Score Review - Swans v Crows

[DangerSloane]

First of all, yes, I'm a crows supporter, however given the circumstances I think even the most staunch opposition supporters would agree with me. We all know it wouldn't have changed the result, as we got our asses handed to us yesterday by a better side.

BUT the score review against Matthew Wright yesterday was an absolute disgrace.

First of all it was blatantly obvious that he kicked it. It seems they will purely NEVER turn over a goal umpires call. Some of the ones they've called touched in the past had far less evidence than this one.

Also as a side note. Was the goal umpire asking to check whether he was over the line when he kicked it?
He didn't actually say "I want to check whether he kicked it" or "I want to check whether it was over the line when he kicked it". He only said he thought it was a rushed behind...What if he'd known he kicked it but thought he was over the line when he did so? Surely he has a better view (and also the sound of the ball off the boot) to tell whether it was kicked or not.

That brings me to the next point. Should the goal umpires be saying what they know? As in if this umpire knew wright kicked it should he be saying "I believe the ball was kicked, but that it was over the line", then when they check it, its not over the line, so paid a goal?

Let me know what you all think about it. Ive seen swans fans on facebook saying 100% goal so I presume it wasn't just obvious to us one eyed crows fans.

 

[Superstar swan]

Score reviews are crap anyway. They are that un reliable and time consuming, i reckon they should only be allowed if a score is within a certain parameter or time left in qtr.

Whats the point of wasting a few minutes to see if a ball was a behind or out of bounds on the full in a game with a 70 point margin.

But yes you are correct. It was a bad one yeaterday

 

[Quinz]

Score reviews were doomed to be frustrating and inconsistent the moment the AFL, in their infinite wisdom, couldn't be bothered taking a chunk out of their billion dollar TV rights to make sure all grounds had goal line cameras. That is amateur stuff of the highest order.

Second mistake was not getting competent people in the booth.

 

[DangerSloane]

Score reviews were doomed to be frustrating and inconsistent the moment the AFL, in their infinite wisdom, couldn't be bothered taking a chunk out of their billion dollar TV rights to make sure all grounds had goal line cameras. That is amateur stuff of the highest order.

Second mistake was not getting competent people in the booth.

Yes. It seems they've got a 70 year old bloke in there.
He probably cant see... get some young blokes with some good eyes in there. Its not a tough job, you just need to be able to know the rules, and see blatant things.
Hell I'll do it for 70k a year. Every game, every week.

 

[Choomah]

Gold Coast one was just as bad, cost them the game

 

[DangerSloane]

Gold Coast one was just as bad, cost them the game

Didn't see it but don't doubt what you say.
The guy in the box is horrible. I reckon theres been at least 5-6 times this year where they've got it blatantly wrong!

 

[Choomah]

Didn't see it but don't doubt what you say.
The guy in the box is horrible. I reckon theres been at least 5-6 times this year where they've got it blatantly wrong!

Can't recall who it was but a Eagles player had his foot on the line and marked the ball, quite obvious it was well over the line but the score review guy whatever he is decides that he won't look at it from the post angle, cost GC the game, score reviews are terrible

 

[Maddo11]

Gold Coast one was just as bad, cost them the game

That was mostly due to there only being two and a half cameras at the whole ground.
Any camera on the goal line would have been able to see that.
The Adelaide one was just a complete * up, all the vision looked pretty conclusive to the majority, 3rd ump just didn't have the balls to call it.

 

[Swansujelly]

was a goal. If I could see it, how could they not?

 

[Mningasimisonda]

First of all, yes, I'm a crows supporter, however given the circumstances I think even the most staunch opposition supporters would agree with me. We all know it wouldn't have changed the result, as we got our asses handed to us yesterday by a better side.

BUT the score review against Matthew Wright yesterday was an absolute disgrace.

First of all it was blatantly obvious that he kicked it. It seems they will purely NEVER turn over a goal umpires call. Some of the ones they've called touched in the past had far less evidence than this one.

Also as a side note. Was the goal umpire asking to check whether he was over the line when he kicked it?
He didn't actually say "I want to check whether he kicked it" or "I want to check whether it was over the line when he kicked it". He only said he thought it was a rushed behind...What if he'd known he kicked it but thought he was over the line when he did so? Surely he has a better view (and also the sound of the ball off the boot) to tell whether it was kicked or not.

That brings me to the next point. Should the goal umpires be saying what they know? As in if this umpire knew wright kicked it should he be saying "I believe the ball was kicked, but that it was over the line", then when they check it, its not over the line, so paid a goal?

Let me know what you all think about it. Ive seen swans fans on facebook saying 100% goal so I presume it wasn't just obvious to us one eyed crows fans.

Didn't change the result. But seeing we are 0.2% ahead of you on the ladder, every goal counts.

 

[Quinz]

Gold Coast one was just as bad, cost them the game

Didn't see it but don't doubt what you say.
The guy in the box is horrible. I reckon theres been at least 5-6 times this year where they've got it blatantly wrong!

You can see it here. http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-r...&eventType=Behind&seek=5345&videoQuality=high

Impossible with the cameras they had to be 100% sure the entire ball was over the line, but it certainly looked like it. Ludicrous they don't have a goal line camera. Goal umpire was in the best position and called it touched.

 

[The King!]

I guess they were not 100 sure so could not turn over the call?

Dont know, get a camera inside going across the line maybe

Im starting to think why bother umpires make natural errors, if we add review errors why waste the time

 

[DangerSloane]

This was the exact type of example where the goal review should be used. Would've been very hard to tell if the ball hit for the goal umpire, but on the slow motion replay the change of trajectory was blatant.

This is the exact circumstance where a call can be overturned and nobody thinks less of the umpire who made the original decision.

 

[The King!]

Yep made no sense

Be interesting to see afl explanation

 

[Swansujelly]

i think the goal review gas run it's course. Just let the umpires make a call and live with it. It's sapping their confidence to make decisions and are second guessing themselves.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Mentioned it in the existing score review thread about the use of poor quality footage, but yeah the Adelaide one was an absolute shambles. Don't know how any sane person could call that a behind. System is awful, needs better technology or better reviewers, because it does not work as it stands

 

[The Karma Bus]

It's because they lack the courage when reviewing to say it was touched/did hit the boot etc.

You can see the slight deflection, just make the call. But they would rather err on the side of caution and we'll stick with the umpires call.
Do that if it's truly inconclusive. If you can see the deflection even though it's so small, call it!!

 

[wowlace]

Definitely a goal. Just another * up to add to the "reviews" list. Sooner or later this is gonna cost someone something important.

 

[DangerSloane]

Mentioned it in the existing score review thread about the use of poor quality footage, but yeah the Adelaide one was an absolute shambles. Don't know how any sane person could call that a behind. System is awful, needs better technology or better reviewers, because it does not work as it stands

Both I think. We've seen two issues this weekend. One with the lack of technology and one with the lack of quality reviewer

 

[Eshay187]

Was an absolute howler - pretty impossible to understand what was going through reviewers mind.

Would be good to see some numbers if you were to add all the reviews up and see how many reviews resulted in a decision being definitively over turned. I would guess that 95% are either inconclusive or agree with the original umpires call. So what's the point?

 

[asanque]

AFL can't afford top notch cameras.

The money needs to go to the grossly overpaid AFL executive.

 

[PrideOf]

Definitely a goal. Just another **** up to add to the "reviews" list. Sooner or later this is gonna cost someone something important.

Which is the great irony, because it was brought in under the threat of "we don't want a Grand Final decided by a goal umpire's mistake". You know, because of all the Grand Finals that were decided in this way over the past 100 years, like Tom Hawkins' goal and, um, well ...

Yeah, me neither.

 

[milhouse1]

I just don't understand why the video umpire gets things like this wrong, where EVERYONE else watching can see it was a goal. Quite seriously, apart from the obvious jokes about them being blind etc- I'm sure they hire reasonably competent people to do this, and they can obviously see what happens on the screen. Is it nerves or the pressure of the game that makes them make a mistake? I am genuinely baffled why this keeps happening!

 

[Andrew Mc]

I reckon it was clearer than the one just overturned at Subi (both should have been called goals imo).

 

[The Karma Bus]

I just don't understand why the video umpire gets things like this wrong, where EVERYONE else watching can see it was a goal. Quite seriously, apart from the obvious jokes about them being blind etc- I'm sure they hire reasonably competent people to do this, and they can obviously see what happens on the screen. Is it nerves or the pressure of the game that makes them make a mistake? I am genuinely baffled why this keeps happening!

I think they fall back on the comfort zone of inconclusive even though it is slight, but visible.
They don't want to make the call and put them on the line when they have an easy out.

We all know when we watch a review if we are thinking you can definitely see it's touched or hmm maybe, it looks like it might be. If it's the latter, ok go with umpires call. With ones like yesterday at the SCG, everyone knew it was a goal. But they play it safe because it was so slight.