AFL360 | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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.

AFL360

Apparently 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
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*.
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*!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Yeh. But no footage, Dimma satisfied with their "process" but no mention of how they really come to the decision. Something about triangulation.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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.
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.

Gaslighting *smile*.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 12 users
Apparently 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.
AFL triangulation = Flipping coin best of 3
Came up tails twice = FARC over rules goal ump it’s a behind
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 7 users
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.
And took them all of about 10 seconds to trangulate and overrule the onfield call. Entirely credible.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Angry
Reactions: 15 users
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
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.
Must have had money on Collingwood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
If Bloobo is going on about the umpiring, there were several free kicks that should have been paid to Franklin. Collingwood were getting a spare man to crash into Franklin to stop him marking in the packs, the player had no intention of going for the ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
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?

I get the feeling this was after the match analysis not what was actually used, hence it is almost irrelevant and they still did not assess it as per the documented procedure during the match.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
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?

But the ball wasn't travelling in a straight line...........
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
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?

Now I get it..... to keep everyone happy......

The AFL were attempting to use this....

Studio_20220920_091534.jpg

But ended up with this....

Studio_20220920_091406.jpg
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 14 users
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 7 users
Hardwick was far too effusive towards the AFL last night.
Think someone upped his dosage
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
There is no way they could triangulate that footage in the time that they took on the night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users