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

[deck]

Again with this.
You can not physically have 3 different angles with the ball above the post, and the ball NOT be above the post.
Physically impossible.
Why can't you just accept that?

The vision above shows the ball in a different spot on each one. The theory relies on the ball to be directly above the post in all 3.

 

[deck]

No, the problem is you don't understand geometry. If there was only one image, yes the ball could be a metre behind the post. But once three images taken at the same time from different angles all show some part of the ball over the post, the ball is definitively over the post.

You could of course have read this any number of times already in this thread, but obviously you didn't do that.

You are not the first to not understand this and you probably won't be the last.

As above.

 

[FourthTimeAround]

The vision above shows the ball in a different spot on each one. The theory relies on the ball to be directly above the post in all 3.

These are video camera, not single shot cameras
If one angle shows it remaining over the post whilst the other shows it passing over the post before and after, then it's over the post.
There is no other answer. There is no debating science and trigonometry. There is no opinion in fact. It would stand up against a forensic examination in court. It simply is.

 

[DangerousD]

According to Dr Google, the definition of conclusive is:

"(of evidence or argument) having or likely [emphasis added] to have the effect of proving a case; decisive."

Or from Merriam Webster, a dictionary.

conclusive​

con·clu·sive | \ kən-ˈklü-siv , -ziv \

Definition of conclusive​

1: of, relating to, or being a conclusion
2: putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutabilityThe results were not conclusive.

Or from the Oxford dictionaries

conclusive​

adjective

/kənˈkluːsɪv/

/kənˈkluːsɪv/

1. proving something in a way that is certain and allows no doubt
   • conclusive evidence/proof/results
   • The evidence is by no means conclusive.
   OPPOSITE inconclusive

 

[Wazza69]

You see a blue dress.I see a gold dress

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Whether it was a goal or not, I'm more interested in the fact the goal umpire (once the sole judge of any score, but not any more) determined it was a goal and somebody reviewed it. Now the thing that bothers me, I just cannot see that there was enough conclusive evidence to overturn the original decision. I'd like someone in the AFL to explain who made the call, and on what grounds.

 

[Do the Dew]

None of that shows any of the balls in the exact same spot over the post.

The bottom left pic shows the ball comfortably to the left of the post. Isn't the whole argument of everyone here who believes it to be a point was that the ball has to be over the post in each synced image???

The fan footage is tricky because it's not from directly behind Lynch. There's a freeze frame where you can see a strip of white where the ball should be, indicating that the ball is behind the post, but alas it's grainy.

Most importantly, the umpire made a non-call of a 50m penalty. Andrews had already taken 2 steps forward before the ump called play on.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

This is a case where the goal umpire is not in perfect position to make the call. He would have to be standing under the post and back a little to himself be sure. (Granted he made good ground) Pure guess on his part from his vantage point but has to make a call one way or the other.

I think / I believe it’s a goal but I can’t be sure so let’s check it.

If they say umpires call then you are getting a best guess decision.

Seems in this case the review system has the better chance of ruling on the path of the footy.

Can understand the questions this raises for supporters either way but I think we got the right people adjudicating on this one.

What we as fans need is access to the decision makers audio or vision of their review to understand how they come to the conclusion and which angle they are focusing on.

 

[dean33]

How you overturn this is the biggest load of bullshit seen for years.
Afl needs to come out and provide the conclusive evidence they used to overturn it. We’ve had our season extinguished due to some moron in the arc.

 

[Purple Suit]

The bottom left pic shows the ball comfortably to the left of the post. Isn't the whole argument of everyone here who believes it to be a point was that the ball has to be over the post in each synced image???

The fan footage is tricky because it's not from directly behind Lynch. There's a freeze frame where you can see a strip of white where the ball should be, indicating that the ball is behind the post, but alas it's grainy.

Most importantly, the umpire made a non-call of a 50m penalty. Andrews had already taken 2 steps forward before the ump called play on.

The incident is 2:40 to go. Lions got shafted with a few calls themselves in the final 5 minutes. Rich, Daniher we’re two of them.

With 1 minute to go the Lions even won it out of the centre but we’re already infront and didn’t bomb it forward to a contest. The decision didn’t cost Richmond the game, Richmond did in the time after that moment which still could have easily happened if the Lynch point was called a goal.

 

[dean33]

The incident is 2:40 to go. Lions got shafted with a few calls themselves in the final 5 minutes. Rich, Daniher we’re two of them.

With 1 minute to go the Lions even won it out of the centre but we’re already infront and didn’t bomb it forward to a contest. The decision didn’t cost Richmond the game, Richmond did in the time after that moment which still could have easily happened if the Lynch point was called a goal.

We would have gone 9 points up with 90 secs to play. That decision decided the game. What happened after is irrelevant if the correct decision was made.

 

[Quested]

View attachment 1497869
How you overturn this is the biggest load of bullshit seen for years.
Afl needs to come out and provide the conclusive evidence they used to overturn it. We’ve had our season extinguished due to some moron in the arc.

You can't use one image in isolation. The fact the ball goes above the goal post height means this still is when the ball has already started to fall i.e the point after it's travelled above the post

 

[smasha]

The goal review system was brought in to stop howlers,not what happened on Thursday night.
AFL is a complete shambles ATM with the corruption.

 

[dean33]

You can't use one image in isolation. The fact the ball goes above the goal post height means this still is when the ball has already started to fall i.e the point after it's travelled above the post

You also can’t say the goal was directly above the post and not behind it from the vision we have seen. This is the problem, the evidence is not conclusive enough to overturn it. If the umpire called a point the arc would have come back with umpires call, if lynch had celebrated the arc would have come back with umpires call. How he could overturn it in 20 secs is the biggest load of shit. The afl is the biggest code in the country and they are run by a bunch of imbeciles who treat the public like idiots. The fact they ticked it off on the same night tells you everything you need to know about them.

 

[Quested]

You also can’t say the goal was directly above the post and not behind it from the vision we have seen. This is the problem, the evidence is not conclusive enough to overturn it. If the umpire called a point the arc would have come back with umpires call, if lynch had celebrated the arc would have come back with umpires call. How he could overturn it in 20 secs is the biggest load of s**t. The afl is the biggest code in the country and they are run by a bunch of imbeciles who treat the public like idiots. The fact they ticked it off on the same night tells you everything you need to know about them.

Or, now stay with me here... They, in their role as officials decided that the evidence was conclusive and went with that. Don't buy in to the media and pundits who want nothing more than to keep everyone stirred up with conjecture. They don't use the players reaction to make the call, that's simply farcical. It's hard to swallow I understand, we've had similar situations where the AFL actually got it wrong, came out and said they got it wrong for us. There were some terrible calls against in late in this game, and you were still 4 points up with 2 minutes to play. It's unfortunate that this has overshadowed a great game, but also not unexpected.

 

[Purple Suit]

The goal review system was brought in to stop howlers,not what happened on Thursday night.
AFL is a complete shambles ATM with the corruption.

The goal umpire requested the review as he was clearly not confident. He has to cover both posts and Lynch was only 5m out so he has bugger all time to move.

Corruption, oh my. Not sure how a supporter base who has had so much recent success can play the victim card all the time.

 

[dean33]

Or, now stay with me here... They, in their role as officials decided that the evidence was conclusive and went with that. Don't buy in to the media and pundits who want nothing more than to keep everyone stirred up with conjecture. They don't use the players reaction to make the call, that's simply farcical. It's hard to swallow I understand, we've had similar situations where the AFL actually got it wrong, came out and said they got it wrong for us. There were some terrible calls against in late in this game, and you were still 4 points up with 2 minutes to play. It's unfortunate that this has overshadowed a great game, but also not unexpected.

I know for a fact Richmond are asking the afl for the vision they used to make the decision. The afl need to release it as they are treating the public and especially Richmond in this instance with contempt.

 

[Do the Dew]

Or, now stay with me here... They, in their role as officials decided that the evidence was conclusive and went with that. Don't buy in to the media and pundits who want nothing more than to keep everyone stirred up with conjecture. They don't use the players reaction to make the call, that's simply farcical. It's hard to swallow I understand, we've had similar situations where the AFL actually got it wrong, came out and said they got it wrong for us. There were some terrible calls against in late in this game, and you were still 4 points up with 2 minutes to play. It's unfortunate that this has overshadowed a great game, but also not unexpected.

Like what?

And please please don't say the Daniher one where he cannoned into the back of Tarrant and took him out of the contest without getting near to the ball that (I think) McCarthy marked.

Also how about when Baker took a mark 50m out near the boundary with a few mins to go and said that he was having a set shot to which the umpire told him to play on for some inexplicable reason.

At half-time you were up 16-7 free kicks and 2-0 50 penalties. You got an unbelievable run.

 

[Spearman]

Or, now stay with me here... They, in their role as officials decided that the evidence was conclusive and went with that. Don't buy in to the media and pundits who want nothing more than to keep everyone stirred up with conjecture. They don't use the players reaction to make the call, that's simply farcical. It's hard to swallow I understand, we've had similar situations where the AFL actually got it wrong, came out and said they got it wrong for us. There were some terrible calls against in late in this game, and you were still 4 points up with 2 minutes to play. It's unfortunate that this has overshadowed a great game, but also not unexpected.

You're making well balanced, patient posts

But you're harshing their victim buzz, man.

 

[Spearman]

I know for a fact Richmond are asking the afl for the vision they used to make the decision. The afl need to release it as they are treating the public and especially Richmond in this instance with contempt.

Anybody have the cyber-ninjas email addy?

 

[MagpieJo]

The goal review system was brought in to stop howlers,not what happened on Thursday night.
AFL is a complete shambles ATM with the corruption.

I agree

i believe since it was apparently inconclusive his first take should have been upheld, ie goal.

the 50 for moving off the Mark, paying deliberate when under pressure in the goal square, so many stupid rules and huge penalties, when they ignore teams who quite clearly practise throws thinly disguised as hand passes, they change the rules for a 19 year old kid when a so-called star has made a living off the same move for 15 years, and then still pay depending who it is, umpires have been deciding games all season. Whatever reason Gill quit for, iwishithad happened sooner, and take Christian with him. Level playing field? Hahahaha

 

[JackOutback]

We would have gone 9 points up with 90 secs to play. That decision decided the game. What happened after is irrelevant if the correct decision was made.

The correct decision was made.

 

[Quested]

i believe since it was apparently inconclusive his first take should have been upheld, ie goal.

It was only apparently inconclusive to the media and Tiger fans, the ones that matter (those that made the decision) were conclusive.

 

[rye]

The goal review system was brought in to stop howlers,not what happened on Thursday night.
AFL is a complete shambles ATM with the corruption.

the afl had the richmond theme song ready to go and let the mask slip by playing it -- they wanted a big melbourne club to win. they tried to orchestrate a richmond victory with their goal umpire plant but the person in the ARC bunker went rogue and stopped that from happening.

the corruption and conspiracy favours richmond. not the other way around

 

[Hoops]

The vision above shows the ball in a different spot on each one. The theory relies on the ball to be directly above the post in all 3.

That's because when these shots were taken the ball was not directly over the post but it was still over the post which is a behind.