stuffed it up, and neither did the goal umpire. The vision says most likely a behind, and that’s the most reliable source we’ve got!

 

[GastevsBeard]

Jon Ralph has just published a story that Hardwick and the RFC brains trust had a “good spirited” tour of the ARC today

Story didn’t really explain the rationale of that specific decision however

 

[THECHIEFTON]

That is an incorrect assumption that the goal umpire would always be in the best position. With the ball flirting with the top of the post, it might be the guy in row S of section…The AFL have come out and said today that they might have an altered review process next year where the umpire doesn’t have to make a call and can just send it right up. This is how it was for the lynch kick, the umpire was none the wiser than the slow mo vision, and wouldn’t have made a call if he didn’t have to. He didn’t know. The footage if you like it or not, is the most accurate vision of the reality that took place and that vision says behind. Lynch fluffed the kick and unless we have slow mo of the goal umpires imaginary head cam showing what he thought he saw, in the speed of the footballs flight, we will never have a definitive conclusion. Lynch didn’t know if he stuffed it up, and neither did the goal umpire. The vision says most likely a behind, and that’s the most reliable source we’ve got!

I didn't say the umpire would always be in the correct position. I even said I'd be happy if the ARC over ruled in cases where the umpire wasn't in the correct position to make a good call. Like the Bailey goal from this week.

IMO the Lynch call is different. The ARC footage isn't clear cut. The umpire is in the best spot out of anyone. That's probably one of the rare times this actually the case.

 

[Do the Dew]

Jon Ralph has just published a story that Hardwick and the RFC brains trust had a “good spirited” tour of the ARC today

Story didn’t really explain the rationale of that specific decision however

Yep seems like there was no additional evidence that many people here claimed the AFL must have had to overturn the goal.

So the Tigers lose a final on grainy ass footage that may not be synced and a subjective call at best. Makes sense.

 

[blaisee]

Yep seems like there was no additional evidence that many people here claimed the AFL must have had to overturn the goal.

So the Tigers lose a final on grainy ass footage that may not be synced and a subjective call at best. Makes sense.

Where is the footage?

AFL need to release it now !

 

[Mantastic]

Yep seems like there was no additional evidence that many people here claimed the AFL must have had to overturn the goal.

So the Tigers lose a final on grainy ass footage that may not be synced and a subjective call at best. Makes sense.

Don't forget you also lost because you didn't win enough games to get a double chance. So many blown games, to shit teams. You weren't good enough to finish higher than 7th, which meant you had to go interstate for an elimination game, which you weren't good enough to win. I love that the Tigs keep looking outwardly for answers, instead of inwardly at all the ways they threw away their season.

 

[bungalow_bill]

As a wise Tiger fan once said..

Excuses are for losers. Don't be that guy

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

i mean i shrugged and moved on a week ago

but honest question, seeing as this thread is still going way past its used by date

what do the it was a goal camp actually want out of this now?

even if the AFL comes out and says turns out we shouldnt have overturned it, our bad, it simply just goes into the same basket as the 2009 phantom goal and we all just shrug.

 

[Chief]

Did we ever get a link to a document showing the rules or guidelines for the score review system?

 

[Freddy Swift]

i mean i shrugged and moved on a week ago

but honest question, seeing as this thread is still going way past its used by date

what do the it was a goal camp actually want out of this now?

even if the AFL comes out and says turns out we shouldnt have overturned it, our bad, it simply just goes into the same basket as the 2009 phantom goal and we all just shrug.

The AFL cannot come out and say they got it wrong, because they would be in all sorts of trouble with betting agencies and punters who may have lost money.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Did we ever get a link to a document showing the rules or guidelines for the score review system?

https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL-Score-Review.pdf

If you read that document, the whole thing hinges on whether the vision is conclusive.

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

The AFL cannot come out and say they got it wrong, because they would be in all sorts of trouble with betting agencies and punters who may have lost money.

how is it any different than when they admitted they should have awarded Cameron a mark 8 meters out vs sydney with 10 seconds to go in 2021 when the cats lost by 2 points?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So further to my above post showing the AFL Score Review Guidelines…..

What is needed is for the AFL to explain directly to the viewing public why they consider the vision conclusive. We have had lots of people on this forum say why they think the vision is conclusive but it has not been explained by the AFL. Does the ARC operator just have a look at the position of the ball in relation to the post like most of us? Do they perform some sort of calculation based on triangulation, or based on vectors? Do they have an awareness of the error margins in the footage? Is that taken into account?

It is not unreasonable for football supporters to want to know answers to these questions. Why are we not being given the answers? We are not even being told why we are not being given the answers. Surely the AFL are aware there is a critical mass of supporters who would be interested to hear their responses to these questions.

Ultimately it needs to be established the ARC method is more accurate than the goal umpire’s naked eye in these cases where the ball goes above the height of the post, or clearly it should not be used to overturn the goal umpire’s decision. The AFL now seems to be saying they will remove the umpire’s call in these cases. If that is the case then it definitely needs to be shown the ARC is more accurate than the umpire’s naked eye.

 

[Chief]

it definitely needs to be shown the ARC is more accurate than the umpire’s naked eye.

From my POV, two or three cameras at different angles and with a better frame rate (indeed an entirely different method of processing images) than the human brain is MUCH better than one angle from the ground through a human eye.

I don't see how there could be an argument against this but if there is I'm all ears.

The time machine brain​

In our latest research, we discovered a new mechanism that, among others, can explain this illusory stability. The brain automatically smoothes our visual input over time. Instead of analysing every single visual snapshot, we perceive in a given moment an average of what we saw in the past 15 seconds. So, by pulling together objects to appear more similar to each other, our brain tricks us into perceiving a stable environment. Living “in the past” can explain why we do not notice subtle changes that occur over time.

In other words, the brain is like a time machine which keeps sending us back in time. It’s like an app that consolidates our visual input every 15 seconds into one impression so that we can handle everyday life. If our brains were always updating in real time, the world would feel like a chaotic place with constant fluctuations in light, shadow and movement. We would feel like we were hallucinating all the time.

Everything we see is a mash-up of the brain’s last 15 seconds of visual information

The brain is basically a time machine that ensures what we see is stable and continuous

theconversation.com

 

[Freddy Swift]

how is it any different than when they admitted they should have awarded Cameron a mark 8 meters out vs sydney with 10 seconds to go in 2021 when the cats lost by 2 points?

He may not have kicked the goal. Odds are he probably would have but who’s to say he wouldn’t have kicked into the man on the mark or hit the post?

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

He may not have kicked the goal. Odds are he probably would have but who’s to say he wouldn’t have kicked into the man on the mark or hit the post?

brisbane may have kicked 2 goals in 2 minutes?

 

[Freddy Swift]

brisbane may have kicked 2 goals in 2 minutes?

Yeah maybe, but they had their two minutes and didn’t kick two.

 

[YoTT]

Yep seems like there was no additional evidence that many people here claimed the AFL must have had to overturn the goal.

So the Tigers lose a final on grainy ass footage that may not be synced and a subjective call at best. Makes sense.

The only additional footage I have seen is the "fan" vision. Which if you pause at about 0.12 seems to show the ball behind the goal post rather than over it.

 

[Coach_Required]

Taking Richmond out of the discussion, is anyone concerned about the AFL's idea regarding getting rid of the soft call?

I think its quite concerning that the AFL's secret bunker will have control of the vision & final say over what the goal umpire thinks it was. It means the AFL has the ability to manipulate results and that should worry every supporter no matter who you barrack for or what team you dislike.

What's the point of having goal umpires if their decision wont matter if a field umpire deems it worthy of an ARC call? Thinking about all the decisions made this year alone where there was "insufficient evidence to overturn". Now we are going to have vision and massive supporter out cry when its too blurry to see or difficult to see a decision. It basically means they haven't fixed this problem at all just moved it from an actual umpire on the ground to someone sitting on a chair in a room.

I get it mistakes by the goal umpire can and do happen but dont tell me the ARC doesnt get it wrong either. The AFL have NFI what they are doing and once again changing rules on the hop when they are caught out.

 

[Freddy Swift]

Taking Richmond out of the discussion, is anyone concerned about the AFL's idea regarding getting rid of the soft call?

I think its quite concerning that the AFL's secret bunker will have control of the vision & final say over what the goal umpire thinks it was. It means the AFL has the ability to manipulate results and that should worry every supporter no matter who you barrack for or what team you dislike.

What's the point of having goal umpires if their decision wont matter if a field umpire deems it worthy of an ARC call? Thinking about all the decisions made this year alone where there was "insufficient evidence to overturn". Now we are going to have vision and massive supporter out cry when its too blurry to see or difficult to see a decision. It basically means they haven't fixed this problem at all just moved it from an actual umpire on the ground to someone sitting on a chair in a room.

I get it mistakes by the goal umpire can and do happen but dont tell me the ARC doesnt get it wrong either. The AFL have NFI what they are doing and once again changing rules on the hop when they are caught out.

Couldn’t agree more with you Coach. Leaves it wide open to manipulation of results.