Video Review - A Pandora's Box

[raptalia]

This has probably been done before but here goes again...

Watching the Hawks V Cats game. It is a great game but it has been held up twice within five minutes for a video review.

The first time was for a clean mark inside the boundary and the goal umpire was in position to make the decision. The second for a touched decision. The second was one of the rare decisions overturned but how the video ref could see it was touched is beyond me.

My point is that the Goal Umpire was in position less then 10 metres from the action in both instances but would not make a decision. It was the old, 'I think it was a goal but...' For over 150 years we have relied on the man on the spot and gone along with it right or wrong. Now Aussie Rules is getting like Cricket where the umps will not make a decision on a run out because they know they have the technology to make the decision for them. How long before the Goal Umpires decide to refer every snap on goal just to make sure?

Too many times in Aussie Rules the video review is inconclusive so in the vast majority of instances the decision stands. It is so bloody frustrating when the game is held up while someone looks at it from all angles and cannot tell anyway. Let's ditch the review and go back to the man or woman on the spot. Field Umpires cost that many goals through wrong decisions that we should be able to live with the odd scoring stuff ups from Goal Umpires.

After the second review Bruce McAveney posed a good question, 'Have we opened a Pandora's box here?'

 

[Sellyme]

If they could stop relying on broadcaster cameras more suited to 1994 there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[El_Scorcho]

In the Demons Suns game, there was a very clear punch through awarded as a goal, reviewed, and despite two reviews showing a clear fist and deflection, the goal was upheld.

It only works if they overturn it when it obviously should be overturned.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Garibaldi Red]

I thought the second one was called touched by the goal umpire and then confirmed as "umpires call".

Agree though that, like their cricketing counterparts, many umpires are now taking the approach of going to the video on too many occasions.

That one between GCS and Demons was bloody awful.

 

[PowerfanMat]

They don't know what they are doing.

The video review is there to stop someone like say a Hawkins, kicking the ball into the post in a Grand Final and being awarded a goal.

It is not there to review every 50-50 decision, ie; did he mark it, was it juggled over the line? Umps get that wrong every game, every week, all over the ground....why is the game being stopped for that? Again, that is not what the video review is for.

The best way for this to work is to have a 4th ump watching the game and he has contact with the 3 blind mice in the middle and he just tells them, hey that's a goal/point......BECAUSE IT'S SO OBVIOUSLY AN ERROR, otherwise he just keeps his mouth shut and play continues.

 

[I Dont Care]

They brought in the rule where the opposition is allowed to kick in from a behind score before the flags are waived. The video review now negates the advantage that gave when it is used

 

[Schulzenfest]

Fantastic concept, utterly terrible execution. It baffles me that with all the money in the AFL they can't just stick a camera on the goal umpire's cap, which is all it would require for the system to work.

 

[I Dont Care]

A camera on the ball would be best, the umpire already has 2 cameras below his cap

 

[Macca19]

That Melbourne spoil was farcical. How can you review that and still call it a goal? The ball deviated at 45 degrees

 

[Jabsy]

A camera at the top of each goalpost is needed.

 

[Sellyme]

A camera on the ball would be best, the umpire already has 2 cameras below his cap

I know it's 2014, but our technology isn't THAT good as to make HD slow-mo cameras weightless.

 

[I Dont Care]

I know it's 2014, but our technology isn't THAT good as to make HD slow-mo cameras weightless.

Just a smidgen of sarcasm on my part. I wonder what the percentage is with the video review decisions being the same as the goal umps initial thought? Agree with the OP that we did alright for a long time without this faulty tech

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

It's opened up a Pandora's can of worms.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Chook Lotto Match Review Panel and Chook Lotto goal review system.

Why the * does the reviewing official have a split screen of 4 pictures. It's confusing. When you looked at the Melbourne decision and had one screen for 1 camera angle, 1 of those 4 pictures it was plain as anything that the ball was touched before the goal line.

I can't believe how incompetent some of the systems the AFL implements. Some of the guys overseeing these things are paid between $600k and $1mil.

 

[Spadge]

i love it when they call for a review on a "touched on the line" type decision then proceed to show angles from the other goals

like thats EVER going to be anything but "inconclusive"
it would be like the bowlers end umpire trying to give a run out decision down the batsmans end

As it was mentioned above... Cameras at the top of the goal posts that point down would be the most logical

 

[Alberton Proud]

The AFL's Video Review Department in action

 

[Lou Zyffer]

Chook Lotto Match Review Panel and Chook Lotto goal review system.

Why the **** does the reviewing official have a split screen of 4 pictures. It's confusing. When you looked at the Melbourne decision and had one screen for 1 camera angle, 1 of those 4 pictures it was plain as anything that the ball was touched before the goal line.

I can't believe how incompetent some of the systems the AFL implements. Some of the guys overseeing these things are paid between $600k and $1mil.

Totally agree REH. said to my brother watching the Suns Melbourne game I could buy cameras off Ebay for a hundred bucks and have them set up on the posts the week they arrived. I wouldn't charge the AFL $599,900 for my services either.

 

[raptalia]

There are real problems with the current video review and the AFL clearly cannot fix them. I guess to fix them they have to identify them first but they do not appear able to do that. I have seen few replays that clearly change a decision and the umpires decision stands appears to be the fall back. I would not complain if the whole thing was tossed out until the technology improves or better technology is employed.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Stick a $200 GoPro camera in each goal post and you will start fixing the problem. Have standard goal posts, the same thickness all the way up, have standard padding and the goal line is as wide as the goal post so that when the umpire lines up the ball all of the ball has to past the post as the line is as wide as the post.

If the AFL employed some engineers and not lawyers and PR spin doctors, they would solve the problem no dramas.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

A modified GoPro Hero 3 that you could insert in the goal posts.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I like the theatre of the goal review but the umpires seem determined to call on it at some stage every match and pick some obvious decisions for review. Then when they stuff it up ...

 

[TeeKray]

Do we even need a goal review system? The number of decisions that are genuinely doubtful and/or just plain wrong is so minimal in the overall scheme of things that it's hardly worth the trouble. I mean, the one controversial goal line decision per game really doesn't mean much in the context of the one hundred controversial around the ground decisions per game made by the three field umpires.

 

[scotty13]

Camera on the goal and boundary umpires hat.
Camera at the top of each post (or at least 10m up), pointing downward allowing at least 2m of the field to be viewed swell (for punches near the line)
All cameras HD (So GoPro)
The person looking at the footage is to get his/her free check up at OPSM and glasses if required.

Each time a clearly incorrect call has been made on review, the reviewing umpire is sack for ever from the job.

If what happened in the GC/Melb game occurred with 30sec left in a GF, and the 'goal' put that team in front, after it was reviewed incorrectly... would cost the AFL millions of dollars in court fees, bad publicity, loss of potential sponsors ect.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Camera on the goal and boundary umpires hat.
Camera at the top of each post (or at least 10m up), pointing downward allowing at least 2m of the field to be viewed swell (for punches near the line)
All cameras HD (So GoPro)
The person looking at the footage is to get his/her free check up at OPSM and glasses if required.

......

You actually need the cameras inside the post, because if it hits the camera they will call it a point.

Akermanis kicked one of the best goals I have ever seen - A Dacios dribble from the right hand pocket - but as it went over the line it bounced up high. Because the stupid goal umpire stuck the flag out 45 degrees from the goal post and it hit the end of the flag it was given a point. An absolute disgrace.

It was v Richmond at the Gabba on a Saturday night in 2003 the Lions home game before that great 1 point game Port beat the Lions in Rd 17.

 

[Zakk Wylde]