-
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
Hopefully Ken will get offered a tour of the ARC facility to put his mind at rest
The ball was clearly touched. It deviates. Cannot understand how anyone who watches the footage can say it was not touched.
Did it cross the line first - almost impossible to tell. So it stays with umps call.
The AFL at least followed their process to determine the result of the review. Based on the vision available I doubt anyone could definitively state it had or had not crossed the line before being touched.
.
In breaking news the AFL, having just decided to spend over $1million to find an Xavier College Old Boy in a room next to Gill, have decided to invest in proper goal line technology.
"This will be a game changer", said Dan Richardson, head of umpiring. "Never again will we need to resort to broadcast quality footage in order to go with the umpires call."
Richardson then went on to display a sepia image of the new cameras that will be installed first at the MCG, then in subsequent decades at some other grounds.
"This will be a game changer", said Dan Richardson, head of umpiring. "Never again will we need to resort to broadcast quality footage in order to go with the umpires call."
Richardson then went on to display a sepia image of the new cameras that will be installed first at the MCG, then in subsequent decades at some other grounds.
Ironically that camera would have 8" x 10" film so the resolution would be a whole lot better than the crap the AFL currently use.
That decision today, I think it was Mansell poking his foot out for a goal, shows what a pathetic excuse for technology the AFL have. You could understand the goal umpire being unsure, I didn't see exactly where the goal ump was but it would have been very difficult in real time to see that one even if he was in a perfect position which would have been hard with all the players around. But the ARC should have been able to definitively see what happened, problem is they don't have the technology installed to do a proper job. It really is that simple, get the technology, it is out there, it is available, but the AFL won't get it.
The decision today was that they didn't have enough evidence to over-rule, yeah, like you did have enough evidence to over-rule that one in the Elimination Final last year?
So, therein lies another problem, gross incompetence. I agree there was not enough evidence to over-rule today because they don't have the right technology, but they didn't have enough evidence last September either, and they did over-rule. Just incompetent all round.
DS
Yep I reckon it was probably the right call yesterday. There was insufficient evidence to overrule. Partly because of the inadequate technology. Or the apprehension of the operator to get out his protractor and formulae to identify momentum deviation of the conveyance. It sucks being on both ends of the rule. Makes last year’s decision even more obviously wrong. We’re still waiting for that irrefutable evidence.
No it wasn't. If you look at Mansells reaction he clearly thought it was a goal. That should be enough to overturn the decision.
He was vibrant.
To my eye the ball changed momentum. I’d have called it a goal. BUT by the strict application of the rule I can understand their stance on this occasion.
It’s the easy option now instead the goal umpire backing themselves.
He wasn’t sure on 5 occasions, you are right bt and the commentators were really making light of it.
Don't knock it, 6x6 film, better than the technology the AFL use.
Yep, good enough to decide an Elimination Final, should be good enough for a home and away game.
DS
More comedy capers from the ARC. Sam Walsh has a shot at goal, the goal ump calls it "no score".
It is CLEARY A BEHIND, but ARC comes back with "unable to confirm that the ball hit the post, no score" !!!!
Farc the ARC !!!!
It is CLEARY A BEHIND, but ARC comes back with "unable to confirm that the ball hit the post, no score" !!!!
Farc the ARC !!!!
Still not over it.
Neither is Dimma either as referenced in the podcast.
What will they shaft us with this week?
Neither is Dimma either as referenced in the podcast.
What will they shaft us with this week?
I wished Dylan asked him what did the afl review with Richmond that made us drop talking about it.
