Round 22: The Chadstone car park games.

[eZyT]

The Grundy recruitment could well cost Melbourne the flag. Unless they come to their senses and realise they are a much better team when Gawn plays as lone ruck.

Surely they can see it?

Gawn stars and looks like the 2nd most influential player of his generation, Grundy comes into the side, Gawn lurches around aimlessly like a disorientated dinousaurand cant get to the fall of the ball, grundy goes out, Gawn looks like the 2nd most influential player of his generation. Grundy comes in, Gawn goes disorientated dinosaur and takes 1 mark.

Unless the melbourne match committee is andrew bolt, peta credlin, paul murray and chris kenny,

They must have some relationship with fact?

 

[davidc0055]

Yet, to determine it is touched, they seem to rely on finger movement???

What is it? Finger movement or Daylight?

It depends on the goal umpire's initial decision. If the umpire has called it a goal, then finger movement would be sufficient evidence that it was touched. But if the umpire has called it touched, then the only sufficient evidence would be if there was clear space between the ball and the hand.

 

[eZyT]

It depends on the goal umpire's initial decision. If the umpire has called it a goal, then finger movement would be sufficient evidence that it was touched. But if the umpire has called it touched, then the only sufficient evidence would be if there was clear space between the ball and the hand.

The AFL rule book and interpretation has way too much 'depends'

So it wouldnt be hard to have a concise, consistent phrase to communicate that in the appropriate situation? E.g

'The footage shows the ball was touched'

'The footage does not show the ball was touched',

Irrespective of the umpires decision?

If the footage is inconclusive in the case of touched

Doesnt the phrase we hear 'the footage does not show the ball was touched' apply?

It either shows something or it doesnt, and if theres some twilight zone, its useless to rely on isnt it?

Remove 'clearly' 'finger movement' 'gap' etc

Further, we at home should either 1. See footage that matches what is being said or 2. Not see any footage at all.

Opaque transparency, which is the adjudicators and us seeing different things, is a truly bizzarre concept

Its like the police construct a case and collect evidence and prosecute a case and secretely show it to a jury,

But show the court reporter different evidence.

What possible logic or motivation could there be to do that?

Id rather virtual goal posts and robots adjudicating entirely than the current *smile* mess

 

[davidc0055]

The AFL rule book and interpretation has way too much 'depends'

So it wouldnt be hard to have a concise, consistent phrase to communicate that in the appropriate situation? E.g

'The footage shows the ball was touched'

'The footage does not show the ball was touched',

Irrespective of the umpires decision?

If the footage is inconclusive in the case of touched

Doesnt the phrase we hear 'the footage does not show the ball was touched' apply?

It either shows something or it doesnt, and if theres some twilight zone, its useless to rely on isnt it?

Remove 'clearly' 'finger movement' 'gap' etc

Further, we at home should either 1. See footage that matches what is being said or 2. Not see any footage at all.

Opaque transparency, which is the adjudicators and us seeing different things, is a truly bizzarre concept

Its like the police construct a case and collect evidence and prosecute a case and secretely show it to a jury,

But show the court reporter different evidence.

What possible logic or motivation could there be to do that?

Id rather virtual goal posts and robots adjudicating entirely than the current *smile* mess

I like the system where the goal umpire makes a decision, and uses the technology to check it. In last night's example, the goal umpire called it a point. Unless the technology showed otherwise, it was always going to stay a point.

Sorry to be pedantic, but the police don't prosecute cases. And I don't know how a jury is shown something secretly than what the court sees.

 

[WesternTiger]

I like the system where the goal umpire makes a decision, and uses the technology to check it. In last night's example, the goal umpire called it a point. Unless the technology showed otherwise, it was always going to stay a point.

Sorry to be pedantic, but the police don't prosecute cases. And I don't know how a jury is shown something secretly than what the court sees.

I think in the absence of better technology it’s not a bad system. However what killed most Richmond peoples faith in it happened in QLD in September last year. No conclusive vision to overturn the umpire’s decision but it was overturned anyway.

 

[davidc0055]

I think in the absence of better technology it’s not a bad system. However what killed most Richmond peoples faith in it happened in QLD in September last year. No conclusive vision to overturn the umpire’s decision but it was overturned anyway.

Yep, it seemed to go against the understanding that we were all under.

 

[tigersnake]

Yep, it seemed to go against the understanding that we were all under.

But they explained it to Dimma who explained it to us and talked us through it and.....oh *smile* that didn't happen did it?

 

[RoarEmotion]

When the video evidence isn’t clear then the on field umpires’ call always stands.

Except when it doesn’t.

AFL

 

[The Big Richo]

What possible logic or motivation could there be to do that?

It's the same argument as with 'umpire's call' in cricket reviews, which creates the circumstance where the same decision can be both out and not out depending on what the on field umpire decided.

I guess it comes down to whether you philosophically want to place all your trust in technology or if you'd prefer to have the human element with technology only to correct egregious errors, rather than determine close calls.

 

[eZyT]

Sorry to be pedantic, but the police don't prosecute cases. And I don't know how a jury is shown something secretly than what the court sees.

My point is, and i beleive its been franked by commentators and The AFL (in the lynch q final fiasco),

That what we see on TV and in the scoreboard can be, and has been, different to what the ARC reviews.

How is 1. That not nonsense and 2. Incredibly Easily de-nonsensed?

 

[The Big Richo]

Yep, it seemed to go against the understanding that we were all under.

It has been suggested by some people that there is a scientific reasoning behind the decision, based on the triangulation of the three cameras or some such.

The issue is it has never been explained to us as to how the decision was made, by the AFL or our own club.

 

[eZyT]

It's the same argument as with 'umpire's call' in cricket reviews, which creates the circumstance where the same decision can be both out and not out depending on what the on field umpire decided.

I guess it comes down to whether you philosophically want to place all your trust in technology or if you'd prefer to have the human element with technology only to correct egregious errors, rather than determine close calls.

being new to soccer in this world cup,

I feel like their review system seems less intrusive.

Ump makes a call, behind the scenes they check it and fix it if its erroneous.

I feel like bringing the viewer along on the fraught journey is the issue and could be reasonably easily fixed?

Ump makes a firm call, ARC quickly looks for howler dog balls obvious mistakes, hit the red light and correct it swiftly if needed.

If they cant do it swiftly, its not worth correcting

 

[The Big Richo]

being new to soccer in this world cup,

I feel like their review system seems less intrusive.

Ump makes a call, behind the scenes they check it and fix it if its erroneous.

I feel like bringing the viewer along on the fraught journey is the issue and could be reasonably easily fixed?

Ump makes a firm call, ARC quickly looks for howler dog balls obvious mistakes, hit the red light and correct it swiftly if needed.

If they cant do it swiftly, its not worth correcting

I don't know much about soccer but I feel like our game moves too fast for that.

 

[tigersnake]

The issue is it has never been explained to us as to how the decision was made, by the AFL or our own club.

They did explain it via some media people who heard from anonymous AFL sources that they apparently had some conclusive footage that wasn't shown to the public. Can't argue with that.

 

[jb03]

My point is, and i beleive its been franked by commentators and The AFL (in the lynch q final fiasco),

That what we see on TV and in the scoreboard can be, and has been, different to what the ARC reviews.

How is 1. That not nonsense and 2. Incredibly Easily de-nonsensed?

The footage is the same

 

[eZyT]

The thing with Petracca non goal last night is,

Even though it looked like a goal to most; spectators and commentators,

The ump who is closest and most highly trained made the call and the non-conclusive ARC let it stand.

Thats how its meant to work.

BUT, the Lynch goal was the complete opposite process.

You Couldnt actually get more opposite even if you hired PWC and KPGM to come up with a joint inconsistency opposite alternatives strategy and They hired stuart robert and lord monkton to joint oversee it

 

[eZyT]

The footage is the same

Ill take that as given. Great!

So how is 'clear' so vastly differently interpreted?

Is there a legal definition for 'clear' and 'clearly' and 'unclear'?

Maybe like the legal concept of 'agreed facts'?

 

[Tigers of Old]

The thing with Petracca non goal last night is,

Even though it looked like a goal to most; spectators and commentators,

The ump who is closest and most highly trained made the call and the non-conclusive ARC let it stand.

Thats how its meant to work.

BUT, the Lynch goal was the complete opposite process.

You Couldnt actually get more opposite even if you hired PWC and KPGM to come up with a joint inconsistency opposite alternatives strategy and They hired stuart robert and lord monkton to joint oversee it

Cheating & corrupt are the words you're looking for.

 

[RoarEmotion]

It has been suggested by some people that there is a scientific reasoning behind the decision, based on the triangulation of the three cameras or some such.

The issue is it has never been explained to us as to how the decision was made, by the AFL or our own club.

Exactly. And the 'scientific' reasoning happened in a fraction of the time that these decisions normally take. It felt like a couple of seconds. The 'science' also doesn't fit with the other crowd footage.

I'm super concerned betting has a hold of some of our umpires and decision makers. The grey areas make it super exploitable. When you listen to the podcasts about the NBA ref who did exactly this - it was all about under/overs and calls down the stretch to move a margin from 10 points to 5 points etc on an 8.5 point line. Block/charge. Hands foul/no call very easily called differently against both teams. Brisbane was I think -3.5 points at the line in that game or something similar. A Richmond goal put that bet out of the money. Lines probably have a ~5-10% profit margin so if you can shift the result in a way that flips that percentage you are on a winner.

 

[TT33]

Ill take that as given. Great!

So how is 'clear' so vastly differently interpreted?

Is there a legal definition for 'clear' and 'clearly' and 'unclear'?

Maybe like the legal concept of 'agreed facts'?

Clearly