Just now, low flying Robbo said:

It would be a simple fix with cameras in the top of the post looking directly up. Regardless of the angle that the ball comes in, you can tell which side of the post it’s going 🤷🏻‍♂️

They also need to up the resolution on all their other cameras.

32 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

...

Clearely Lynch thought he'd missed it. 

I don't think that is clear.  He may have just been unsure where it had gone.  And it seems he would have been right to be unsure.

 

29 minutes ago, sue said:

I don't think that is clear.  He may have just been unsure where it had gone.  And it seems he would have been right to be unsure.

I am sure that he was not unsure and even surer that his team mates were sure, as they all went to the defensive positions for the kick out for a point. I am also sure that no Tiger celebrated the kick, nor did any Lion seem upset that he had goaled.

I am unsure if the ARC also had a better angle that hasn’t been shown publicly but am sure that the ARC was very sure as the decision was given quite quickly.

When he kicked it I said straight away he had missed and that was the reaction of all the players.

If the post extended up to the level the ball went through I'm very confident some part of the spinning ball would have touched the post.  It doesn't have to flush the post to be a behind.  I think the ARC made the right decision on the evidence.

3 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Jarlsberg

For future reference - it is Norwegian. 😇

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

I am sure that he was not unsure and even surer that his team mates were sure, as they all went to the defensive positions for the kick out for a point. I am also sure that no Tiger celebrated the kick, nor did any Lion seem upset that he had goaled.

I am unsure if the ARC also had a better angle that hasn’t been shown publicly but am sure that the ARC was very sure as the decision was given quite quickly.

When he kicked it I said straight away he had missed and that was the reaction of all the players.

I just don't see how anyone can be sure if a ball would have touched the goal post if the post was 10 metres longer.    So if all players acted as if it was a point, I'd think it's more likely to assume they thought it missed by quite a lot. Maybe it did.

I expect the speed of the ARC's decision related more to the reaction of players (which they are on record as taking into account) than any video we saw.

I'm surprised at people who say they definitely saw that it went over post.  The ball can appear to go over a post after it has gone past the goal line.  Impossible to be sure without views from more than one direction.

The goal umpire got it wrong, I don't know how as he should have been positioned near that post. and watched it go over the top of the post..

I could see on tv it was a point, Lynch didn't think it was a goal and the ARC agreed.  If he had kicked it he would have gone nuts given the lead it gave them with the remaining time.

Either way, its done, and they'll need to play the swans next Friday.  :)  

 

Looks like a goal from this angle.

Perhaps ARC need to take submissions from the crowd.

4 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Looks like a goal from this angle.

Perhaps ARC need to take submissions from the crowd.

That's looks like a point, it curls up over the post and then turns after it.

3 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Last night was a battle between Swiss cheese defences. Jarlsberg versus Emmental. 

Tiger fans on the radio this morning were Emmental as anything about that disallowed "goal".

I must admit this gave me a chuckle:

 

Just now, Demonstone said:

Tiger fans on the radio this morning were Emmental as anything about that disallowed "goal".

It would be the same on here if it happened to us. 

More new video above and I continue to be amazed how definite people can be interpreting a poor 2D image as if it gave solid 3D positional and timing information.

(Do I have to add I was more than pleased Richmond lost?)

16 minutes ago, Darkhorse72 said:

The goal umpire got it wrong, I don't know how as he should have been positioned near that post. and watched it go over the top of the post..

I could see on tv it was a point, Lynch didn't think it was a goal and the ARC agreed.  If he had kicked it he would have gone nuts given the lead it gave them with the remaining time.

Either way, its done, and they'll need to play the swans next Friday.  :)  

 

When a player is shooting from so close to goal, the goal umpire has to make a judgement on where best to stand.  If the kicker misses either way, there is no way they can be in the right position 100% of the time.  Boundary umpires on the behind posts assist, but in the split second from Lynchs boot to it crossing the line the goal umpire simply cant be in the right place all the time, and it becomes a judgement call.  Only way to cover both goal posts is to have an umpire under each post.

the goal umpire should have said he wasn't sure either way. he certainly wasn't in the best position (no fault of his)

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the goal umpire should have said he wasn't sure either way. he certainly wasn't in the best position (no fault of his)

The goal umpire at the opposite end did magnificent positioning work for the Daniher goal - no review required.

The camera angles are time synchronised, so when 3 different angles show the ball over the post at the same time, for me that’s definitive proof it was a behind.  Basic triangulation (geometry).

The goal umpire did not get into the perfect position to see for sure (no fault of his as it happened so fast), and I think there needs to be a change to the rule when this happens.  They should not have to give a soft call if they know they weren’t in a position to make a solid call.  Make a null call and let the ARC make a call.

28 minutes ago, Darkhorse72 said:

That's looks like a point, it curls up over the post and then turns after it.

The fact is it’s not definitive and this angle is more definitive either way than what ARC had. There is no way they can say with certainty with their angles that it was or wasn’t a goal. The goal umpire’s decision should have stood. 

Having said that I’m very happy Richmond lost. 

13 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the goal umpire should have said he wasn't sure either way. he certainly wasn't in the best position (no fault of his)

I agree but I think they are bound to make a "soft call"  according to the rules

4 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Plus a very underdone Dusty Martin.

Looked a shadow of himself. I think that's the last game we'll see him in yellow and black.

I heard the same from a very good source this morning Dazzle. Positive that Dusty won't be at Punt Rd. next year. Mail is usually on the money, I suppose we just have to wait and see.

2 minutes ago, KysaiahMessiah said:

I agree but I think they are bound to make a "soft call"  according to the rules

if there was no arc that would make sense

with arc, not really needed, or he should be able to give a soft call and qualify it with doubt to enable the arc to use an easier set of rules to override (i.e. not necessarily definitive but balance of probability

43 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Looks like a goal from this angle.

Perhaps ARC need to take submissions from the crowd.

And therein lies the problem.  Viewing the same footage, looks clearly over the post to me!

4 minutes ago, KysaiahMessiah said:

And therein lies the problem.  Viewing the same footage, looks clearly over the post to me!

yes, but you wouldn't want ralphy as a umpire or a juryman on your trial.....lol

oh, and ralphy is a tigers supporter

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by daisycutter

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

yes, but you wouldn't want ralphy as a umpire or a juryman on your trial.....lol

tiger supporter right?

Just now, KysaiahMessiah said:

tiger supporter right?

just updated my post before your post

great minds think alike