ARC Appeal

[The Mole]

In a way I think the decision did us a favour. Going out of the finals like that has left us angry and hungry to atone the soft exit. We probably weren’t going to win the flag anyway last year, we just were not in good enough form.
watch out this year, the Tigers are hungry!

 

[T-Shirt Tommy]

Quite simply, if the AFL has irrefutable proof of a correct adjudication, why has it not been made available to the full football community?

Correct.

The statement from the AFL the day after was such:

“The ARC reviewed all the camera angles and it is viewed as a definitive behind. The correct call was made,”

And don't forget that this 'definitive' evidence was found approximately 2 minutes after the review process started, so I don't know how it wasn't produced to the public the same night or even the day after, which would have put the whole issue to bed. Why? Because there wasn't any such 'definitive' evidence. And if it's not definitive, then precedence means that it's umpires call, which was a goal. Even Simon Goodwin said “We’ve all sat through these enough to know when it gets to a decision if it’s not definitive, it goes back to umpire’s call”.

And don't forget that it took Brad Scott two and a half weeks to invite Dimma and Livingstone to view this mystery footage when it was available within a couple of minutes to the ARC reviewer. All it needed was the 'definitive' footage to be emailed to Hardwick and Livingstone. Case closed. But instead the AFL felt obligated to give them a personal tour of the ARC by both Scott and Andrew Dillon. Again, why bother? It's 'definitive' vision, no explanation or ARC tour required.

 

[leon]

In a way I think the decision did us a favour. Going out of the finals like that has left us angry and hungry to atone the soft exit. We probably weren’t going to win the flag anyway last year, we just were not in good enough form.
watch out this year, the Tigers are hungry!

Sorry, don't buy it. Will never be known re '22 flag. Cheated out of our opportunity. Don't forget Moggs took out Prestia early in H&A match and still only scraped home by 3 pts.
I have little doubt we would have taken care of Smelbourne.

 

[BillyJean17]

Because I think if we have lost a final because an incorrect overruling of an umpire's decision then we are entitled to know that and what is going to be done to address it in future.

The club opened the door by questioning the decision after the game and in the media following. To then go and have a tour and not follow up by letting everyone know where it stands is not good enough.

It's not like they have to blow up the AFL, we saw the footage and don't agree it was sufficient to overrule if all they needed to say.

The club would be doing themselves a gross disservice making pricks of ourselves rather than focus on the road ahead , nothing at all good could come from it

 

[BillyJean17]

Correct.

The statement from the AFL the day after was such:

“The ARC reviewed all the camera angles and it is viewed as a definitive behind. The correct call was made,”

And don't forget that this 'definitive' evidence was found approximately 2 minutes after the review process started, so I don't know how it wasn't produced to the public the same night or even the day after, which would have put the whole issue to bed. Why? Because there wasn't any such 'definitive' evidence. And if it's not definitive, then precedence means that it's umpires call, which was a goal. Even Simon Goodwin said “We’ve all sat through these enough to know when it gets to a decision if it’s not definitive, it goes back to umpire’s call”.

And don't forget that it took Brad Scott two and a half weeks to invite Dimma and Livingstone to view this mystery footage when it was available within a couple of minutes to the ARC reviewer. All it needed was the 'definitive' footage to be emailed to Hardwick and Livingstone. Case closed. But instead the AFL felt obligated to give them a personal tour of the ARC by both Scott and Andrew Dillon. Again, why bother? It's 'definitive' vision, no explanation or ARC tour required.

I concur theres no additional angles as there’s no rationale explanation as to why it would be suppressed rather than support their controversial decision , instead they pedaled bs creating an illusion that there’s so much more avail within the ARC , ok lol

 

[DavidSSS]

I concur theres no additional angles as there’s no rationale explanation as to why it would be suppressed rather than support their controversial decision , instead they peddled bs creating an illusion that there’s so much more avail within the ARC , ok lol

Yeah, I think the claim that "they have more footage we never see" is completely discredited, we all know it is total BS. If they had definitive footage it would have been released within seconds of the game finishing.

DS

 

[Stackey]

It's not about refusing to accept it, that just isn't anywhere near conclusive proof of anything.

It's a grainy mobile phone video from 70 metres away on an angle and the ball appears to go awfully close to the post.

Again, there's no way from that to say it's right or wrong with any certainty.

So leave the call to the goal umpire...it's what he's paid to do....make the call!

 

[snags]

So leave the call to the goal umpire...it's what he's paid to do....make the call!

It wasn't as if he was out of position. He was directly under the flight of the ball and in the best position to make a call on it. ABC needs to track down these guys and get an expose.

 

[Butch67]

Hugh Rimmington could lead the investigation

 

[JimJessTorp]

Hugh Rimmington could lead the investigation

Too busy chasing ambulances.

 

[Butch67]

Thought he could finger the culprit

 

[TigerForce]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1610575304782942209

 

[DavidSSS]

So leave the call to the goal umpire...it's what he's paid to do....make the call!

And without conclusive evidence that the goal umpire's call was incorrect that call should stand.

This is apparently the rule, but do they follow it?

DS

 

[Willo]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1610575304782942209

Hey Kelli, here it is

ARC clown says it was touched going by his calculations.
Here I was thinking the ARC used actual video footage, but according to you it’s done by calculation and formulas.
Next we’ll have goal umpires with calculators in their pockets. *smile* using their eyeballs like they have for over a hundred years.
Maybe that’s why our free kick for is so low, it takes time for the field umpires to get out their abacus to compute their decisions.
Kelli.(nee Hocking) .you are deluded. And have no idea.

 

[bigwow]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1610575304782942209

I'd have thought a basic understanding of Australian Rules football should be at least a pre-requisite.
Trigonometry, FMD.

 

[DuD_Delist]

we just were not in good enough form.

Beg to differ.We were the form side along with the Cats & Pies.Didn't we not lose above a goal since rnd 6 or something?
Hence Dimma speech at the B&F.

 

[BillyJean17]

Beg to differ.We were the form side along with the Cats & Pies.Didn't we not lose above a goal since rnd 6 or something?
Hence Dimma speech at the B&F.

True to an extent however we were also finding ways to lose against ordinary sides too , GC NM freo draw , all exposed our underbelly , we’ve moved on and hopefully addressed our weakest link

 

[DuD_Delist]

True to an extent however we were also finding ways to lose against ordinary sides too , GC NM freo draw , all exposed our underbelly , we’ve moved on and hopefully addressed our weakest link

Think we've addressed our weakest link.
We should win more ball out of the centre.

 

[graystar1]

The Snick technology seems to work well in the BBl cricket.
Why not intall the same on the goal posts for our game?
if the pill touched the posts then the snick would show it immediately.
This a different topic to the Lynch one where it was deemed to go over the top of the post.
Snick would not cover that.
Do you get sick and tired of waiting for a result as it stands now?
Neither would snick technology cover the touch by player before score, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Quickdraw]

The Snick technology seems to work well in the BBl cricket.
Why not intall the same on the goal posts for our game?
if the pill touched the posts then the snick would show it immediately.
This a different topic to the Lynch one where it was deemed to go over the top of the post.
Snick would not cover that.
Do you get sick and tired of waiting for a result as it stands now?
Neither would snick technology cover the touch by player before score, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.

Agree gray. AFL pretty quick to change rules and interpretations (Rule of the week and "common sense").

But seem very reluctant to invest in technology that will improve the supporter's experience and integrity of the game.