10 hours ago, monoccular said:

I still can't get an answer - did the guy who was deemed to have touched it protest that he did?  It is (conveniently) absent from the footage.

The Carlton player does signal, not immediately, only after he looks to see the ball is going through. As every player does now.

The ARC footage is shown as the broadcast footage, that’s the point of the script: “looking at this angle…”

There isn’t some other magical angle where you can see this non-existent touch.

It’s clear there isn’t sufficient evidence and likely it wasn’t touched at all.

The problem is that we roll over, other clubs do not.

Whether it was touched or not, I still don't know how they came to the 100% definitive decision to overturn as the ball was going back to the centre. 

21 minutes ago, layzie said:

Whether it was touched or not, I still don't know how they came to the 100% definitive decision to overturn as the ball was going back to the centre. 

Isn’t it rather ironic. Playing the same team only weeks ago was the catalyst to put a focus on ARC reviews and being definitive on these calls in finals. 

 

Surely the true irony is that in the case of Petracca in Round 22 the goal umpire’s decision that he thought it was touched stood because the vision was not definitive while in the ANB case the goal was overruled even though the vision was again not definitive?

10 hours ago, No10 said:

The Carlton player does signal, not immediately, only after he looks to see the ball is going through. As every player does now.

The ARC footage is shown as the broadcast footage, that’s the point of the script: “looking at this angle…”

There isn’t some other magical angle where you can see this non-existent touch.

It’s clear there isn’t sufficient evidence and likely it wasn’t touched at all.

The problem is that we roll over, other clubs do not.

What unlike Adelaide….who, well, umm rolled over!

13 hours ago, Roost it far said:

What unlike Adelaide….who, well, umm rolled over!

The Adelaide goal that was misjudged a point by the goal umpire? Nothing to do with ARC.

The goal umpire who was stood down?

The AFL who apologised and confirmed the error, Gil made statements about fixing the system?

The Adelaide goal that was written about in every major and minor press?

Yeah… No.

7 minutes ago, No10 said:

The Adelaide goal that was misjudged a point by the goal umpire? Nothing to do with ARC.

The goal umpire who was stood down?

The AFL who apologised and confirmed the error, Gil made statements about fixing the system?

The Adelaide goal that was written about in every major and minor press?

Yeah… No.

Meanwhile the club did nothing……

Richmond last year when knocked out of the finals by a bad call……..nudda……not a peep

In fact I’m struggling to think of one club who has kicked up a fuss with the AFL over ARC…..

Edited September 21, 20232 yr by Roost it far

10 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Meanwhile the club did nothing……

Richmond last year when knocked out of the finals by a bad call……..nudda……not a peep

In fact I’m struggling to think of one club who has kicked up a fuss with the AFL over ARC…..

You’re living on a different planet.

Re. Adelaide, given that was your first example :

"It's inexplicable they didn't call for a review" said Crows Chairman, John Olsen. "The field umpire then also didn't call for a review of the decision". 

Olsen told Nikolai & Stacey, "A lot's got to be played out here yet".

MFC: I'm here to complain about the ARC incident.

AFL: Hmmm, ahhh, talk to that officer over there..

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

Meanwhile the club did nothing……

Richmond last year when knocked out of the finals by a bad call……..nudda……not a peep

In fact I’m struggling to think of one club who has kicked up a fuss with the AFL over ARC…..

 

1 hour ago, No10 said:

You’re living on a different planet.

Re. Adelaide, given that was your first example :

"It's inexplicable they didn't call for a review" said Crows Chairman, John Olsen. "The field umpire then also didn't call for a review of the decision". 

Olsen told Nikolai & Stacey, "A lot's got to be played out here yet".

It's just one giant franchise run,  overseen and massaged/directed by the AFL circus masters i'm afraid.

Anything goes as long as the AFL believes it will further their desire for a close competition with the big clubs taking the lion's share of the limelight and the spoils / silverware.

All the clubs are now in on the act and the players complicate.

The franchisees are hardly going to take on the franchisor if they don't like something.  They just suck it up as they're all on the gravy train.

No club is going to go out of its way to upset HQ when it controls the purse strings, the fixture, the head of the MRO etc.

8 hours ago, No10 said:

You’re living on a different planet.

Re. Adelaide, given that was your first example :

"It's inexplicable they didn't call for a review" said Crows Chairman, John Olsen. "The field umpire then also didn't call for a review of the decision". 

Olsen told Nikolai & Stacey, "A lot's got to be played out here yet".

And by Monday they’d decided to nothing…..it’s hardly a club putting it up to the AFL……c’mon mate, clubs don’t take on the Fat Controller