Interesting, to say that seeing daylight between the hand & the ball was a optical illusion & there was no deviation. I wonder of it was a disputed goal for the Tigers you would be of the same opinion. Regardless the tigers were too good on the day.
Let's all chip in and buy the AFL a camera.
Looks like about $640 should do it.
"6 Slow Motion Cameras You Can Afford"
https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/6-affordable-slow-motion-cameras/
I'd put in $20 if it meant we weren't insulted every time Blurry Bob made his appearance.
Hey I found a better one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOdwjdyGdSg
Dwayne (Russell) on SEN who is sounding more and more like an AFL apologist says they can't afford them.
Cousin Dwayne says it won't solve anything because the NBL can afford these cameras and they still have queeries. I reckon it might be worth the risk.
So come on chip in and we'll get them one for Christmas.
That is of course unless they want to maintain the Blurr.
Because if umpiring confusion was good for media headlines one might think the whole thing stinks. And that there must be cowboys at an executive level on the AFL Board.
The player who ‘touched’ the ball was pleasantly surprised when the umpires call wasn’t overruled. I have always argued that conclusive evidence is needed to overturn an umpires call, and in this case there was. One angle was inconclusive, the camera was just in a bad position to show the gap.
Not TomC.
Blurry images with a lot of movement between frames makes it impossible to overrule decisions like that. Benefit of the doubt means umpires call. Plus it looked a bit like it deflected.
So the field umpire is at fault - he shouldn't even go to the review until he gets a "soft" call from the goal umpire.
In the end, I think the ARC had no option but to go to umpires call (even though the umpire didn't make a call).
Frankly, the review system is not working for these situations.
That 'daylight' is an optical illusion akin to imprints on the retina. You'll also notice you can 'see things' behind the ball, explain that. Another angle also shows definite deviation. Correct call
Terrible decision funny a Richmond fan can understand the decision but anyone else would clearly agree that was shocking. Also did the ump even call it anything cause I didn't see him call anything on tv. Seriously they may as well sheet can the score review system just complete waste of time this year.
i was pretty close to the incident. the ump didn't call anything. he didn't even realise it had crossed the line. it was only after it went out the second time and the field ump asked him. terrible stuff.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
Technology hasn't really solved the problem, has it?
Tassie.
Roar Rookie
Interesting, to say that seeing daylight between the hand & the ball was a optical illusion & there was no deviation. I wonder of it was a disputed goal for the Tigers you would be of the same opinion. Regardless the tigers were too good on the day.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
Let's all chip in and buy the AFL a camera. Looks like about $640 should do it. "6 Slow Motion Cameras You Can Afford" https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/6-affordable-slow-motion-cameras/ I'd put in $20 if it meant we weren't insulted every time Blurry Bob made his appearance. Hey I found a better one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOdwjdyGdSg Dwayne (Russell) on SEN who is sounding more and more like an AFL apologist says they can't afford them. Cousin Dwayne says it won't solve anything because the NBL can afford these cameras and they still have queeries. I reckon it might be worth the risk. So come on chip in and we'll get them one for Christmas. That is of course unless they want to maintain the Blurr. Because if umpiring confusion was good for media headlines one might think the whole thing stinks. And that there must be cowboys at an executive level on the AFL Board.
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
So did I. Also, did that ball fully cross the line? Another close call on that element as well for mine!
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
Go to school on 'persistent vision'. What you are seeing isn't always there.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
The player who ‘touched’ the ball was pleasantly surprised when the umpires call wasn’t overruled. I have always argued that conclusive evidence is needed to overturn an umpires call, and in this case there was. One angle was inconclusive, the camera was just in a bad position to show the gap.
DTM
Roar Rookie
Maybe "me too" is really Dan Butler? Although I suspect the real Dan Butler has better things to do today.
RT
Roar Rookie
Not TomC. Blurry images with a lot of movement between frames makes it impossible to overrule decisions like that. Benefit of the doubt means umpires call. Plus it looked a bit like it deflected.
RT
Roar Rookie
I doubt metoo was in clear earshot of the umps however close he or she was.
DTM
Roar Rookie
So the field umpire is at fault - he shouldn't even go to the review until he gets a "soft" call from the goal umpire. In the end, I think the ARC had no option but to go to umpires call (even though the umpire didn't make a call). Frankly, the review system is not working for these situations.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
That 'daylight' is an optical illusion akin to imprints on the retina. You'll also notice you can 'see things' behind the ball, explain that. Another angle also shows definite deviation. Correct call
TomC
Roar Guru
I thought it was the right call.
WCE
Roar Rookie
Terrible decision funny a Richmond fan can understand the decision but anyone else would clearly agree that was shocking. Also did the ump even call it anything cause I didn't see him call anything on tv. Seriously they may as well sheet can the score review system just complete waste of time this year.
me too
Guest
i was pretty close to the incident. the ump didn't call anything. he didn't even realise it had crossed the line. it was only after it went out the second time and the field ump asked him. terrible stuff.
Eagles 18
Roar Rookie
The Arc decisions makers need to grow some balls. :football: :football: That wasn't touched
Aransan
Roar Rookie
There was enough evidence to overrule the umpires decision, one camera angle showed clear daylight between the hand and the ball.
RT
Roar Rookie
Probably didn't touch it but I can understand the call with the blurry images. They should do away with score reviews for touched.