Play Nice Goal Umpire costs Adelaide a shot at finals, how do you stop it from happening again?

[Do the Dew]

Am sure there could be a process where the ARC signals the ump that a review is underway. Perhaps have a 30 second clock on that so you know within 30 seconds if a review is happening.

Could even have a light on the scoreboard that illuminates when a score review is happening in the background.

India just landed a river on the moon. Getting a review process right isn’t rocket science.

Similar to the soccer review process. They have ppl looking at the footage in the background who then communicate to the ref if the game needs to be stopped or should continue.

Bolded part: This is the AFL admin we're talking about. Doing the bare minimum is considered an achievement by them.

 

[Truetiger]

All the goal umpire had to do was call a goal. "I think it's a goal but I just want to make sure that it didn't hit the post."

I honestly believe the AFL got the result they wanted and that the goal umpire was just doing their bidding, it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

If given a goal, ball goes back to the middle to finish off the final minute. What then who knows.

 

[T2B_]

It's funny, cos in the side on vision I swear the goal post shakes a bit as the ball goes past it.

 

[Crow till I die]

It's funny, cos in the side on vision I swear the goal post shakes a bit as the ball goes past it.

It does as callum mills shakes the post and thats why they could not use their version of snicko.

 

[SC_Power]

S

Show me where in the afl rules it says they (The AFL) can't order a match to be replayed. If there is no defined rule on it either way..then they have the power tomake a call either way

Take out the words "order a match to be replayed" and replace with any phrase, and and you get the same answer. You won't get an explicit rule for every eventuality.

Implicitly, without looking at the legal arguments, I'd expect that the AFL regulations puts the decision on in-game events purely and solely in the hands of the umpires allocated to a match.

You'd have to demonstrate something external to the game influenced the result.
- bribery of players or match officials
- equipment failure (lights, siren, evacuation alarm)
- irregular external influence (eg laser light blinding a goal umpire)
None of which seem to be the case this time, unfortunately.

 

[Crow till I die]

Take out the words "order a match to be replayed" and replace with any phrase, and and you get the same answer. You won't get an explicit rule for every eventuality.

Implicitly, without looking at the legal arguments, I'd expect that the AFL regulations puts the decision on in-game events purely and solely in the hands of the umpires allocated to a match.

You'd have to demonstrate something external to the game influenced the result.
- bribery of players or match officials
- equipment failure (lights, siren, evacuation alarm)
- irregular external influence (eg laser light blinding a goal umpire)
None of which seem to be the case this time, unfortunately.

Well in the interests of keeping the thread civil, i will leave it with we agree to disagree on that

 

[crows dude]

It's funny, cos in the side on vision I swear the goal post shakes a bit as the ball goes past it.

That will happen when a sydney player knocks the post

 

[Mofra]

Are you serious? You barrack for the Bulldogs.

Yes, I do. Which has nothing to do with the game you're wining about.

Now back to your sookfest.

 

[Checksider]

Yes, I do. Which has nothing to do with the game you're wining about.

Now back to your sookfest.

It has everything to do with what you referenced, when your club is the beneficiary of the greatest display of umpiring bias in an AFL Grand Final ever.

Without that you don’t win, you don’t get close, in fact you don’t even make the GF without it in the prelim.

You’re the one who brought up club history with umpires, you just don’t like that being applied to your club.

 

[Mofra]

It has everything to do with what you referenced, when your club is the beneficiary of the greatest display of umpiring bias in an AFL Grand Final ever.

Without that you don’t win, you don’t even get close, in fact you don’t even make the GF without it in the prelim.

You’re the one who brought up club history with umpires, you just don’t like that being applied to your club.

^ No intelligent person believes that. The old BF cliche of "someone said something I disagree with so I'll attack their club" is boringly predictable for mindless peons to adhere to.

Fact is, Adelaide has benefitted more than any club in the AFL era when it comes to goal umpiring, so yes applying the 'irony' label to last week's game is absolutely applicable. Your reaction it telling.

 

[Checksider]

^ No intelligent person believes that. The old BF cliche of "someone said something I disagree with so I'll attack their club" is boringly predictable for mindless peons to adhere to.

Fact is, Adelaide has benefitted more than any club in the AFL era when it comes to goal umpiring, so yes applying the 'irony' label to last week's game is absolutely applicable. Your reaction it telling.

Haha ok. Except I was responding to you attacking my club because you disagreed.

Back to your sookfest about a point that was a point, and happened over 25 years ago then.

 

[Tiger 80]

If given a goal, ball goes back to the middle to finish off the final minute.

This is true.

But here's the way I look at it, the goal umpire could not of known that it was a point because it wasn't. So why not err on the side of caution if you didn't know and call a goal? Was he doing the AFL's bidding by guessing? To not fix this suggests to me that the AFL got the result they wanted.

We saw at the GABBA last season what the AFL is willing to do to get the result they want.

I'm thinking we see how the ladder stands at the end of this round and if Adelaide would've made the 8 if they weren't screwed against Sydney then they should replay the whole game during the bye before the finals, this is better than accepting an obvious wrong. I'm sure this would satisfy Adelaide, and we'd get to see if John Longmire's words were just that, words.

What then who knows.

It was all Adelaide I know that.

 

[radiojake]

Fact is, Adelaide has benefitted more than any club in the AFL era when it comes to goal umpiring, so yes applying the 'irony' label to last week's game is absolutely applicable. Your reaction it telling.

Take away a 26 year ago behind by Liberatore, where there is precisely zero replays of showing anyone what happened, so no one knows, what are you talking about?

 

[Checksider]

Take away a 26 year ago behind by Liberatore, where there is precisely zero replays of showing anyone what happened, so no one knows, what are you talking about?

Pure delusion.

I was sitting behind the goals and watched it go directly over the post. That’s a point. Libba was trying to con the goal umpire.

 

[Maddo11]

This is true.

But here's the way I look at it, the goal umpire could not of known that it was a point because it wasn't. So why not err on the side of caution if you didn't know and call a goal? Was he doing the AFL's bidding by guessing? To not fix this suggests to me that the AFL got the result they wanted.

Because every umpire ever has been taught that if they're unsure lean to the lesser penalty. (Not sure if bounced on the line or out of bounds on the full? Throw in.)

The only way he straight up calls it a point is if he believes its a point. If he's unsure he goes upstairs with a soft call of "behind but check pls"

We saw at the GABBA last season what the AFL is willing to do to get the result they want.

I love that tigers fans keep bringing this up to prove that ARC is rigged; they made the right call Lynch missed ffs.

I'm thinking we see how the ladder stands at the end of this round and if Adelaide would've made the 8 if they weren't screwed against Sydney then they should replay the whole game during the bye before the finals, this is better than accepting an obvious wrong. I'm sure this would satisfy Adelaide, and we'd get to see if John Longmire's words were just that, words.

It was all Adelaide I know that.

Utter garbage. Can't penalise one team for an official "making a mistake" on a judgement call.

 

[Crouch]

^ No intelligent person believes that. The old BF cliche of "someone said something I disagree with so I'll attack their club" is boringly predictable for mindless peons to adhere to.

Fact is, Adelaide has benefitted more than any club in the AFL era when it comes to goal umpiring, so yes applying the 'irony' label to last week's game is absolutely applicable. Your reaction it telling.

LOL who knew mods could be so ******* clueless.

 

[Bloods86]

So why not err on the side of caution if you didn't know and call a goal? Was he doing the AFL's bidding by guessing? To not fix this suggests to me that the AFL got the result they wanted.

Again with the tin foil hat. Do you have any evidence this was the result that the AFL wanted or that the goal umpire did this deliberately?

You've basically got the Swans in one corner, a club the AFL has been vindictive against in recent history. Versus the Crows, a Crows fan goal umpire, field umps which clearly forgot the memo in the 2nd half, plus 4 Vic clubs (Dogs, Ess, Geel, Rich) who were adversely impacted by a Swans win. But nah, the AFL wanted a Swans win...

I know it's easier to imagine a conspiracy, but the reason that it doesn't get overturned or replayed, is that it wasn't necessarily the deciding factor in the result, and even if it was, the precedent it would set would create havoc. The best that can be done is to improve the process so it is less likely to happen again.

 

[PeterSalt]

Again with the tin foil hat. Do you have any evidence this was the result that the AFL wanted or that the goal umpire did this deliberately?

You've basically got the Swans in one corner, a club the AFL has been vindictive against in recent history. Versus the Crows, a Crows fan goal umpire, field umps which clearly forgot the memo in the 2nd half, plus 4 Vic clubs (Dogs, Ess, Geel, Rich) who were adversely impacted by a Swans win. But nah, the AFL wanted a Swans win...

I know it's easier to imagine a conspiracy, but the reason that it doesn't get overturned or replayed, is that it wasn't necessarily the deciding factor in the result, and even if it was, the precedent it would set would create havoc. The best that can be done is to improve the process so it is less likely to happen again.

It not a conspiracy

It was a massive human error that exposed a number of flawed systems/procedures and the poor technology currently in use.

It's really all on the AFL

 

[Bloods86]

It not a conspiracy

It was a massive human error that exposed a number of flawed systems/procedures and the poor technology currently in use.

It's really all on the AFL

Yes, I believe it was an error and one that should trigger improvements. I'd like not to have to hear whining when I tell people I'm a Swans fan or in general, living in Adelaide, though I suspect that will occur for several decades now (well, Port fans and some others will probably try to high five or something).

I'm just laughing at how people think it was intended, or that the AFL and/or the ump are secretly happy about the result over the alternative.

 

[PeterSalt]

Yes, I believe it was an error and one that should trigger improvements.

I'm just laughing at how people think it was intended, or that the AFL and/or the ump are secretly happy about the result over the alternative.

Gill wasn't/isn't happy. It's rained on his parade.

The AFL, and by extension Gill were very publicly embarrassed. And this goes a long to explain why he was ok throwing the umpire under the bus.

In an interview of our Chairman on Monday, he stated that the AFL spent Saturday night and Sunday morning trying to prove it wasn't a goal.

 

[Tiger 80]

I love that tigers fans keep bringing this up to prove that ARC is rigged; they made the right call Lynch missed ffs.

Let's hear Whateley,

“There is no angle that technology can provide that can adequately answer those questions. There is an angle though and that’s the angle of the goal umpire. He saw it, he knew where the line was, he knew where the post was and he knew where the ball was, and he get overruled. That is an overreach of technology and the AFL can say all it likes to that, that they viewed all the angles and used all the freeze-frames to say the ball was over the post.
That is pretending. You cannot tell that with the technology that is in play in this system.”

So the goal umpire called goal in the Lynch case making a review possible and giving the AFL an opportunity to pretend. That's what happened.

Why didn't the goal umpire with around a minute to go call goal in the Adelaide game? He couldn't of known it was a point when it wasn't, so to not call goal when you know it would be reviewed is obvious criminal behaviour.


So Lynch didn't miss according to the goal umpire and the ARC just did the AFL's bidding.
In this case it was the goal umpire that did the AFL's bidding by calling point to make sure there would be no review.

In both cases the AFL got the result they wanted.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Let's hear Whateley,

“There is no angle that technology can provide that can adequately answer those questions. There is an angle though and that’s the angle of the goal umpire. He saw it, he knew where the line was, he knew where the post was and he knew where the ball was, and he get overruled. That is an overreach of technology and the AFL can say all it likes to that, that they viewed all the angles and used all the freeze-frames to say the ball was over the post.
That is pretending. You cannot tell that with the technology that is in play in this system.”

So the goal umpire called goal in the Lynch case making a review possible and giving the AFL an opportunity to pretend. That's what happened.

Why didn't the goal umpire with around a minute to go call goal in the Adelaide game? He couldn't of known it was a point when it wasn't, so to not call goal when you know it would be reviewed is obvious criminal behaviour.


So Lynch didn't miss according to the goal umpire and the ARC just did the AFL's bidding.
In this case it was the goal umpire that did the AFL's bidding by calling point to make sure there would be no review.

In both cases the AFL got the result they wanted.

The Lynch goal was correctly reviewed as a behind !

Build a bridge and get over it, it's not as if you were any serious chance of winning the flag that year, 100 % you would have been knocked out next week.

Crows were stiff/robbed yes, but one cojld argue they shouldn't have put themselves in that position after such a slow and tame first half.

 

[Tiger 80]

Again with the tin foil hat. Do you have any evidence this was the result that the AFL wanted or that the goal umpire did this deliberately?

The goal umpire called point deliberately when he full well knows a goal call gets a review, that's all I know.

 

[The King!]

Tigers fans getting a bit of success ruined their brains judging by bigfooty

 

[Tiger 80]

The Lynch goal was correctly reviewed as a behind !

You were happy with the call is what you mean, but the truth is what Whateley said.

Build a bridge and get over it, it's not as if you were any serious chance of winning the flag that year, 100 % you would have been knocked out next week.

The wrong call was obviously made then as it was in this Adelaide game.

Crows were stiff/robbed yes, but one cojld argue they shouldn't have put themselves in that position after such a slow and tame first half.

That's stupid.

I argue that the goal umpire should've called goal, get the review you know you get with the goal call rather than pretend you know what it is just so you don't get a review, which is what the AFL wanted.