Every finals match so far ruined!

[Surely]

I'll be in L.A.,business meeting and mostly tying up some loose ends with some manufacturing conformations.Then to Toyko,H.K.,then back to Sydney to finalise sone contract negotiations. If I knew we were playing in Brisbane a few months ago,I might have been able to stretch these meetings a week later,lol!,but business is business,and time is money.

All going well you'll fit in enough free time to stretch something else.

 

[Tooooks]

Storm v Eels was a great game. Their first try was off a forward pass but we got in front and then played poorly in the second half. Lost opportunity. No excuses.

The refs certainly didn't lose us the game. Idiotic penalties, a couple of costly dropped balls and missed tackles did that.

 

[Saxon]

Given they don't appear to currently exist on the coverage (if you recall, Fox dumped the idea without a peep earlier this season) I don't think they help with offside either?

Correct, they don't.

Hawkeye works in tennis because the court is flat, you are analysing the position of the ball in 2 dimensions (i.e. the ball is on the ground), and you are dealing with a discrepancy of inches from a clearly defined line. The system in cricket mostly works because it is based on a fixed position and calibrated distances; but even then it is probably only about 70% accurate.

In League, the pitch has a convex profile and the distances are significant and almost completely unpredictable. Parallax error can be significant depending on the viewing angle, and lengths are difficult to judge due to scale and perspective. Don't start me on the maths of calculating 3 dimensional distances in a 2 dimensional picture (e.g. when the ball or a foot is not on the ground. And then people (I'm looking at you Slothfield) think you can just draw an arbitrary line on a picture and prove something.

The only way to make it work (and then it would only work if another player was not in the way) would be to have a sideline laser mapping camera (Lidar would work better) that mechanically travels so that it is constantly on the same perpendicular to the sideline as the ball. And when I patent that, I will make millions. Bwahahahaha.

/Nerd mode

 

[Rhino_NQ]

Correct, they don't.

Hawkeye works in tennis because the court is flat, you are analysing the position of the ball in 2 dimensions (i.e. the ball is on the ground), and you are dealing with a discrepancy of inches from a clearly defined line. The system in cricket mostly works because it is based on a fixed position and calibrated distances; but even then it is probably only about 70% accurate.

In League, the pitch has a convex profile and the distances are significant and almost completely unpredictable. Parallax error can be significant depending on the viewing angle, and lengths are difficult to judge due to scale and perspective. Don't start me on the maths of calculating 3 dimensional distances in a 2 dimensional picture (e.g. when the ball or a foot is not on the ground. And then people (I'm looking at you Slothfield) think you can just draw an arbitrary line on a picture and prove something.

The only way to make it work (and then it would only work if another player was not in the way) would be to have a sideline laser mapping camera (Lidar would work better) that mechanically travels so that it is constantly on the same perpendicular to the sideline as the ball. And when I patent that, I will make millions. Bwahahahaha.

/Nerd mode

And it must be travelling at 88mph?

 

[Surely]

Correct, they don't.

Hawkeye works in tennis because the court is flat, you are analysing the position of the ball in 2 dimensions (i.e. the ball is on the ground), and you are dealing with a discrepancy of inches from a clearly defined line. The system in cricket mostly works because it is based on a fixed position and calibrated distances; but even then it is probably only about 70% accurate.

In League, the pitch has a convex profile and the distances are significant and almost completely unpredictable. Parallax error can be significant depending on the viewing angle, and lengths are difficult to judge due to scale and perspective. Don't start me on the maths of calculating 3 dimensional distances in a 2 dimensional picture (e.g. when the ball or a foot is not on the ground. And then people (I'm looking at you Slothfield) think you can just draw an arbitrary line on a picture and prove something.

The only way to make it work (and then it would only work if another player was not in the way) would be to have a sideline laser mapping camera (Lidar would work better) that mechanically travels so that it is constantly on the same perpendicular to the sideline as the ball. And when I patent that, I will make millions. Bwahahahaha.

/Nerd mode

So you are saying they couldn't tell if Walker was offside because of 3d in a 2d picture so they just ruled he was.

 

[GongPanther]

All going well you'll fit in enough free time to stretch something else.

LOL! Yes...in H.K.and Tokyo,I call it "Executive Stress Relief".

Koreans are,well...

 

[Surely]

LOL! Yes...in H.K.and Tokyo,I call it "Executive Stress Relief".

Koreans are,well...

Like tuppaware ?

 

[GongPanther]

Like tuppaware ?

Sealproof?

 

[Surely]

Tight seal

 

[Jerkwad2000]

His foot was past that line of the kicker. Around the length of ones foot,which is around 6 inches,maybe more.But we wouldn't want to be pedantic about it,especally after the first replay from the bunker clearly showed that the ruling was 100% correct.

I'm sorry, but I am yet to see any replay that clearly shows Walker offside, unlike the replay that sows clearly that Peachey did not touch the ball.

Somehow I think you are looking at it through slightly biased eyes.

I'll leave you with this - an article from the SMH which would have no bias what so ever.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-have-reason-to-complain-20170911-gyf1wa.html

Video verdict: The tape suggests it's extremely difficult to definitely say Walker was offside. Given the on-field ruling of try Manly can feel aggrieved. Dubious decision.

 

[Saxon]

So you are saying they couldn't tell if Walker was offside because of 3d in a 2d picture so they just ruled he was.

No, I'm saying that drawing a line across a picture isn't the answer.
FWIW, looking at the picture (without the red line) I think it was the correct result but the wrong outcome.
What I mean is that my personal opinion looking at the pictures is that he is offside but I cannot be completely sure - 90% but not 100% - and nor could the video refs.

So I think it was not a legitimate try, but it should have been allowed, because the bunker didn't follow process correctly.

And I'm happy with that. The rules say the ref makes a call based on what he thinks. If the video ref cannot definitely say it was an incorrect call then the decision stands. Shut up and move on.

 

[Saxon]

And it must be travelling at 88mph?

That's the problem with my invention. I can't get 1.21 Gigawatts.

 

[OldPanther]

I'm sorry, but I am yet to see any replay that clearly shows Walker offside, unlike the replay that sows clearly that Peachey did not touch the ball.

Somehow I think you are looking at it through slightly biased eyes.

I'll leave you with this - an article from the SMH which would have no bias what so ever.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-have-reason-to-complain-20170911-gyf1wa.html

Video verdict: The tape suggests it's extremely difficult to definitely say Walker was offside. Given the on-field ruling of try Manly can feel aggrieved. Dubious decision.

The thing that annoys me is we get 1 angle. The bunker has 8+. Show us what they made their decision based on. For all we know it's a side on camera that shows him clearly offside or the generic one that is 50/50 at best.

 

[GongPanther]

I'm sorry, but I am yet to see any replay that clearly shows Walker offside, unlike the replay that sows clearly that Peachey did not touch the ball.

Somehow I think you are looking at it through slightly biased eyes.

I'll leave you with this - an article from the SMH which would have no bias what so ever.
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...-have-reason-to-complain-20170911-gyf1wa.html

Video verdict: The tape suggests it's extremely difficult to definitely say Walker was offside. Given the on-field ruling of try Manly can feel aggrieved. Dubious decision.

That angle is bias towards Manly as the angle we were all watching during the live broadcast was from a higher camera...and I will tell you that at the first replay and without any bias in my thinking at THAT time,he was offside...absolutely no doubt.And the bunker didn't waste time in it's verdict.

The defence rests your honor.

 

[Jerkwad2000]

The thing that annoys me is we get 1 angle. The bunker has 8+. Show us what they made their decision based on. For all we know it's a side on camera that shows him clearly offside or the generic one that is 50/50 at best.

So you would have to think by now that if there was an angle that shows it definitively, like the Peachey call, that it would have come out by now. But none has been shown. Meaning, as you say, it's 50/50 at best and, as you say in a different thread, the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team.

That angle is bias towards Manly as the angle we were all watching during the live broadcast was from a higher camera...and I will tell you that at the first replay and without any bias in my thinking at THAT time,he was offside...absolutely no doubt.And the bunker didn't waste time in it's verdict.

As I've said above, if there was definitive proof or another angle, it would have come out by now. And regardless of whether you want to admit it or not, there is clear bias in your response. The vast majority of neutral people do not believe there was enough evidence to overturn that decision, including the majority of rugby league journos.

Pigheaded Manly supporters believe all 3 decisions were wrong. They are wrong. The Uate one was correctly overturned. The Peachey one has been proven to be correct. There is zero conclusive proof to overturn the Walker one, regardless of your belief or the fact the bunker did so. They got that one wrong. Remember, it has to be conclusive. The fact that 3 days after the fact people are still contesting it clearly means it wasn't. And on that rant that's the end of me cause I'm sick of the issue. Manly fans are going to believe differently to Penrith fans. That one doesn't need to go to the bunker, cause there is conclusive proof already!

 

[M2D2]

He was offside.

 

[mxlegend99]

He was offside.

Yep.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...dylan-walker-was-offside-20170912-gyfw13.html


Both incidents being complained about in this game were spot on.

 

[Surely]

Yep.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...dylan-walker-was-offside-20170912-gyfw13.html


Both incidents being complained about in this game were spot on.

That's a stretch, so using some technology they don't use sometime after the match proves them right, but they don't supply the image to prove it ?






Looking at this pic you cannot conclusively say he is offside, and given the on field decision was a try there has to be no doubt to overturn it.

Consistency is the issue here.

 

[Vee]

I know I'll be caned for this but it would have been interesting to have a poll on some of the more contentious decisions last weekend while the debates were raging.

I think the Peachey try has been resolved in the affirmative by the split screen evidence (Barrett was wrong and owes the refs a heartfelt apology). Anyone seen the split screens and still disagree?

 

[Vee]

Correct, they don't.

Hawkeye works in tennis because the court is flat, you are analysing the position of the ball in 2 dimensions (i.e. the ball is on the ground), and you are dealing with a discrepancy of inches from a clearly defined line. The system in cricket mostly works because it is based on a fixed position and calibrated distances; but even then it is probably only about 70% accurate.

In League, the pitch has a convex profile and the distances are significant and almost completely unpredictable. Parallax error can be significant depending on the viewing angle, and lengths are difficult to judge due to scale and perspective. Don't start me on the maths of calculating 3 dimensional distances in a 2 dimensional picture (e.g. when the ball or a foot is not on the ground. And then people (I'm looking at you Slothfield) think you can just draw an arbitrary line on a picture and prove something.

The only way to make it work (and then it would only work if another player was not in the way) would be to have a sideline laser mapping camera (Lidar would work better) that mechanically travels so that it is constantly on the same perpendicular to the sideline as the ball. And when I patent that, I will make millions. Bwahahahaha.

/Nerd mode

Are the lines they draw on soccer replays not accurate? If not, is there any reason they don't do that for RL?