The AFL and cheating

[CURLY]

Umpire pays a goal they review and the evidence is inconclusive and they over rule.

Blatant cheating and agenda driven.

[D.B.Cooper]

Umpire pays a goal they review and the evidence is inconclusive and they over rule.

Blatant cheating and agenda driven.

[CURLY]

SEN are dumbfounded by the over rule.

[amusingname]

So the afl agenda is against Richmond as well as the saints?

[CURLY]

So the afl agenda is against Richmond as well as the saints?

Last thing they want is Dusty standing on a podium

Blatant cheating.

[amusingname]

Why did the umpires pay the too far free against Rich? Was that ump not in on the agenda?

[amusingname]

So the afl agenda is against Richmond as well as the saints?

Last thing they want is Dusty standing on a podium

Blatant cheating.

This the first time he has done something that the AFL wouldn’t be happy with? But they were happy for him to be on podiums, winning brownlows, winning norm smiths in past years?

Face it curly, this theory stinks!

[IluvHarvey]

Oh Curly……

[CURLY]

Why did the umpires pay the too far free against Rich? Was that ump not in on the agenda?

The goal review was inconclusive and they went against their own rules.

Cheats

[amusingname]

Obviously you don’t care about logic, so I won’t make another post after this one, but the winner of tonight will play the loser of Melbourne v sydney, then if they win play either collingwood or geelong. Of the two teams playing tonight, who is going to draw a bigger crowd at the MCG for the next two weeks (possibly) and make the AFL more money?

But,of course cheats!

……..Or just maybe the ARC reviewer was confident in what he saw on the replay and made a ballsy call?

[kosifantutti]

When are the AFL going to work out geometry?
Three cameras looking down the ground tell you nothing. They need one camera in line with the goals so you know when the ball crosses the line. And a camera looking down the ground that shows what side of the post the ball is.
As it stands you can’t tell when the ball is crossing the line so it’s all just a guess.

[CURLY]

Confident with that yep of course.

Rule is inconclusive umpires call.

[WellardSaint]

Why did the umpires pay the too far free against Rich? Was that ump not in on the agenda?

The goal review was inconclusive and they went against their own rules.

Cheats

The vision shown on TV, from 2 cameras- it was impossible to deduce that the ball 'went over the post' as the ARC guy said on the PA.
Yes, they broke their own rules

[Killa]

Deliberately hand balling over the goal line

What is the history?

[Yorkeys]

Obvious from players reaction that it was a point.
Correct decision.
Calls for Lynch to get goal kicking lessons from Lloyd sure to follow?

[SaintPav]

I thought the ARC guy said it went over the post?

[Rubyjo]

Was a point..if the goal post was 5o meteres high it hit the post .

[Rubyjo]

Was a point..if the goal post was 5o meteres high it hit the post .

[Devilhead]

Looked pretty conclusive to me ....Lynch thought so as well

[Banger9798]

It was a point

[D.B.Cooper]

Is the 10 seconds of TV coverage is the same footage the “ upstairs” umpires have?

Does anyone know what access they have?
Anything the TV doesn’t show, additional cameras, close ups, software enhancements etc?

My son was at the game and texted me it was clearly a point.

[Sainter_Dad]

Is the 10 seconds of TV coverage is the same footage the “ upstairs” umpires have?

Does anyone know what access they have?
Anything the TV doesn’t show, additional cameras, close ups, software enhancements etc?

My son was at the game and texted me it was clearly a point.

Apparently it is the same vision - but I believe that the ARC sees the 'raw' footage - so not scaled down for TV transmission - so it may be clearer.

I also think that while we see 1/4 screens - they see it on 4 panels etc

In general - Cheating - No - Incompetence - Mostly

And now that we are going to have 4 umpires per game we will need a pool of 36. Therefore instead of getting the 25-27 'best' umpires each week - we will now be getting the 33-36 'best umpires - lol

[Beno88]

While it's not cheating, and the final decision was more than likely correct, the process was completely wrong.

You can't overrule the umpire's call with inconclusive evidence. There's no way they can tell whether the ball went over the post from the footage available.

They acted on Lynch's reaction, which opens a huge can of worms.

If that happened to St Kilda......oh wait.

[Sainter_Dad]

While it's not cheating, and the final decision was more than likely correct, the process was completely wrong.

You can't overrule the umpire's call with inconclusive evidence. There's no way they can tell whether the ball went over the post from the footage available.

They acted on Lynch's reaction, which opens a huge can of worms.

If that happened to St Kilda......oh wait.

LOL - I was under the impression that the ARC was sold to us as a way of correcting 'Howlers' such as lets say - Hawkins hitting the post - not necessarily to take the umpire out of consideration. It has now become a 'review' of EVERY goal.

I wonder how many of Dunstall's/Buddy's goals would be overruled now if we went back and reviewed EVERY goal. (Not Plugger's - his went right over the goal umpires hat when he played for St Kilda)

It is like comparing bowlers stats now that ball tracking is involved - how many wickets were taken by Lillee LBW that would be overruled under review.

I get that technology advances - but I bemoan the fact that Umpires are overly scrutinised and reviewed. Umpires call something - and I believe it should stand unless it is blatant - ie on the VERY FIRST VIEWING it can be seen that the decision is WRONG - ie the ball moves 45 degrees after hitting the post (take a bow Mr Hawkins).

I would suggest that rather than 4 Umpires on the field - there should be an Umpire watching the game - and if there was a call that makes him 'spit his coffee' he should be able to overule - not tiggy touchwood decisions - but bump balls from a mark etc

Make it so that we take out human error - not human interpretation.

For the record - I think it was a point - from the Lynch reaction - but think the goal should have stood as that was the Umpires interpretation. We do not overrule a 'too far' decision by tracking their GPS - and I would rue the day that we start that crap

[perfectionist]

Deliberately hand balling over the goal line

What is the history?

A player can tap or handball the ball through the goals if he is within ten metres of the goals and is under pressure. The player was in the goal square and there was an opponent near by. So, it was OK.

With the last Tiger "non goal" I was surprised when the goal umpire said he thought it was a goal. Everything he had done before suggested he thought it was a point. He did not make the best position to tell i.e. right behind the post, but that can be difficult with a lot of players around. He can't move too far to that side in case the ball goes to the other side. I didn't see any "conclusive" proof other than the player's reaction. The initial vision from behind him was the best and seemed to show the ball going to the left. But whenever the ball is higher than the goal post, it can be tricky.

The one umpiring mistake that I saw was the free to Richmond which was then called advantage and then had a free paid against (dunno why) and then 50 metres ( also dunno why but I assume someone dissented). The first free should have been reset.