The AFL and cheating

[amusingname]

The ARC is not a computer, it is still people interpreting footage. They believed they had enough vision to be satisfied. If you were on it then you wouldn’t have been satisfied, neither would I. That doesn’t equate to cheating.

[CURLY]

The ARC is not a computer, it is still people interpreting footage. They believed they had enough vision to be satisfied. If you were on it then you wouldn’t have been satisfied, neither would I. That doesn’t equate to cheating.

There are rules so you follow them. You can't decide what rule you will and won't follow.

Clowns are suggesting they should go off the players reactions. What next a hands up poll of the crowd.

[amusingname]

The ARC is not a computer, it is still people interpreting footage. They believed they had enough vision to be satisfied. If you were on it then you wouldn’t have been satisfied, neither would I. That doesn’t equate to cheating.

There are rules so you follow them. You can't decide what rule you will and won't follow.

Clowns are suggesting they should go off the players reactions. What next a hands up poll of the crowd.

This is like talking to a brick wall. Again, they were satisfied they had enough vision to decide, so in the reviewers mind they were following the rule! They said they can see the ball going over the post. That is their judgement, they haven’t ignored the rule!

[The Fireman]

So remind me again
Why are the afl cheating?

[The_Dud]

The ARC is not a computer, it is still people interpreting footage. They believed they had enough vision to be satisfied. If you were on it then you wouldn’t have been satisfied, neither would I. That doesn’t equate to cheating.

There are rules so you follow them. You can't decide what rule you will and won't follow.

Clowns are suggesting they should go off the players reactions. What next a hands up poll of the crowd.

This is like talking to a brick wall. Again, they were satisfied they had enough vision to decide, so in the reviewers mind they were following the rule! They said they can see the ball going over the post. That is their judgement, they haven’t ignored the rule!

‘Brick wall’ is an understatement.

All angles had the ball over the post at the same time. If it didn’t pass over the post then one of the angles would have shown this.

Seems pretty conclusive to me.

[Wayne42]

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

Blatant cheating and agenda driven.

Fortunately it was only Richmond that was affected.