The goal review system hasn't really delivered on what it promised. Before they introduced it there were a few calls a year which warranted further inspection. Before that, umpires made a decision based on what they thought and most of the time they got it right. There were, however, a couple of glaring misses in important games which necessitated the change.
Now, umpires are more than ever doubting their decisions. This has lead to numerous goal reviews, most of which haven't resulted in changing decisions, either through lack of evidence or through the umpire being correct in the first place. More importantly, I feel, is that many of these goal reviews have happened without the players objecting to the decision in the first place.
If the goal umpire makes a decision which neither team disagrees with, then why even bother with a review? If a defender doesn't claim that he has touched the ball there is a 100% chance that he hasn't. If several players see the ball touch the post, they should be the ones to bring it to the umpires' attention. The umpires should return to the previous system - if the goal umpire thinks it's touched, call it touched. The field umpire, the same. If the players disagree (and there are a lot more players than umpires), let them challenge it.
How would it work?
- Teams should be given 2 reviews a game. This would be sufficient in the majority of games and would prevent players using a review to simply slow down the play. An option might be to allow teams to keep their reviews if they overturn a decision.
- Players can ask for reviews for balls hitting the post, touched balls and clearly wrong decisions (ball passing between goal posts but given as a behind). Marks I would include as well, as they could change the scores and there is a genuine stop in play.**
- Umpires would be able to veto a review if they felt it was clearly frivolous. E.g. If the ball clearly goes between the posts, but a player claims it touched them, the umpire could dismiss the review to prevent time wasting.
- Goal line cameras need to be available for all games, regardless of where they are played. The goal umpire hat-cams have been very good too, although if an umpire is out of position, it becomes redundant.
- There will never be enough cameras in a ground to cover all possibilities, although the AFL or the broadcasters should look into increasing or improving this aspect. If they introduce hot-spot, it needs to be available at all grounds.
- Any doubt with a review should revert back to the umpire's decision, as is the case now.
Problems;
- The main problem I see at the moment is the quality of cameras used for broadcasting. Perhaps this could be discussed in the next broadcasting negotiations.
- Review times are too long and some decisions are still baffling. (Ziebell goal review). Hopefully time and experience will iron out these problems.
- **If a player punches a ball off the goal line back into the field of play, then play would have to continue. The difficulty here is when do you stop the game for a review if a team requests it? Players could conceivably play-on for 5 minutes without a stoppage, or score up the other end, only to have a decision overturned. What happens to the lost time? When does an umpire interrupt the play? Should the umpire upstairs automatically review this scenario as the game continues and then interrupt the play as soon as they have a result?
What do people think?
Now, umpires are more than ever doubting their decisions. This has lead to numerous goal reviews, most of which haven't resulted in changing decisions, either through lack of evidence or through the umpire being correct in the first place. More importantly, I feel, is that many of these goal reviews have happened without the players objecting to the decision in the first place.
If the goal umpire makes a decision which neither team disagrees with, then why even bother with a review? If a defender doesn't claim that he has touched the ball there is a 100% chance that he hasn't. If several players see the ball touch the post, they should be the ones to bring it to the umpires' attention. The umpires should return to the previous system - if the goal umpire thinks it's touched, call it touched. The field umpire, the same. If the players disagree (and there are a lot more players than umpires), let them challenge it.
How would it work?
- Teams should be given 2 reviews a game. This would be sufficient in the majority of games and would prevent players using a review to simply slow down the play. An option might be to allow teams to keep their reviews if they overturn a decision.
- Players can ask for reviews for balls hitting the post, touched balls and clearly wrong decisions (ball passing between goal posts but given as a behind). Marks I would include as well, as they could change the scores and there is a genuine stop in play.**
- Umpires would be able to veto a review if they felt it was clearly frivolous. E.g. If the ball clearly goes between the posts, but a player claims it touched them, the umpire could dismiss the review to prevent time wasting.
- Goal line cameras need to be available for all games, regardless of where they are played. The goal umpire hat-cams have been very good too, although if an umpire is out of position, it becomes redundant.
- There will never be enough cameras in a ground to cover all possibilities, although the AFL or the broadcasters should look into increasing or improving this aspect. If they introduce hot-spot, it needs to be available at all grounds.
- Any doubt with a review should revert back to the umpire's decision, as is the case now.
Problems;
- The main problem I see at the moment is the quality of cameras used for broadcasting. Perhaps this could be discussed in the next broadcasting negotiations.
- Review times are too long and some decisions are still baffling. (Ziebell goal review). Hopefully time and experience will iron out these problems.
- **If a player punches a ball off the goal line back into the field of play, then play would have to continue. The difficulty here is when do you stop the game for a review if a team requests it? Players could conceivably play-on for 5 minutes without a stoppage, or score up the other end, only to have a decision overturned. What happens to the lost time? When does an umpire interrupt the play? Should the umpire upstairs automatically review this scenario as the game continues and then interrupt the play as soon as they have a result?
What do people think?
