Roast Another goal debacle

[blacksockred]

Perhaps the video umpire could be allowed 60 seconds to make a thorough review while the ball is still in play, then he can stop play and award a score, but only if he believes there is conclusive evidence to overrule the goal umpire. Thing is... if it’s conclusive, the review is always super quick. If it takes a whole minute to review then it’s practically never conclusive.

 

[intangible]

Mistakes will happen, but when you go to review like the Sydney/Geelong game and still get it wrong. After watching the telecast replay it sold it more as a goal than live. The players all set up as a kick in and the bloke who kicked it thought he missed before it was given. The error comes from the goal umpire who can't get behind the post and make a call that's correct.

 

[citizen-erased]

Easy fix this one. Introduce something like EPL has.
let the umps focus on the game. If the ball crosses, let it be reviewed then tell the umps. Nothing wrong with stopping the game and awarding the goal
Rather than it being reviewed when its kept in play and a ball up in the square happening.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Gardner is an absolute spud

Gad she's out

 

[TY24]

Field umpires make mistakes every game. The goal umpire made an error, and since there was no score there was no mechanism for a review.

Shit happens, human error, move on. No one is perfect.

 

[Inspecta Gadget]

 

[deanc]

Field umpires make mistakes every game. The goal umpire made an error, and since there was no score there was no mechanism for a review.

s**t happens, human error, move on. No one is perfect.

Agree, moreover this was a rare incident where an obvious error by the goal umpire has not at least been reviewed - but that won't stop the media over the coming days portraying this as something that apparently happens every week and promoting mindless discussion and debate on the how's and why's of such incidents.
And for what it's worth I assume Razor Ray was not in the forward line when this occurred as he would not of missed the opportunity to stop the game (for another look at me moment) to check the goal umpires judgement....

 

[Halftimehero]

Everyone watching knew that it was a certain goal 10-15 seconds after it happened, why can’t it just be reviewed while play continues and then play stopped and the goal awarded? If it’s deemed not to be a goal then it’s just play on.

 

[Farang83150]

There's only ever been one debacle in Australia worth discussing and that's "The Sutcliffe debacle".(RIP Big Maxxy)

 

[astrowizzle]

I think they stop play as soon as upstairs determine it it's a goal. The Ball goes back to the centre square. They add the time difference back into the clock.
If it isn't a goal then play resumes from where it stopped and whoever had possession maintains possession.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Alls well Gilligan was at the game, nothing to see here

 

[D-N-R]

We were sold the idea of video review to clear up one or two mistakes per year. Fast forward, and Umpires are reviewing 3 or 4 times a game.

I thin Hinkley is correct when he said that umps are second guessing themselves. There was one in the Freo game where the ball was a metre over the line before it was touched, but it was reviewed.

I think the quality of goal umpire has gone down, perhaps because they have back-up with the video.

Either get a Hawkeye system which tracks the ball or nothing.

 

[Great8]

Alls well Gilligan was at the game, nothing to see here

 

[carnthedons]

View attachment 717268

Deadset looks like my 2 year old when he’s chucked a tantrum

 

[Andrew Mc]

Hate this argument.

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

And in this case, the goal umpire didn't have that luxury either. They can't just stop the game in this case (as it was a play-on situation).

Perhaps there is scope to check it in the background, but where do you draw the line? If conclusive proof comes up 5 minutes later (because someone found the right bit of footage), do you then negate the previous 5 minutes of play and go back? Because you can't just simply add a goal to the score.

 

[citizen-erased]

And in this case, the goal umpire didn't have that luxury either. They can't just stop the game in this case (as it was a play-on situation).

Perhaps there is scope to check it in the background, but where do you draw the line? If conclusive proof comes up 5 minutes later (because someone found the right bit of footage), do you then negate the previous 5 minutes of play and go back? Because you can't just simply add a goal to the score.

If you do it that way, they need a sensor of sorts. Or just be on the ball to check it within 30 seconds
Taking the one on the weekend as an example, they could have cleared that one with a quick check.

That said, i have previously advocating for removing any and all video checks, and just going with umpire call. It may be imperfect, but i'll accept an imperfect game over an imperfect system.

 

[Andrew Mc]

If you do it that way, they need a sensor of sorts. Or just be on the ball to check it within 30 seconds
Taking the one on the weekend as an example, they could have cleared that one with a quick check.

That said, i have previously advocating for removing any and all video checks, and just going with umpire call. It may be imperfect, but i'll accept an imperfect game over an imperfect system.

I'm in the same boat. The game just moves too fast (or should) for video replays.

 

[citizen-erased]

I'm in the same boat. The game just moves too fast (or should) for video replays.

And all you end up with is irate supporters focusing on a screen and a decision that was reviewed, vs. irate supporters watching the game and thinking they saw something
Scrap the system, and tell the networks to stop replaying incidents. People should eventually calm down over these things and refocus on the game

 

[Ari]

That's a great solution, I can't believe nobody has ever thought of that before. Where are all these amazing umpires hiding?

At work 38 hours a week.

Therein lies the problem. So yes, there is a solution. Get better umpires. Better can even be the same people, just better versions of themselves by being able to focus on umpiring full time. It's a billion dollar industry for crying out loud! We can't find a few million for umpires every year?

 

[eddiesmith]

Good point someone else raised, there were also 2 boundary umpires on the posts and yet none of the 3 felt the need to say that’s worth checking because it looked like a goal!

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

He even had the benefit of seeing the live play as a freeze frame ... Oh wait, no he didn't.

The ball moves quickly and players move quickly to touch it. Umpires stand staring at the spot after the ball has gone. That's their processing time with an image burned into his brain.

He got it wrong but let's not pretend it's as obvious as a camera angle or benefit of hindsight tells us.

 

[juss]

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?

Id argue that goal umpire is not competent for the role if he can't make the call in that position.

 

[Forward Press]

The video umpire needs to be totally fixated on the live goal line footage in these situations. In this situation with deciding if the ball is still in play, it should be such a straight forward decision making process every time. If the video umpire instantly thinks it is a goal when he watches it live, he should have to immediately stop the game, then conduct a thorough review once play stops. If his immediate thought is that it’s not a goal, then it’s play on with no review.

"Oh hang on, that could be a goal, please stop the play Mr Central Umpire"
*goes through footage*
"Aw crap, it isn't a goal, sorry I killed the defending team's rebound from the D50 into an open forward line"

 

[Forward Press]

If you do it that way, they need a sensor of sorts. Or just be on the ball to check it within 30 seconds
Taking the one on the weekend as an example, they could have cleared that one with a quick check.

That said, i have previously advocating for removing any and all video checks, and just going with umpire call. It may be imperfect, but i'll accept an imperfect game over an imperfect system.

It won't stop people like the OP moaning about it still when it happens again. Networks will still do the super slow mo freeze frame replays of every line ball decision because that's what people want to watch, and the fans will start change.org petitions for the responsible umpire to be burnt at the stake.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

He even had the benefit of seeing the live play as a freeze frame ... Oh wait, no he didn't.

The ball moves quickly and players move quickly to touch it. Umpires stand staring at the spot after the ball has gone. That's their processing time with an image burned into his brain.

He got it wrong but let's not pretend it's as obvious as a camera angle or benefit of hindsight tells us.

wasnt moving quickly enough for mitch brown to stop playing and start celebrating a goal....