-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
ARC Appeal
- Thread starter snags
- Start date
The gaslighting is insane. They're all really trying to push the narrative that it was clearly a point. I can honestly say I'm still not sure one way or the other. This is infuriating.
*smile* I hope we stick it up them next season. They'll hate it.
*smile* I hope we stick it up them next season. They'll hate it.
I reckon it was a goal by the footage, but I can't say for sure. So, it should have been counted as a goal as that was the umpire's call and the umpire was well placed to see it. If the ump had called a behind I would have accepted it because the footage looks a lot like a goal but it isn't as good an angle as the umpire had.
The contempt for the fans is astounding. Hey morons, we fans fund this game, without our attendance and our eyes on the screen you have no revenue.
Just wait until this happens a few more times, because it will given the woeful ARC technology, we'll see if there is a reaction then. Once fans from a few clubs get screwed like this maybe there will be a reaction. As Richmond supporters we need to respond when this happens to another team.
How anyone can accept this as the standard of adjudication I don't know.
DS
The contempt for the fans is astounding. Hey morons, we fans fund this game, without our attendance and our eyes on the screen you have no revenue.
Just wait until this happens a few more times, because it will given the woeful ARC technology, we'll see if there is a reaction then. Once fans from a few clubs get screwed like this maybe there will be a reaction. As Richmond supporters we need to respond when this happens to another team.
How anyone can accept this as the standard of adjudication I don't know.
DS
Even people you speak to he normally don't like Richmond still say that it should have stayed at umpires call. No one can tell if it was a goal or a point so as the rules state inconclusive & umpires call.
Everyone thinks it but the powers that be.
Question!
If any other sport that attracts gambling acted in a manner the AFL has in this instance - would that sport be subject to Government scrutiny?
E.G If a racing photo finish due to the closeness of the horses, arguably called the wrong winner or if a Greyhound switch was swept under the rug after winning wouldn't the overseeing Government body responsible for gambling want a full report on the matter?
Why then is the AFL not being scrutinised over this incident?
There must of been large sums of money won and lost on this *smile* poor decision.......
If any other sport that attracts gambling acted in a manner the AFL has in this instance - would that sport be subject to Government scrutiny?
E.G If a racing photo finish due to the closeness of the horses, arguably called the wrong winner or if a Greyhound switch was swept under the rug after winning wouldn't the overseeing Government body responsible for gambling want a full report on the matter?
Why then is the AFL not being scrutinised over this incident?
There must of been large sums of money won and lost on this *smile* poor decision.......
This. Without integrity in a competition, there is no competition. Richmond members won't keep forking out their hard earned if they think the deck is stacked against us.
Last edited:
The line was Brisbane +6.5.
An in/out of money decision that doesn’t change game outcome at that point in time. If you look at the NBA ref scandals this was the space they played in. They had a lot more control though with multiple chances to call/ignore fouls as the clock winds down.
Absolutely needs an investigation especially of the ARC operator, colleagues, friends and supervisors betting accounts.
With that said I still think a screw up due to time pressure the AFL CEO created. But I can’t find evidence of that - just recall that being stated as an objective.
Last edited:
it sure feels that way.
Whateley is in the "right decision, wrong method" camp.
Hang on. The AFL are now going down the wrong path trying to make up for this blunder.
A few points:
1. The goal umpire is in the best position of anyone to adjudicate on a goal - they are well trained to follow the ball in order to give themselves the best view.
2. The technology is there to check in the event that there is definitive vision that shows something contrary to the goal umpire's view
3. Often the current technology won't give that definitive answer as the definition is not good enough, it is a 2D image, we have insufficient cameras etc
4. In that case we revert back to the goal umpire who is better placed to call it than the current technology
I think this is a good process with what we have. Assuming it is used according to the protocols.
Now the AFL are not going to bother with the umpire's view and just use the technology to determine it? Like I said, the current technology is limited and we are going to end up with more errors than exist now. The only way this approach will work is to invest in the technology needed that gives the viewer a better vantage than what the goal umpire has. But it is almost certain that the AFL will just change the process and rely on the current limited technology which will only end in disaster.
A few points:
1. The goal umpire is in the best position of anyone to adjudicate on a goal - they are well trained to follow the ball in order to give themselves the best view.
2. The technology is there to check in the event that there is definitive vision that shows something contrary to the goal umpire's view
3. Often the current technology won't give that definitive answer as the definition is not good enough, it is a 2D image, we have insufficient cameras etc
4. In that case we revert back to the goal umpire who is better placed to call it than the current technology
I think this is a good process with what we have. Assuming it is used according to the protocols.
Now the AFL are not going to bother with the umpire's view and just use the technology to determine it? Like I said, the current technology is limited and we are going to end up with more errors than exist now. The only way this approach will work is to invest in the technology needed that gives the viewer a better vantage than what the goal umpire has. But it is almost certain that the AFL will just change the process and rely on the current limited technology which will only end in disaster.
I don't recall seeing Tim at the Gabba that night. Don't tell me he's trying to make that call from 2,000km away? I had lunch with a Lions supporter yesterday who was sitting on the other side of the ground to me and even he admitted it looked like a goal live at the ground
Often feels the media sycophants get emailed the agenda of the day. Very rare do you get media voices that don't sing from the hymn book for fear of being Mick Warnered.
Gaslighting alright. Dimma looked like Ingrid Bergman.... WTF is a tour gonna do??? Sell *smile*?No other angles, no secret vision..just more gaslighting *smile* from the AFL's media puppets.
This is as close as Richmond will get to this administration admitting their failings (or worse).
The ARC's current goal review technology is currently nowhere near reliable or trustworthy enough to override the goal umpire's 'soft call'.
As mentioned by others it's not as definitive as the tennis hawkeye & until it is, then it still comes down to the human viewer's interpretation.
They'd need to improve what's in place right now by 1000% to build confidence in the tech. More to the point if the AFL's secret bunker has control of the vision & the ultimate say (over a soft call), it has the ability to manipulate results and that should worry every supporter from every club.
Bottom line is this season, for the first time in memory, the AFL decided in a high stakes elimination final to go against the protocols they've had in place for the past decade (umpire's call) & the result is Richmond is out of the finals.
Absolutely infuriating.
It wont happen because the media has moved on from the decision and now only seems to comment on our response, but it would be interesting for someone to ask McLaughlin or BScott if they would be happy if in the same situation the same process and decision again decided a game?
Yeh, its so frustrating. I hope the players feel the same way and it can fuel a bit of extra effort, even if just in pre-season.
I want Bris to win the lot now.
I'm fine with the loss. We would've struggled to go all the way without Dion and Dusty fit anyway.
But the contempt by the AFL to lie, gaslight, and disseminate false information through their hand-picked media cronies about their involvement in our incorrect result that decided a final is unacceptable.
Unacceptable.
I fully support further investigation into this shocking abuse of power even at the cost of the AFL media further gaslighting the public and attempting to label the club whingers in retaliation for choosing not to keep our mouths shut.
It was a goal. Refer to images on an earlier page. The AFL overruled the goal, which altered the result of a final. Silence from the club would be seriously unacceptable, so I fully support the club continuing to be vocal on this serious issue on principle.
Ps. It was evidently a goal, don't accept the manipulative "wrong method, right decision" BS. They're just saying that to manipulate public opinion.
But the contempt by the AFL to lie, gaslight, and disseminate false information through their hand-picked media cronies about their involvement in our incorrect result that decided a final is unacceptable.
Unacceptable.
I fully support further investigation into this shocking abuse of power even at the cost of the AFL media further gaslighting the public and attempting to label the club whingers in retaliation for choosing not to keep our mouths shut.
It was a goal. Refer to images on an earlier page. The AFL overruled the goal, which altered the result of a final. Silence from the club would be seriously unacceptable, so I fully support the club continuing to be vocal on this serious issue on principle.
Ps. It was evidently a goal, don't accept the manipulative "wrong method, right decision" BS. They're just saying that to manipulate public opinion.
Just saw a Fox headline: "The AFL is weighing up scrapping a key part of the score review system to avoid a repeat of the Tom Lynch situation", being the on-field call.
What is the 'Tom Lynch situation" exactly? They mean a repeat of a situation where following the rules means their preferred side loses?
By any standards of logic and reasonable analysis this just doesn't make sense. If they truly want to improve the process, invest in a camera system that will do the job, so it does what it is supposed to do, this is just spreading more *smile* on a *smile* sandwich.
Seriously if they go to the ARC without any reference point the system will be a *smile* show.
What is the 'Tom Lynch situation" exactly? They mean a repeat of a situation where following the rules means their preferred side loses?
By any standards of logic and reasonable analysis this just doesn't make sense. If they truly want to improve the process, invest in a camera system that will do the job, so it does what it is supposed to do, this is just spreading more *smile* on a *smile* sandwich.
Seriously if they go to the ARC without any reference point the system will be a *smile* show.
Even if the ball clearly went through the two big sticks first and then the trajectory made it go above the left goal post, it's a goal for the benefit of the doubt.
Yep, that's true. We shouldn't even need to entertain that media-driven lie though, because the evidence shows us it was a goal.
The yellow ball passes behind the white post in the images I posted earlier, which is consistent with the 3 images posted above.
The club shouldn't humour the "wrong method, right outcome" BS, I'd start emphasising that the evidence suggests it was a goal to put the media narrative where it should be - the outcome.
The outcome gives people on social media a reason to think and judge for themselves by looking at images. I think the result would be lots of arguing about the outcome instead of what we have now, which is everyone parroting the anti-Richmond crumbs fed to them by the media
"Wrong method, wrong decision... I wouldn't be too happy if I had money on this game"
Yeh, I still don't know if it was a goal or a point. I doubt anyone does. But one things for sure, it was NOT DEFINITIVELY a point.
