Roast Another goal debacle

[Bunk Moreland]

Couch warriors like us can easily tell when it's in super slow mo. In real time these things are hard to pick. Not easy being a goal umpire especially now that score reviews can result in a group of fans asking for you to be hung, drawn and quartered.

Goal umpiring isn’t easy - I’ve done it a ridiculously lower level and it was hard enough then - but this one is just inexplicable.

He was perfectly positioned and staring right at it. And it wasn’t even close.

 

[Forward Press]

i think the point is it should never have been in doubt - that goal umpire is clearly not up to it.

half a meter over the line and called play on is just pathetic miss.

In real time it was line ball and it wasn't half a meter over the line.

Like I said, benefit of access to super slow mo after the fact.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

In real time it was line ball and it wasn't half a meter over the line.

Like I said, benefit of access to super slow mo after the fact.

exactly - line ball. if there is any doubt what so ever - review it - that's what the system is there for. The goal umpire was in the perfect position. Even Mitch Brown stopped cold because he saw it go over.

Imagine if that actually costs a game.....

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Amateur hour yet again by the AFL

 

[Lsta062]

I hope people realise this is just a case of human error. The goal umpire thought the ball hadn't crossed the line and was still in play. There is no mechanism for a review in this situation.

Do people want to see the game stopped only for a review to confirm the ball was still in play? Or a review the next time that time off is blown?

Can they at least reward the goal post-game or at least as soon as the mistake is realised though?

A human error is a human error, but if the error is picked up, then why is it not rectified? That’s something that annoys me. The rule is that the goal happens when it leaves the player’s boot and travels between the center goalposts untouched during game time. That’s what happened so award the goal after the umpire was found to hame made the “human error”.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Think it happened to North yesterday. Umpire wasn't sure if the ball was a behind when NM were clearing it from defence.. Stopped for a review which found it didn't fully cross the line. Instead of North getting possession again there's a ball up on their defensive goal square.

Give me today's call in the game everyday of the week.

the result shouldn't be a ball up - needs to be better thought out then that.

needs to be looked at closer IMO - teams CANNOT be put in a position to let goals go because it MIGHT not have gone through.....that is a shit house outcome.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

What's the point of a score review if a goal isn't a goal?

To reduce errors - not seek perfection

 

[rumply]

Sorry but anyone that thinks it's OK for this to be called play on are as blind as the Muppet in the yellow t-shirt.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

View attachment 717085

Sorry but anyone that thinks it's OK for this to be called play on are as blind as the Muppet in the green t-shirt.

wait until it happens to their team.

easy to say play on unless it happens to your mob.

 

[rumply]

Okay but what is your solution here? What do you want to have happen?

It's unfortunate that he made a bad mistake but human error is always going to exist.

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Seriously? You call for a score review, that's what it's there for.

 

[rumply]

wait until it happens to their team.

easy to say play on unless it happens to your mob.

Did you see the look on Gils face in that last 2 minutes? Priceless.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Okay but what is your solution here? What do you want to have happen?

It's unfortunate that he made a bad mistake but human error is always going to exist.

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

um, if there's doubt then using the ****ing system? - That's what the system is for?

if we are supposed to accept human error then get rid of the system entirely.

 

[SuperSteele22]

Wouldn't be too many football players going around if making a mistake is grounds for termination. Wouldn't be too many people doing any job.

Hate this argument.

Players don’t have the luxury of referring an iffy decision they made.

 

[boncer34]

Umpiring all game was an absolute disgrace. The 5 metre mark and goal to Swallow was terrible too. Another missed OOTF lead to a Gold Coast goal too.

Very nearly cost Essendon the game.

****ing hell Barry I missed the game but if you're saying that it's probably good I did.

 

[Geary Is GOAT]

um, if there's doubt then using the ******* system? - That's what the system is for?

if we are supposed to accept human error then get rid of the system entirely.

But doubt from who? If the umpire had doubt he would have used the system, but he obviously didn't have doubt so he didn't use it. Now he was wrong, but what is the solution?

If the umpire doesn't have doubt then the system doesn't get used. Do we just use the system every single time the ball gets close to the goal line and go to a review regardless of what the umpire thinks? Do we get rid of the umpires and only use the electronic system?

Saying 'just use the system' doesn't actually offer a solution.

 

[Great8]

Immediate termination, apparently.

No, the umpire made a mistake.
Gil and his cronies are the ones that should be sacked on the spot for the continual failings and rubbish procedures.
If the goal umpire called it a goal it would have been reviewed so why not when it’s the other way?

 

[boncer34]

Umpires are human. Humans make errors. Ergo, umpires make errors.

Blaming umpires for losses and blasting them to be sacked for making an error makes you a campaigner.

I am aware I am a West Coast fan.

There's a mistake and then there's missing the ball being a foot over.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

But doubt from who? If the umpire had doubt he would have used the system, but he obviously didn't have doubt so he didn't use it. Now he was wrong, but what is the solution?

If the umpire doesn't have doubt then the system doesn't get used. Do we just use the system every single time the ball gets close to the goal line and go to a review regardless of what the umpire thinks? Do we get rid of the umpires and only use the electronic system?

Saying 'just use the system' doesn't actually offer a solution.

Don't they review all goals on the way back to the square? Same principle; if play on is called then let play go, review the goal in the space of 5-10 seconds after play on is called and if there's obvious evidence to the contrary then stop play and the score stands. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Forward Press]

But doubt from who? If the umpire had doubt he would have used the system, but he obviously didn't have doubt so he didn't use it. Now he was wrong, but what is the solution?

If the umpire doesn't have doubt then the system doesn't get used. Do we just use the system every single time the ball gets close to the goal line and go to a review regardless of what the umpire thinks? Do we get rid of the umpires and only use the electronic system?

Saying 'just use the system' doesn't actually offer a solution.

I think even if the umpire was in doubt, the default should be play on. Imagine if the goal umpire was uncertain, called it a goal, and it turned out it didn't cross the line? Even more on here would be demanding his head on a stick.

Errors occur in every game, not just as the goal line. Is the ultimate goal then to have an entirely electronic system? I don't think the public wants that either...

 

[Geary Is GOAT]

Don't they review all goals on the way back to the square? Same principle; if play on is called then let play go, review the goal in the space of 5-10 seconds after play on is called and if there's obvious evidence to the contrary then stop play and the score stands. Seems pretty simple to me.

I agree that in a perfect world that's what we should do. And tonight that would have worked, but to say 'review the goal in the space of 5 - 10 seconds' isn't workable imo. We've seen goal reviews take upwards of 45+ seconds in some cases when its close. That's more than enough time for another goal or behind to be scored on field while the review is occurring and then you have a huge ****ing mess.

 

[Forward Press]

Don't they review all goals on the way back to the square? Same principle; if play on is called then let play go, review the goal in the space of 5-10 seconds after play on is called and if there's obvious evidence to the contrary then stop play and the score stands. Seems pretty simple to me.

The problem with that is it takes a lot longer than 10 seconds to review these decisions.

I can imagine the huge argument that would also erupt if a player was injured while the game was still being played before it's stopped because it turned out it was a goal.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

But doubt from who? If the umpire had doubt he would have used the system, but he obviously didn't have doubt so he didn't use it. Now he was wrong, but what is the solution?

If the umpire doesn't have doubt then the system doesn't get used. Do we just use the system every single time the ball gets close to the goal line and go to a review regardless of what the umpire thinks? Do we get rid of the umpires and only use the electronic system?

Saying 'just use the system' doesn't actually offer a solution.

I can’t argue inept umpring, so I guess you are right.

The solution is to not use shit umpires.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

The problem with that is it takes a lot longer than 10 seconds to review these decisions.

I can imagine the huge argument that would also erupt if a player was injured while the game was still being played before it's stopped because it turned out it was a goal.

Why does it have to? Play a hastily cut clip of footage twice, if you can't get a decision then umpires call. If you can get a review done before the ball gets back to the centre square after a goal, you can do the same thing before anything meaningful happens in open play

 

[Geary Is GOAT]

Why does it have to? Play a hastily cut clip of footage twice, if you can't get a decision then umpires call. If you can get a review done before the ball gets back to the centre square after a goal, you can do the same thing before anything meaningful happens in open play

I'm pretty sure this was cited as the reason for a number of absolutely horrific 'umpire review' early in the season though. The AFL had told them to speed the process up and make their decisions faster and as a result there were some absolute howlers

 

[Forward Press]

Why does it have to? Play a hastily cut clip of footage twice, if you can't get a decision then umpires call. If you can get a review done before the ball gets back to the centre square after a goal, you can do the same thing before anything meaningful happens in open play

And then the 1080p super slow mo emerges much later confirming that the call was wrong.

One of the problems with our sport, compared to soccer and cricket, is that goals are a lot more common compared to the former, and stoppages are much less frequent compared to the latter, which sort of makes our video review system a hastily patched together system. I am not saying it's perfect but it's the best we can do at this point. I support having a thorough review during the off season to ensure uniformity of video review systems and figuring out just how much of a human element we want in this.