Footy Classified

[Redford]

I get what you are saying now. I think!

The ARC really stuffed up. Not disputing that (unless some new footage comes to light.) But when it comes to the Richmond fan’s narrative around the whole debacle, it’s not right to say ARC overruled the goal umpire.

What we really needed to happen was for the goal umpire to make a GENUINE DECISION and SIGNAL a goal. I suspect if he had, ARC as part of its overarching rule on score attempts would have just accepted it on the grounds of inconclusive evidence.

Blame the goal umpire !

(He actually did the right thing handing the decision over to ARC. Just ARC stuffed it up).

 

[The_General]

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

This is from the AFL's own website.

At no point is a "decision" made. The process determines that a provisional call is made on the field. It is then assessed after a request is made.

 

[Redford]

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

This is from the AFL's own website.

At no point is a "decision" made. The process determines that a provisional call is made on the field. It is then assessed after a request is made.


View attachment 16651

View attachment 16652

“ Score Review (ARC) determines the correct score“ be it a goal or behind.

 

[MD Jazz]

The ARC really stuffed up. Not disputing that (unless some new footage comes to light.) But when it comes to the Richmond fan’s narrative around the whole debacle, it’s not right to say ARC overruled the goal umpire.

What we really needed to happen was for the goal umpire to make a GENUINE DECISION and SIGNAL a goal. I suspect if he had, ARC as part of its overarching rule on score attempts would have just accepted it on the grounds of inconclusive evidence.

Blame the goal umpire !

(He actually did the right thing handing the decision over to ARC. Just ARC stuffed it up).

Agree with all that.

 

[leon]

And I don’t understand how you don’t get the logical process of events.

The goal umpire makes a call to the field umpire on what he believes to be the case but does not make a definitive decision because he has an element of doubt. If he didn’t, then why ask for a review ? And like I told you the other day, asking for a review is a ceding of the decision by the goal umpire to ARC.

Yes, and no. Of course, he's not making the final decision, but saying he believes (in this case) it's a goal but requesting the ARC to confirm, or prove otherwise. The next key part of the process is: unless indisputable evidence can be provided to contradict his 'soft call', it (the umpire's call) stands.

So, have we viewers seen such 'indisputable evidence?' However, it was overturned on a highly dubious piece of footage and still that, from such an inadequate front-on angle, gave no idea of the depth of the ball at the time i.e. the still showing the ball passing above the post is NOT actually at the goal-line but almost certainly well past it.

This has been the procedure since the ARC was introduced but the goal umps nearly always get it right anyway. I can only remember perhaps a couple of times the goalie's call (or provisional call) has been proven incorrect this year, but the rare few were based on indisputable evidence being provided to the TV audience at the time.

## Edited at 12.57.

 

[The_General]

I think the other thing to consider - IF the process is being followed:

"Broadcaster provides footage for review by official scorer".

If the broadcaster is providing the footage, we'd have seen if there was anything new, right?
It's not like 7 or Fox have had footage they aren't sharing of the incident.

 

[Redford]

Yes, and no. Of course, he's not making the final decision, but saying he believes (in this case) it's a goal but requesting the ARC to confirm, or prove otherwise. The next key part of the process is: unless indisputable evidence can be provided to contradict his 'soft call', it (the umpire's call) stands.

So, have we viewers seen such 'indisputable evidence?' However, it was overturned on a highly dubious piece of footage and still that, from such an inadequate front-on angle, gave no idea of the depth of the ball at the time i.e. the still showing the ball passing above the post is NOT actually at the goal-line but almost certainly well past it.

This has been the procedure since the ARC was introduced but the goal umps nearly always get it right anyway. I can barely remember another over-rule this year, but i think the rare few were based on indisputable evidence being provided to the TV audience at the time.

Yeah, so if he believes in his case he just signals a goal doesn’t he ? But he doesn’t do that. He doesn’t want to make a decision (or determination) by signalling a goal, he goes for a review instead and therefore then, he can’t logically be overruled can he ?

All the rest about inconclusive evidence, the ARC stuffing it up etc we all agree with.

 

[Redford]

I think the other thing to consider - IF the process is being followed:

"Broadcaster provides footage for review by official scorer".

If the broadcaster is providing the footage, we'd have seen if there was anything new, right?
It's not like 7 or Fox have had footage they aren't sharing of the incident.

Well this where the AFL shenanigans come into it because they (the AFL) keep saying the score reviewer (ARC) has footage that the broadcaster doesn’t always pump out to viewers.

 

[leon]

Yeah, so if he believes in his case he just signals a goal doesn’t he ? But he doesn’t do that. He doesn’t want to make a decision (or determination) by signalling a goal, he goes for a review instead and therefore then, he can’t logically be overruled can he ?

All the rest about inconclusive evidence, the ARC stuffing it up etc we all agree with.

Yes, to an extent this flap was largely over semantics but you've been able to make your point ultimately. I think everyone shares the same understanding and reaction by now, and I returned to my post and edited my wording.

 

[leon]

Well this where the AFL shenanigans come into it because they (the AFL) keep saying the score reviewer (ARC) has footage that the broadcaster doesn’t always pump out to viewers.

And this was the claim or confident supposition made by Caro and Jabber on FC tonight.

But what, if it's true, is the AFL's possible motive in withholding it from open circulation? It should have screened such vision at the time in the game, if it exists. Surely they stand to gain from clarity, transparency and apparent/proven integrity.

I remain unconvinced until this happens. It makes no sense if its belated now anyway. Just arouses more suspicion of doctored vision.

 

[Redford]

Yes, to an extent this flap was largely over semantics but you've been able to make your point ultimately. I think everyone shares the same understanding and reaction by now, and I returned to my post and edited my wording.

It’s not semantics for me Leon because Richmond fans (and media to be fair) keep saying he was overruled like he had some sort of definitive idea that it was a goal and the AFL threw it all out the door.

Unfortunately he had enough doubt to ask for a review, which then put us all into the bungling, incompetent hands of the ARC.

 

[Redford]

And this was the claim or confident supposition made by Caro and Jabber on FC tonight.

But what, if it's true, is the AFL's possible motive in withholding it from open circulation? It should have screened such vision at the time in the game, if it exists. Surely they stand to gain from clarity, transparency and apparent/proven integrity.

I remain unconvinced until this happens. It makes no sense if its belated now anyway. Just arouses more suspicion of doctored vision.

Who knows. What I do know is that nobody trusts the AFL on, or with anything.

 

[leon]

It’s not semantics for me Leon because Richmond fans (and media to be fair) keep saying he was overruled like he had some sort of definitive idea that it was a goal and the AFL threw it all out the door.

Unfortunately he had enough doubt to ask for a review, which then put us all into the bungling hands of the ARC.

OK, I mean in the sense that people are using the phrase 'he was overruled' when they really need to be more specific e.g. he referred to the ARC to confirm after he gave the provisional call of a goal.

 

[King Kong]

Well this where the AFL shenanigans come into it because they (the AFL) keep saying the score reviewer (ARC) has footage that the broadcaster doesn’t always pump out to viewers.

There is no other footage. That’s a fact. The AFL are a bunch of Richmond hating campaigners that have no problem lying to try and cover their ass. Can’t wait to see Gilligan and his toxic culture moved on

 

[tha8ball]

Found it interesting when Caro was saying the league still hates the club stemming from 2020 and aren’t a fan of Gale either. How much $$ did they pull through the turnstiles during those glory years of ours?

They have footage but won’t release it? Surely nobody believes that. Biggest load of garbage I’ve ever heard.

What a corrupt joke of an organisation.

 

[BT Tiger]

The ARC really stuffed up. Not disputing that (unless some new footage comes to light.) But when it comes to the Richmond fan’s narrative around the whole debacle, it’s not right to say ARC overruled the goal umpire.

What we really needed to happen was for the goal umpire to make a GENUINE DECISION and SIGNAL a goal. I suspect if he had, ARC as part of its overarching rule on score attempts would have just accepted it on the grounds of inconclusive evidence.

Blame the goal umpire !

(He actually did the right thing handing the decision over to ARC. Just ARC stuffed it up).

Fair enough, I presumed that the goal umpire made a decision which was either agreed with or overruled. General's post clears that up.

 

[artball]

Where’s Zapruder when you need him!

nice!

 

[Redford]

Fair enough, I presumed that the goal umpire made a decision which was either agreed with or overruled. General's post clears that up.

All good BT.

Triangular laser sensors is what we need ! ( Heard a bloke on radio talking about it the other day.)

 

[TrialByVideo]

Where’s Zapruder when you need him!

Don't worry about Zapruder.... has anyone heard Eddie McGuire's opinion on this?
As the owner of the company operating the system, I want to know what he thinks, because apart from being everywhere he's always had an opinion on everything!

Does anyone think that if that incident happens in the Geelong v Collingwood match and it's Jamie Elliot who's kicked it.... The bloke making the decision doesn't think for a split second who his *smile* boss is?

 

[tigerman]

The AFL need to be brought to heel in regards to the treatment of RFC and all AFL fans.

An online petition demanding the AFL to show evidence of the unequivocal vision of the ARC's decision is in order.