Except Dimma has probably told them if the AFL don't tell their club's CEO, Dave Matthews, to get the Taranto and Hopper done in good faith, he'll let everyone know that the fArc system is a total steaming pile of *smile*!Yeh. But no footage, Dimma satisfied with their "process" but no mention of how they really come to the decision. Something about triangulation.
Clearly not wanting to be controversial during GF week. Nothing to be gained by whining now. Well played AFL. Did exactly what you knew they would do. No one on the AFL teat willing to risk their job, totally understandable. Doesn't make it any less *smile*.
Wonder what they mean by triangulation? 3 Camera angles? Doesn't sound convincing. In research terminology it means using 3 different sources of info to ascertain if something happened.Yeh. But no footage, Dimma satisfied with their "process" but no mention of how they really come to the decision. Something about triangulation.
They don’t mean anything by it. It’s all absolute bullsh1t to try and make it go away quietly. They know they shafted us and they are backslapping behind closed doors. They couldn’t be happier that they *smile* us over.Wonder what they mean by triangulation? 3 Camera angles? Doesn't sound convincing. In research terminology it means using 3 different sources of info to ascertain if something happened.
AFL triangulation = Flipping coin best of 3Apparently they showed him some sort of "triangulation." Pretty sure the ARC didn't have that available to them on the night. The problem remains that they went against their process.
And took them all of about 10 seconds to trangulate and overrule the onfield call. Entirely credible.Wonder what they mean by triangulation? 3 Camera angles? Doesn't sound convincing. In research terminology it means using 3 different sources of info to ascertain if something happened.
Didn’t even have enough time to flip the coin 3 times.AFL triangulation = Flipping coin best of 3
Came up tails twice = FARC over rules goal ump it’s a behind
Must have had money on Collingwood.Robbo……..moron.
Of all the injustices dished out in games by umpires just in this season alone, he decides that the hill he will make a stand on is the Papley non-push in the back.
There must have been 1000 more contentious incidents this year. At least 1000. Moron.
The triangulation referred to is something like below. Basically, if two camera angles show the ball over the post at the same time, then the ball was over the post.
Not quite the “definitive footage” some in the media were hinting existed but still valid. The problem is why are we only hearing about this now? If this was how the decision was made in the ARC, why not say so at the time? Or at least in the days following?
The triangulation referred to is something like below. Basically, if two camera angles show the ball over the post at the same time, then the ball was over the post.
Not quite the “definitive footage” some in the media were hinting existed but still valid. The problem is why are we only hearing about this now? If this was how the decision was made in the ARC, why not say so at the time? Or at least in the days following?
The triangulation referred to is something like below. Basically, if two camera angles show the ball over the post at the same time, then the ball was over the post.
Not quite the “definitive footage” some in the media were hinting existed but still valid. The problem is why are we only hearing about this now? If this was how the decision was made in the ARC, why not say so at the time? Or at least in the days following?
So they figured this out in 15 seconds which is the time it took to make the decision? Why not take the entire 45 seconds to double check?The triangulation referred to is something like below. Basically, if two camera angles show the ball over the post at the same time, then the ball was over the post.
Not quite the “definitive footage” some in the media were hinting existed but still valid. The problem is why are we only hearing about this now? If this was how the decision was made in the ARC, why not say so at the time? Or at least in the days following?
That is quite frankly nonsense.The triangulation referred to is something like below. Basically, if two camera angles show the ball over the post at the same time, then the ball was over the post.
Not quite the “definitive footage” some in the media were hinting existed but still valid. The problem is why are we only hearing about this now? If this was how the decision was made in the ARC, why not say so at the time? Or at least in the days following?
Yes complete rubbish. What a bunch of gaslighting cheats.That is quite frankly nonsense.