AFL Needs to use technology

[clobba]

LMFAO there were so many soft ****ing calls in the first half so even if they were dodgy well they werent the only ones so thanks for a great game Doggies it was fearsome and you really wanted to win but anyone that has a problemn with the result can just **** off lol.
its alway easy to choose that "one" wrong result that lost/won the game get over it

GO SAINTERS!

 

[Blur]

LMFAO there were so many soft ****ing calls in the first half so even if they were dodgy well they werent the only ones so thanks for a great game Doggies it was fearsome and you really wanted to win but anyone that has a problemn with the result can just **** off lol.
its alway easy to choose that "one" wrong result that lost/won the game get over it

GO SAINTERS!

You'd be singing a entirely different tune if the Bulldogs won froma touched kick, mate.

Not that I'm saying that single handedly won St.Kilda the match, but it affected the result greatly. These calls across the whole game need to be more accurate.

 

[swiftdog]

LMFAO there were so many soft ****ing calls in the first half so even if they were dodgy well they werent the only ones so thanks for a great game Doggies it was fearsome and you really wanted to win but anyone that has a problemn with the result can just **** off lol.
its alway easy to choose that "one" wrong result that lost/won the game get over it

GO SAINTERS!

True, Saints got an armchair ride for the whole game, not just the last decision

 

[bzparkes]

How does anyone know if the touched goal by Riewoldt was called a behind, that the Dogs would've won anyway? Only obvious decision that didn't go the Dogs way was just before it in a ruck contest on the wing where Gardiner clearly had his arm over Hudson's shoulder. Free kick wasn't seen by the ump, play on, the rest is history. Game Over.

Shit like this happens all the time, I'm sure there'd be plenty of cases for each team where umpiring has either lost, or won, a team a game of football. Hell, the Leo Barry mark in the '05 GF should've been discounted because Sampi was cleary being held by Kennelly in the photo of the mark. Too hard to call in that scenario so play on I say.

Great game, bad luck Doggies but you had many chances to kick away and win the game and unfortunately your team didn't capitalise. That's football.

 

[Flukey!]

These decisions happen most weeks.

But let's just the change the game again anyway
FFS, leave the game alone.

 

[silverscope]

I wonder IF some punter takes the AFL to court for the bad decision making by their umpires, will they change their mind and use technology.

IT will happen one day, as this match was directly affected by it.

It did? What in your opinion?


I didn't see the replay of the eagleton point. But even if that was a goal dogs lose by 1.

The "touch" off the boot.... well its a bit like Cricket and you give the batsman the benefit of the doubt. So IMO still a goal even if you goto the umpire.

Because i bet you no one could 100% say that the hand touched the ball last or the foot.

You'll find everyone has a different opinion on this and so to say it was dirrectly affected by it isn't correct. Or wrong for that matter.

 

[that_dood]

These decisions happen most weeks.

But let's just the change the game again anyway
FFS, leave the game alone.

Exactly. The one at the end, the Dogs player touched the ball simultaneously as Nick kicked it.

The commentator said they are given as a goal 100 times out of 100. Even if a third umpire was used it still would have been a goal.

That should always be paid as a goal and it was the right decision.

Our sport is a flowing sport and no one wants to slow the game down over ticky touch wood calls like that.

 

[1eye]

When money enters the sporting arena, as it has with live betting. In the future we will see methods or technological influences that will produce more accurate results. You can bet on it

 

[ParaBellum]

There was a point in the last quarter where both teams were calling for out of bound of the full from a ricocheted kick. The boundary umpire didn't see it so they decided to throw it in. Should they have gone to the video umpire for that too?

 

[Blur]

There was a point in the last quarter where both teams were calling for out of bound of the full from a ricocheted kick. The boundary umpire didn't see it so they decided to throw it in. Should they have gone to the video umpire for that too?

Sure, it wouldn't have taken long due to modern technology. Have umpires have earpieces in their ears, have some people closley monitoring each camera's footage, etc. Wouldn't be too much of a hassle?

 

[ANGEL DARK]

You'd be singing a entirely different tune if the Bulldogs won froma touched kick, mate.

Not that I'm saying that single handedly won St.Kilda the match, but it affected the result greatly. These calls across the whole game need to be more accurate.

How can you say it affected the result greatly.Even if it had been signalled as touched the ball then gets kicked out and who knows what happens then so its all hypothetical garbage.The touch was so slight and at that speed was impossible to detect with the human eye.
The other interesting thing was that no Bulldogs player actually tried to signal to the umpire that they did touch it or try to plead their case so i dont even think they Bulldogs player involved knew he touched it himself so it was just a case of bad luck.
Bulldogs had their chances and didnt take them when they needed to and thats why they lost.

 

[Blur]

How can you say it affected the result greatly.Even if it had been signalled as touched the ball then gets kicked out and who knows what happens then so its all hypothetical garbage.The touch was so slight and at that speed was impossible to detect with the human eye.
The other interesting thing was that no Bulldogs player actually tried to signal to the umpire that they did touch it or try to plead their case so i dont even think they Bulldogs player involved knew he touched it himself so it was just a case of bad luck.
Bulldogs had their chances and didnt take them when they needed to and thats why they lost.

Well, for one, Saints would have been up by only 1 point, not 7. 1 Point can be overcome by a goal easily in 1 minute, while 7 is a very hard task in under a minute. Entirely different mind states and contexts.

 

[Drewsy]

You didn't lose because of umpiring, you lost because you had the ball in your forward line for most of the last quarter and could only manage one goal.

its a bit hard when your forward line is severly flooded.

eagletons point was a goal, reiwoldts was touched, do the math? +10 to us we win by 3

 

[that_dood]

When money enters the sporting arena, as it has with live betting. In the future we will see methods or technological influences that will produce more accurate results. You can bet on it

What? So the sad people who are addicted to gambling feel justified when they lose their money that they weren't ripped off?

 

[johncitizen]

Eagletons point was a goal !

 

[The Swert]

I think the biggest mistakes on the night came off the dogs' boots not the umpires. Griffen missed two shots from 50 and Gia missed two snaps from the pocket. As Sam Newman always says, if you don't get the goals early then you're done for.

And how bad would you feel as a Saints fan if both those decisions were reversed and you lost. They would be arguing that Eagleton's kicked was touched, which by the letter of the law it was. Can't please everybody or get things 100% right.

 

[jacko57]

Exactly. The one at the end, the Dogs player touched the ball simultaneously as Nick kicked it.

The commentator said they are given as a goal 100 times out of 100. Even if a third umpire was used it still would have been a goal.

That should always be paid as a goal and it was the right decision.

Our sport is a flowing sport and no one wants to slow the game down over ticky touch wood calls like that.

I'm not fussed about this affecting the result. Bad luck for the Dogs, good luck for the Saints.

But I am baffled at the idea that, if the ball is kicked 'simultaneously' to an opponent touching it, it is somehow not 'touched off the boot'. It's simply bizarre. Even the Vatican would struggle to find a rationale to justify it.

 

[that_dood]

But I am baffled at the idea that, if the ball is kicked 'simultaneously' to an opponent touching it, it is somehow not 'touched off the boot'. It's simply bizarre. Even the Vatican would struggle to find a rationale to justify it.

The player's hand did not affect the ball in anyway AFTER it left the boot.

Plus The Vatican struggle to justify why condoms are evil so I wouldn't be asking them!

 

[jacko57]

The player's hand did not affect the ball in anyway AFTER it left the boot.

Plus The Vatican struggle to justify why condoms are evil so I wouldn't be asking them!

a) But if the player's hand was touching the ball, it was touched as it was kicked..............ie, 'touched, all clear'.
b) kind of my point.......it's beyond logical justification.

 

[DeanoT]

its a bit hard when your forward line is severly flooded.

eagletons point was a goal, reiwoldts was touched, do the math? +10 to us we win by 3

I assume you are a child with this sort of argument ? Don't ever go to law school buddy, you will be eaten alive.

 

[DeanoT]

I wonder IF some punter takes the AFL to court for the bad decision making by their umpires, will they change their mind and use technology.

IT will happen one day, as this match was directly affected by it.

Let me know which legal principle you suppose will be used to challenge the AFL for an incorrect umpiring decision.

Will I also be able to use this same legal principle to sue Nick Riewoldt for missing a goal after the siren, when I think he should have kicked it?

Both are errors, one a decision making error, one a skill error. What is the difference.

The level of stupidity on this forum is mind-boggling.

 

[that_dood]

a) But if the player's hand was touching the ball, it was touched as it was kicked..............ie, 'touched, all clear'.

I'm not certain of the exact ruling, but as a footy fan, I know that in the spirit of the game and in keeping with the way the game has always been officiated...that is always a goal.

Many goals are scored where the ball brushes over a player's fingertips. We don't want those to be behinds as well. A player needs to get a recognisable touch. i.e. the human eye being able to see it at full speed.

The one tonight, the player had a slight touch on it as it was kicked. It was only seen after a slow motion replay. Can't give those.

 

[NagoyaDog]

We were robbed. Right in front of me! Right In Front of Me!!

 

[blaargh]

Nah, I think that the game is better without the third umpire system. Humans will always make mistakes, and in my opinion it is better to follow a living, breathing game than the sterile game that cricket has become. (although the AFL is trying to sterilise the game as I type this)

 

[Donakebab]

We were robbed. Right in front of me! Right In Front of Me!!

Quality!