You reckon the club should ask for the definitive proof to overturn the umpire? Certainly the angles that were shown on telly were inconclusive. Don't want to be sore losers but you can't continually take it up the clacker either. I reckon we go quietly to the AFL and leak it if they can't produce it. I'm certain a video will come to light from behind Lynch eventually anyway that will clarify it but even then ARC should be only allowed to make decisions based on the feeds it has on hand. This is dangerous territory for ARC.
-
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
Tony Braxton-Hicks
There are no stupid ideas, just stupid people
A class action by punters who lost on the outcome. It might also help question the influence of gambling on sporting outcomes.
Of course it's already decided by the Gestapo who are cracking champagne bottles now that we're out of the way.
It's all laughs and games.
It's all laughs and games.
I try to remain rational about the whole "AFL has a conspiracy against Richmond" idea. Too many people would have to know. It would eventually get out. There would be hell to pay. Careers would be over. Probably even legal implications.
But gee the events of yesterday make it difficult to totally ignore.
Given everything we see on the video, not least the body language of Lynch and other players, it probably was a behind. But the correct decision was reached in spite of the rules - not because of them. The only person in the perfect position to make the call thought it was a goal, and there is no way you could overturn that on the video we saw. Do the ARC people have access to more? If so then why do we not also see that?
But whatever you think of the decision, what astounded me most was how quickly it was made. There have been times this year when ARC decisions have taken minutes with seemingly endless viewings of the incident from countless angles. This was over in seconds. It reeked of a decision coming from upstairs.
Hardwick was right about the technology, but he didn't articulate it well. His words implied that it should be ditched because it doesn't get it right all the time. That shouldn't be the requirement. No technology can ever be perfect. The question should be "is it worth the money and how much it slows down the game?". In cricket and tennis, there is no doubt that the technology has enough of a positive impact on the decision making to justify its use. In football, it doesn't. The AFL has implemented it simply because other sports have done so.
But gee the events of yesterday make it difficult to totally ignore.
Given everything we see on the video, not least the body language of Lynch and other players, it probably was a behind. But the correct decision was reached in spite of the rules - not because of them. The only person in the perfect position to make the call thought it was a goal, and there is no way you could overturn that on the video we saw. Do the ARC people have access to more? If so then why do we not also see that?
But whatever you think of the decision, what astounded me most was how quickly it was made. There have been times this year when ARC decisions have taken minutes with seemingly endless viewings of the incident from countless angles. This was over in seconds. It reeked of a decision coming from upstairs.
Hardwick was right about the technology, but he didn't articulate it well. His words implied that it should be ditched because it doesn't get it right all the time. That shouldn't be the requirement. No technology can ever be perfect. The question should be "is it worth the money and how much it slows down the game?". In cricket and tennis, there is no doubt that the technology has enough of a positive impact on the decision making to justify its use. In football, it doesn't. The AFL has implemented it simply because other sports have done so.
How could you possibly overrule the goal umpire's decision that quickly based on available vision?
People blaming the ArC don't know the game.
We lost because every time we were just 1 goal away from snapping them in half.
We would make a basic mistake that they took full advantage of.
Cameron kicked a goal in the 1st 40 seconds of the last qtr.
We concede always late in qtrs
We defend like a under 18's VFL side.
And our skill level last night was embarrassing.
In one way I'm not too stressed because we have slot of work to do to get back to winning flags
We lost because every time we were just 1 goal away from snapping them in half.
We would make a basic mistake that they took full advantage of.
Cameron kicked a goal in the 1st 40 seconds of the last qtr.
We concede always late in qtrs
We defend like a under 18's VFL side.
And our skill level last night was embarrassing.
In one way I'm not too stressed because we have slot of work to do to get back to winning flags
The purpose of my post was not to blame the ARC decision for the loss.
thats true...but the ARC *smile* is true to....one day it will cost a grand final
It’s not the fact that they overturned the decision (personally I don’t think it was a goal), it’s that in doing so they went against their own rule. This is a big problem with the AFL, they keep changing their own rules to suit themselves. For the integrity of the competition this sort of thing and rule changes and tweaks needs to be handled by a group separate to the AFL and characters like Brad Scott and Hocking before him should have next to nothing to do with it and certainly no influence over it.
There doesn't need to be a conspiracy with people in a room signing in blood. There just needs to be a certain narrative or attitude from above that filters throughout an organisation which then influences individual attitudes and behaviors as they seek to make an impression within that organisation.
Seriously, who believes what Hawkeye shows 100% of the time, especially those mm misses when the camera double zooms in? Technology shouldn't be relied on everytime.
Yeah. Its not a conspiracy, its bias. There's a big difference. Bias is extremely difficult to prove, it hides in plain sight. Everyone with a brain for example knows the murdoch media has an anti-left wing bias. But they maintains a smattering of neutral material and chuck in the odd left-leaning piece which they can, and do, hold up whenever the heat is on.
There is no doubt in my mind there is an anti-Richmond Bias that flows through the AFL. Its always been there but it never used to matter much because we were crap anyway, it was a dismissive undertone. Things like refusal to acknowledge the fact the draft concessions to the expansion clubs had a greater effect the lower on the ladder you sat. It was a nice little (big) kick from the top as we were starting to climb the ladder.
Now we're a force, on-field and off, its there for all to see. Free kick differential, the weekly MRP fines, the Womens team delay, routinely underrepresented in rising star noms, AA reps (and Geelong over-represented), individual examples like the Stack/ CJ and Rioli/ Shai punishments v comparable incidents to players from other clubs. Objectively, there is a bias.
If the ARC people are viewing a different video The AFL should release the footage
Tony Braxton-Hicks
There are no stupid ideas, just stupid people
Kicking from no more than 10-12 metres out, the ball was still going up as it crossed the line inside the post. It’s only much further on that it reaches the elevation to appear that it is above the post. If he'd kicked it that high, it would have plopped done within the front rows, not curled so far into the second tier.
The footage from behind Lynch throws up another angle that shows the ball go behind the post 3/4 of the way up before it hooks back at the top of the goal post. Therefore the definitive picture of the ball above the post occurs behind the goal line. Even on the night the ump asked whether it hit the post not whether it occured above the post. I truly believe it was a goal. Even moreso now I think we should press the AFL for the conclusive vision.
Attachments
