AFL Needs to use technology

[my name was taken]

My opinion on the eagleton point. Though i know it may not matter to some of you.

The side replay showed the ball was touched when you couldnt see it. If the ball hadn't come into view on the other side of the post shouldnt that mean it wasnt completely over. You would be able to see a atleast a part of the ball if it was COMPLETELY over. The umpire obviously had a better view than what any of us had on the replay.

Nicks goal is a consistant call from all season. Impossible to tell where the last contact came from. still 1 point win, Dogs didnt look like getting from one end to the ground to the other in the 1 min after, the ball was going nowhere for both clubs at the end of that game.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

What's the difference? If a third umpire decided the Riewoldt goal was touched people would be in an uproar over the fact that you couldn't tell if it was before or after the ball was kicked.

Besides, I'm so sick of technology overtaking sport itself. Can't we let the human element of football remain? I don't want AFL to become like American sport.

 

[Awol76]

So maybe the Dogs lose by a point instead. Whatever.

The goaline is behind the padding.

Were his fingertips still on the pill when it broke contact with his foot.

I can't tell.

 

[Zarrix]

Never,I am a great believer of the human element when it comes to officiating in sport. Keeps it interesting. Instead of investing in technology, we should invest in improving the umpiring, primarily by simplifying the rules first and foremost. Mistakes are inevitable, but Technology isn't fool proof either. Cricket has proven that.

 

[BringThePressure]

Riewoldt's goal wasn't touched.

Watch the replay, Roo's boot is still making contact with the footy after touching the Bulldog's hand.

 

[alfy!]

No they do not need to use technology. It was unfortunate, but it happens a lot in football, and all technology would do is slow and change the game.

 

[Drewsy]

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

I don't plan to go to law school, and what does it matter to you if i am a child? it makes no difference?

Maybe you should bloody well just go to law school if your so keen.

we would have been 2 goals better off, and the bump on reiwoldt wasn't a free, he fell over like a pansie. That cost us a goal and momentum to them at the start of the 2nd half, its a bit of biff, it happens in football all the time, it's not bloody hurting anyone. If you can't see that, then you must be blind.

 

[silky-smooth]

Never,I am a great believer of the human element when it comes to officiating in sport. Keeps it interesting. Instead of investing in technology, we should invest in improving the umpiring, primarily by simplifying the rules first and foremost. Mistakes are inevitable, but Technology isn't fool proof either. Cricket has proven that.

 

[silky-smooth]

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.

The rule is if the ball is kicked simultaneously to being touched then it's touched.

But regardless that wasn't the case in this situation. Clearly a goal and Eagleton's one was debatable, but most likely correct given a) the goal umpire's position and b) the replay proved nothing.

Play on

 

[caitsith01]

So maybe the Dogs lose by a point instead. Whatever.

The goaline is behind the padding.

Were his fingertips still on the pill when it broke contact with his foot.

I can't tell.

Imagine the posts on here by Saints fans if the situation was reversed, say, Brad J kicked the last goal and it was touched in the same way. You'd all be down at AFL house with torches and pitchforks, or symbolically committing ritual suicide, or signing up to follow rugby league in protest.

Your team won, but please stop being so disgustingly sanctimonious about a couple of very significant umpiring decisions which clearly went your way when they perhaps shouldn't have and clearly had a major impact on the result. Be gracious and accept that maybe you got a bit lucky as well as winning through quality of football played. It costs you nothing, and it recognises that the Doggies played very well and were a tad unlucky too.

Christ, for a team that's won one premiership you all love preaching to everyone else about how footy does and doesn't work. I hope the Cats smash your flooding team off the park next weekend.

 

[swifty]

But it was touched and shouldn't have been awarded a goal.

happens all the time. get over it.

 

[damochandler]

no no no. these things come with the game. we saw how it didnt work when it was trialed in the preseason. it's just a waste of time

 

[Murraj1966]

Fine then. Goal Overturned, St Kilda win by a Point.

No result change.

Happy?

 

[caitsith01]

Fine then. Goal Overturned, St Kilda win by a Point.

No result change.

Happy?

Unless you're a total simpleton you'd realise that if the goal hadn't been awarded the game would have flowed differently from that point, starting with the Dogs getting the ball from the kick in and going from there.

Just accept you got a bit of luck and stop being so arrogant.

 

[Murraj1966]

Can you prove that it would've changed you can't see the future, what if on the kick in after the "point" Lake kicked it straight down Milne's throat who ran around and snapped a goal? And then off the bounce it went straight to Dal Santo who kickes it too Roo and who kicks another. Saints win by 14. You cannot Predict the Future, and for all crap decisions given in footy a good one always come back to you. At the bounce after Roo's goal, Lenny had his head taken off and it was a ball up, so stop bitching and moaning and go watch your Prelim.

Also, No umpire in the world would've paid that as Touched as it was too quick a motion to see the thimble of a scrape on the ball, It didn't affect the trajectory of the ball.

 

[laminex]

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

I thought it was just me but the Doggies were screwed all night by the umps, that many holding the ball, and the saints could do what ever they wanted in the back line.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Players make more mistakes than umpires.

 

[laminex]

Fine then. Goal Overturned, St Kilda win by a Point.

No result change.

Happy?

the goal touched on the line the wasn't, doggies win by 5. Anything could happen we all know this. End of the days the paper today said you guys won and that all that matters.

 

[cos789]

I thought it was just me but the Doggies were screwed all night by the umps, that many holding the ball, and the saints could do what ever they wanted in the back line.

Listening to the radio the commentators where blasting the umps (one in particular) and on TV it appeared justified though the last goal seemed justified to me even in slow motion .
No sympathy from me , I reckon if it goes through the goals it should be awarded a goal - ever since they introduced thick padding on the posts .

.

 

[caitsith01]

Here's what the Age has to say about that third quarter free to St Nick:

In a match where just seven goals had been kicked for a half, the gift of a goal to Riewoldt from a free kick before the third quarter started was an extraordinarily harsh penalty almost irrespective of the infringement detected. When that ''infringement'' was an innocuous bump that warranted no sterner treatment than a dismissive caution from the umpire it was an almost inexcusably bad decision.


It undeniably helped swing momentum to St Kilda who, with the consequent goal, trailed by just a point. The Saints were suddenly alive in a way they had not been before the major break. They began winning clearances more readily and finding space to spread and run.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Here's what the Age has to say about that third quarter free to St Nick:

Such a soft free kick, but considering Lake gave away one similar in the 2nd, stupid to try it again. Might have being because of the slow-mo replay but looked a bit, dare I say it, divish that one at the start of the third.

 

[Richo is God]

Shit happens, just gotta move on.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Umpiring never has been, and never will be an exact science (though the AFL has tried to limit the grey areas with interpretations such as 'hands in the back').

You could analyse the video to the nth degree, then endlessly dispute the video umpire's decision in court if a match result hinged on it, and still not end up with a universally-accepted verdict. Just accept it as a rub of the green and move on (and vent your spleen at the umpire if you feel inclined).

 

[Preth]

Technology for footy will not work too well IMO. AFL is a free flowing game, whereas sports that use technology like tennis, American football and even ice hockey are stop start type games.

Using video replays for AFL would be similar to the NHL where say if the puck did cross the line they would continue play and if it were found that the puck did cross the line play would stop, time would be reversed to when the goal was scored. It is easy to demand technology but rules to govern it and how to use it would be the challenge. So instead of whining that we need technology why not suggest how we would implement it, the rules that would govern the use of video replays.

 

[beyondthevalley ofthedogs]

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.

I look forward to that day as it will finally make the AFL and the umpires accountable. Finally.