AFL Throws Support Behind Controversial Goal Review Umpire

[Makeshft_Mauler]

I heard on the radio apparently the Goal review umpire sees different angles than what is broadcast.

SO i as whats the point of broadcasting the review.

Atleast with cricket we see the review in real time while the umpires actually reviewing it,

 

[Foley#41]

The whole goal line video failure, parallax errors and so on, is missing the main point. It’s the definition of when the ball is over the line that’s hard for ordinary fans to understand. Clarity is required for the sake of the game.

I suggest, for a goal to be counted, then entire ball should be beyond:
the white line,
the goal post,
the padding on the goal post,
the goal umpire’s flag,
an imaginary plane created by extending the white line vertically up to the troposphere,
the goal umpire’s fence-side outer thigh,
the bag of spare balls,
the security guy’s chair and, ideally,
the full back’s outstretched finger.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Nothing wrong with the old system. All this because the footy grazed the post once

 

[A Tiger 4 lyf]

EA sports FIFA has better Goal line technology

 

[rmcq]

Richo spot on. Why bother having goal umpires. Obvious goals are obvious. Close decisions are sent to review. Let the goal umpires do their job, and then have a review only if there is a glaring error, like that behind that was actually a goal last round.

Frankly, the goal umpire is in a far better position to make a judgement, including having a 3D view of the situation. A camera has no idea, angles, magnification, distortions, only seeing in 2D.

 

[Hans McGregor]

View attachment 503548

Can't be him. Looks too intelligent.

 

[Burning bright]

Not sure if Garry Lyon was trying to bait the Tiger supporters but this morning on his SEN radio program stated the review ump made the call from only a single camera shot the source supposedly from someone working in productions on the day.

 

[Makeshft_Mauler]

Not sure if Garry Lyon was trying to bait the Tiger supporters but this morning on his SEN radio program stated the review ump made the call from only a single camera shot the source supposedly from someone working in productions on the day.

gotta get dem calls.

I thats the case though Richmond should demand transperancy.

We keep hearing about how this is designed to stop a howler costing a team a final due to not reviewing (i.e the tom hawkins goal/point)

But what if the reverse becomes the case, where a goal like higgins is over turned in a final.

 

[Burning bright]

gotta get dem calls.

I thats the case though Richmond should demand transperancy.

We keep hearing about how this is designed to stop a howler costing a team a final due to not reviewing (i.e the tom hawkins goal/point)

But what if the reverse becomes the case, where a goal like higgins is over turned in a final.

We need to see the supposed vision the AFL and Steve Hocking claim they have that proves conclusively Higgin's goal was touched and they had no other choice but to overturn the goal umpire's decision. The overwhelming sense you get at the ground is not excitement or anticipation waiting for the review decision its immediate frustration once the umpire draws the square sign in the air.

On a positive note Turbo nailing a goal outside fifty was pleasing.


.

 

[Bojangles17]

The integrity of the whole process is in question , needs to be reviewed NOT condoned , like no one would ever try and manipulate a result would they, never seen that before in world sport . They are treading on very thin ice and they know it , was why hocking started we weren’t robbed. He ll be on notice soon enough

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

What is the point of a goal umpire now..?!?
Can't wait for boundary umpire ball reviews as well...
The only review that is really needed is Gil's job...

 

[Frank Grimes]

I honestly can't see how a goal review umpire can possibly make an incorrect call, but they somehow found a way. Unlike the other umpires on the ground, the goal review umpire doesn't have to make a decision on the spot and has access to video from multiple angles. Also they have a big out in saying "umpires call" if the vision is inconclusive.

As I said, I really can't see how anyone can screw that job up.

 

[Bojangles17]

I honestly can't see how a goal review umpire can possibly make an incorrect call, but they somehow found a way. Unlike the other umpires on the ground, the goal review umpire doesn't have to make a decision on the spot and has access to video from multiple angles. Also they have a big out in saying "umpires call" if the vision is inconclusive.

As I said, I really can't see how anyone can screw that job up.

That’s why it raises the question is someone trying to manipulate the result ?

 

[Spanish_Fly]

We need to see the supposed vision the AFL and Steve Hocking claim they have that proves conclusively Higgin's goal was touched and they had no other choice but to overturn the goal umpire's decision. The overwhelming sense you get at the ground is not excitement or anticipation waiting for the review decision its immediate frustration once the umpire draws the square sign in the air.

On a positive note Turbo nailing a goal outside fifty was pleasing.


.

We've seen in this thread conclusive video evidence that it was a goal. How can you have 2 contradicting sets of conclusive video evidence.

I'll tell you how, because 2 dimensional footage of 3 dimensional play cannot be conclusive when it is that close, and if their is any semblence of doubt it should be umpires call.

 

[tigs2010]

Do you reckon the video umpire would have even made the correct call on that Porkins hit the post in the 2009 GF?

I'm not convinced.

 

[tiggywigs]

I honestly can't see how a goal review umpire can possibly make an incorrect call, but they somehow found a way. Unlike the other umpires on the ground, the goal review umpire doesn't have to make a decision on the spot and has access to video from multiple angles. Also they have a big out in saying "umpires call" if the vision is inconclusive.

As I said, I really can't see how anyone can screw that job up.

Apparently the meaning of the phrase "conclusive evidence of error" is proving a bit challenging for the review umpires.

 

[TiggerMan22]

Such a bullshit excuse.
Where is this extra footage coming from? They showed the footage from the cameras on either post and the angles from the broadcast cameras.
The goal umpire didnt have a camera on his hat like they have sometimes done.

Where the **** could this extra secret footage come from? And even if there where cameras somewhere around the ground. they wouldn't have a better view of the angle than the ones on the goal posts. How could they if they are not in line with the goals?

It was a clear lie to cover up their bullshit mistake.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Waiting for an official apology to the club...and adjustment of scores and percentage!

 

[Tony Harrison]

Waiting for an official apology to the club...and adjustment of scores and percentage!

They didn't adjust that after the 50m penalties debacle.

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

Such a bullshit excuse.
Where is this extra footage coming from? They showed the footage from the cameras on either post and the angles from the broadcast cameras.
The goal umpire didnt have a camera on his hat like they have sometimes done.

Where the **** could this extra secret footage come from? And even if there where cameras somewhere around the ground. they wouldn't have a better view of the angle than the ones on the goal posts. How could they if they are not in line with the goals?

It was a clear lie to cover up their bullshit mistake.

Egg on their faces now as they have published another piece admitting they were wrong and no mention of the alleged “evidence to the contrary” lol

Idiots

 

[SunshineBoy]

The integrity of the whole process is in question , needs to be reviewed NOT condoned , like no one would ever try and manipulate a result would they, never seen that before in world sport . They are treading on very thin ice and they know it , was why hocking started we weren’t robbed. He ll be on notice soon enough

Spot fixing?

 

[SunshineBoy]

Such a bullshit excuse.
Where is this extra footage coming from? They showed the footage from the cameras on either post and the angles from the broadcast cameras.
The goal umpire didnt have a camera on his hat like they have sometimes done.

Where the **** could this extra secret footage come from? And even if there where cameras somewhere around the ground. they wouldn't have a better view of the angle than the ones on the goal posts. How could they if they are not in line with the goals?

It was a clear lie to cover up their bullshit mistake.

CIA sattelites

 

[A Tiger 4 lyf]

Would something like this work for our game?

Could hotspot be used to determine if the ball has been touched?

 

[DrMike]

I love how Hardwick plays things like this.

Start of the year he didn't bag out the umpires for the 50m penalties but said it's fine as long as they call it consistently. AFL admit error.

This time he throws complete backing behind the umpire while trashing the system. AFL admit error.

No fines, Hardwick gets what he wants. F'n mint.

 

[joelsyt]

Well afl apparently admitted the decision was wrong according to an article on afl.com

Pity they won’t change anything.