48 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Looks like a goal from this angle.

Perhaps ARC need to take submissions from the crowd.

From a Camera about 100 metres away

it really is a pathetic system they have signed off on

Prepared to comment Gill?

this will cost a GF down the road….

Tom Lynch should just kick for goal better

It's done now. Hard to tell if Lynch's kick was a goal or a point (looked like a point IMO), but Tigers stuffed it at the end of the day. That final goal Daniher kicked was a result of some of the worst defending in recent memory. Richmond had a 4 on 1 contest and still managed to not kill the ball and let the one opposition player get a hold of it and kick it. Their poor defending cost them the match, not the goal review everyone is whinging about.

Poor defending was the theme of the match last night. Regardless of who won, neither team can win the flag this year as they can't defend properly. Defense wins premierships. Richmond defended worse when it mattered.

Wouldn’t it be awful if the same thing happened to Collingwood on Saturday.

karma.

15 hours ago, Brownie said:

This can only work if the AFL can get sponsor logos on to the beams somehow.

Maybe death lasers that explode the ball if it's touched.

Seriously though. It's a good idea.

Unless you have a Leigh Matthews moment...

 

All jokes aside, the solution is not lasers but hawkeye tech developed for AFL. A few doppler radars and some strategically placed sensors, will get it done.

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by CYB

We really do have the worlds hardest game to officiate.  Put a cross bar and net around the goals and there's no conjecture.  Its in or it isn' t.  (I'm not advocating that)   We also award scores for misses, we don't mark the ground like a ruler for distance measuring .  A "mark" is a "catch" except it can be spilled after a certain time has elapsed etc etc .  We all love this game as it is, if we don't want to implement other codes features like the above, we will occasionally have to put up with grey, or even wrong, decisions.  

It’s not rocket science, just attach a laser beam to the posts.

Richmond got a lucky call not long before the goal overrule.  Daniher was paid a free against while legitimately going for a mark and it became an 'unrealistic attempt' when the Richmond player bent forward...he looked like he wanted an in the back free.  It would most likely have been a goal to Bailey, dead in front if not for the free.  The free was very soft at a clutch time in a sudden death final.  That is the time the whistles should be put away for soft calls..

I thought Lions deserved to win.

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

This can be argued till the cows come home but Richmond still lose.
To be sure this doesn’t happen again, stick some two metre flag poles on the top of the posts. 

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by John Crow Batty

1 minute ago, John Crow Batty said:

This can be argued till the cows come home but Richmond still lose. Correct decision. 

But it is not the point. 
The point is that the video equipment is not up to standard. There is no way ANY of the video angles were conclusive. It probably was a point, but that vision cannot give a serious answer. And it should never have been used to overturn the decision. 
Meanwhile the AFL CEO pockets $millions

6 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Richmond got a lucky call not long before the goal overrule.  Daniher was paid a free against while legitimately going for a mark and it became an 'unrealistic attempt' when the Richmond player bent forward.  It would most likely have been a goal to Bailey, dead in front if not for the free.  The free was very soft at a clutch time in a sudden death final.  That is the time the whistles should be put away for soft calls..

I thought Lions deserved to win.

I agree about the Daniher one, he pulled his hands out the way to let McCarthy (I think?) mark it.

He would have had his mitts all over it if not for that - It was actually very smart and great awareness

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

Looks like a goal from this angle.

Perhaps ARC need to take submissions from the crowd.

Straight over the top of the post, even Lynch knew it. ARC got this right.

1 minute ago, BW511 said:

I agree about the Daniher one, he pulled his hands out the way to let McCarthy (I think?) mark it.

He would have had his mitts all over it if not for that - It was actually very smart and great awareness

Yes, you are correct it was McCarthy, not Bailey.

Goal review specialist:

37 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

It's done now. Hard to tell if Lynch's kick was a goal or a point (looked like a point IMO), but Tigers stuffed it at the end of the day. That final goal Daniher kicked was a result of some of the worst defending in recent memory. Richmond had a 4 on 1 contest and still managed to not kill the ball and let the one opposition player get a hold of it and kick it. Their poor defending cost them the match, not the goal review everyone is whinging about.

Poor defending was the theme of the match last night. Regardless of who won, neither team can win the flag this year as they can't defend properly. Defense wins premierships. Richmond defended worse when it mattered.

Agree with all of the baove.

But i'd add that the biggest stuff up was lynch bot splitting the center with that kick. I mean that was total gimme. 

21 minutes ago, bluey said:

It’s not rocket science, just attach a laser beam to the posts.

You'd need a ring of them to outline the extended goal post.  And declare a no-fly zone over every footy ground presumably.😁

17 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Richmond got a lucky call not long before the goal overrule.  Daniher was paid a free against while legitimately going for a mark and it became an 'unrealistic attempt' when the Richmond player bent forward.  It would most likely have been a goal to Bailey, dead in front if not for the free.  The free was very soft at a clutch time in a sudden death final.  That is the time the whistles should be put away for soft calls..

I thought Lions deserved to win.

I hear you, but i think they base the call on whether he actually touches the call and in that case, i think he actually doesnt, so as ridiculous as it sounds, technically was there.

I think the first one (in the 1st quarter) where Tarrant bends down to minimise the speccy needs to be considered for tunneling. Im not sure on the actual ruling, but think its paid when the defender pushes the player from behind whilst in flight. I don't understand why its not the same thing if the defender backs into a player whilst in flight - It is just as dangerous. 

At the end of the day Lynch totally bellied the kick. 

We can all agree that Essendon are 💩

18 minutes ago, Demonland said:

We can all agree that Essendon are 💩

you can add another 365 days to essendon's total before they even have another chance 🤣

2 hours ago, sue said:

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?)

And I am still, despite it making zero difference to the final result, peeeed off by the absence of a review of Max’s long goal in the GF.  Not even queried in the commentary at the time.  How about a retroactive review to set the score right?   

Posts (pun intended) on BigFooty show it was definitely a behind.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/goal-or-post-a-pole.1329324/#post-76443961

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/goal-or-post-a-pole.1329324/page-2#post-76446034

A pity really, would have been even more fun if it was a goal, a la Wayne Harmes tap - #TigerTime

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by old55

Gawn had his goal disallowed on the Grand Final last year and was adamant it was a goal. Fan footage from behind the goal appears to confirm that analysis. Yet the Ump called it a point and it wasn't even reviewed. Nor did the AFL discuss how to stop it happening in future.

It was a vital time in the game but in the end didn't matter. Nonetheless the AFL have now had two clear stuff ups.

 

FFS it cant be that hard. Lidar on top of the goal posts or hawk eye. Its not expensive tech.

3 hours ago, KysaiahMessiah said:

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.

it has been a bug bear of mine for a long time where the umpires stand. In rugby they have one on each post. Why cant the boundary umpire or one of the field umpires be used??

The worst is when the ump stands with his back leaning against the post and the ball hits him as it bounces along the ground.

They are idiots

 

Drives me spare.