Roast Another goal debacle

[Forward Press]

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

Players stop all the time when the whistle hasn't gone or when they thought a decision was going the other way so this isn't really a valid argument.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

For an obvious goal scored like in this case, they should just add the points onto the score once its been confirmed. The game can just continue on anyway as it went. Its probably the fairest outcome. Something to consider for next year.

So what happens when Gold Coast turn the ball over from deep in their defence, and you kick a second goal in the ensuing fifteen seconds? Both goals count? That’d be an absolute joke when the ball would ordinarily have been returned into the middle after the first goal.

Think there’s a lot of Bombers supporters with their heads in the clouds on this issue. The incident in the Port/Giants game was worse the previous day IMO where they reviewed a ball Port had kept in play, leading to a ball up in their defensive square.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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

Players stop all the time when the whistle hasn't gone or when they thought a decision was going the other way so this isn't really a valid argument.

What he said. Different angle, ball harder to pick up side on vs front on. Lots of reasons.

 

[Forward Press]

So what happens when Gold Coast turn the ball over from deep in their defence, and you kick a second goal in the ensuing fifteen seconds? Both goals count? That’d be an absolute joke when the ball would ordinarily have been returned into the middle after the first goal.

Think there’s a lot of Bombers supporters with their heads in the clouds on this issue. The incident in the Port/Giants game was worse the previous day IMO where they reviewed a ball Port had kept in play, leading to a ball up in their defensive square.

It also led directly to a goal for GWS, and given the final margin could easily be argued to be decisive.

I know it would be irritating to happen to your team (I still remember the contentious goal by Jarryd Roughead that BT was certain was out of bounds) but there are humans involved and I've accepted errors are made. We move on.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It also led directly to a goal for GWS, and given the final margin could easily be argued to be decisive.

I know it would be irritating to happen to your team (I still remember the contentious goal by Jarryd Roughead that BT was certain was out of bounds) but there are humans involved and I've accepted errors are made. We move on.

I'm still fuming over a Peter Riccardi goal that Simon Wiggins touched many moons ago, costing us a win after the siren. Today's system would have overturned it. It happens.

At the time we scream conspiracy, cheating, incompetence etc, but after the anger dies down, you just have to accept it and move on.

 

[blitzer]

So what happens when Gold Coast turn the ball over from deep in their defence, and you kick a second goal in the ensuing fifteen seconds? Both goals count? That’d be an absolute joke when the ball would ordinarily have been returned into the middle after the first goal.

Think there’s a lot of Bombers supporters with their heads in the clouds on this issue. The incident in the Port/Giants game was worse the previous day IMO where they reviewed a ball Port had kept in play, leading to a ball up in their defensive square.

So you'd be OK with ignoring the fact that we should have got a goal just because there's a chance that we might get another goal from that passage of play. Basically ignoring a certain injustice on the off chance that something else might go wrong which swings the advantage the other way?

 

[blacksockred]

"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"

Surely it’s more important to get the existing score correct than a possible future score.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Surely it’s more important to get the existing score correct than a possible future score.

They might potentially have to review a lot of goal line plays that were in play. Fact is, an umpire saw it in and made a mistake. Mistakes happen in every game. One free kick will be paid by one umpire but not seen the same way by another. It's an extremely difficult to adjudicate. We're all on the end of a howler from time to time.

 

[CFC18]

Surely it’s more important to get the existing score correct than a possible future score.

A mark being awarded in the goal square that replays show to be clearly touched, a free kick missed in the goal square that is shown to be clearly there, a goal from the boundary which was actually out of bounds etc - you either review all situations and recall the play where appropriate, or you defer to the on field umpires and acknowledge there will be mistakes.

Opening up decisions to be subjectively overruled using questionable technology will only serve to lower the professionalism and fairness of the sport, not improve it.

 

[blacksockred]

A mark being awarded in the goal square that replays show to be clearly touched, a free kick missed in the goal square that is shown to be clearly there, a goal from the boundary which was actually out of bounds etc - you either review all situations and recall the play where appropriate, or you defer to the on field umpires and acknowledge there will be mistakes.

Opening up decisions to be subjectively overruled using questionable technology will only serve to lower the professionalism and fairness of the sport, not improve it.

Yeah I agree with your sentiment about deferring to on field umpires and the issue with all the other types of umpiring errors. I don’t agree though with a blanket call that the technology will only serve to lower professionalism and fairness. I still reckon goal line decisions are unique in that it’s a geometrically simple problem and technologically straight forward in terms of camera angles, so this alone is the situation I am ok with the video ump initiating a stop in play.

A problem is that there could still be rare gameplay situations that cause blatant errors with the goal line video review... Weigh the odds of that against the also ridiculously small odds of that blind umpire failing to call for a review of Essendon’s goal.

 

[hcd199]

I think the point here has to be that the goal umpire made an incorrect judgement about what took place, but having made that judgement, followed the correct process: even if the umpire isn't fully sure, if they believe it's play on then not calling for a review is (and also should be) the right option. Some of the alternatives mooted in this thread might be fairer in this specific instance, but don't hold up quite so well as processes to apply more generally - negating minutes of play to go back to an earlier incident, tacking the score on at the end as though all subsequent play would still have been the same, calling for a review whenever the ball might have crossed the line, and so on, all have significant drawbacks. Ultimately, the reason this happened isn't because of how the video review process works, it's because the umpire made a mistake - shouldn't happen, supporters of the club affected will rightly feel aggrieved, but the solution doesn't lie in changing how we do video review.

 

[CFC18]

Yeah I agree with your sentiment about deferring to on field umpires and the issue with all the other types of umpiring errors. I don’t agree though with a blanket call that the technology will only serve to lower professionalism and fairness. I still reckon goal line decisions are unique in that it’s a geometrically simple problem and technologically straight forward in terms of camera angles, so this alone is the situation I am ok with the video ump initiating a stop in play.

A problem is that there could still be rare gameplay situations that cause blatant errors with the goal line video review... Weigh the odds of that against the also ridiculously small odds of that blind umpire failing to call for a review of Essendon’s goal.

I didn't mean that the technology would lower professionalism and fairness, I meant the subjectiveness would.

Much like how goals are reviewed before the bounce - there's been cases this year where it has been called back after a clear touch but then cases where it hasn't, despite the error being no less obvious. Likewise with what you're suggesting, there will still be times when a clear goal is not called back, and the lack of visibility and accountability on the video ump means they could have been checking their phone, or simply found the player's haircut offensive for all we know.

You make a fair point though that there is a case for why it could just be restricted to goal line decisions, but the exact policies around it would want to be sound because any rule that is entirely subjective in its application should at least be capable of drawing pointed scrutiny on the adjudicator.

 

[Benny78]

Meh if their rabid fans never booed Ablett god wouldn't have punished them

 

[Foxx]

At the time the only person that thought that was in was the ump lol. The fact he couldn't tell that was a clear goal shows he's in the wrong field.

 

[WN123]

Think there’s a lot of Bombers supporters with their heads in the clouds on this issue. The incident in the Port/Giants game was worse the previous day IMO where they reviewed a ball Port had kept in play, leading to a ball up in their defensive square.

Huh!!!!
Missing a clear and obvious goal is not as bad as creating a possibility???

Adding the score later is not realistic. Allowing the 3rd umpire to proactively review a goal would be simple. Play continues while he does it. 30 seconds later he would have made his decision. Play stops and goes back to the centre and starts again as it would for any goal.

 

[eddiesmith]

He got demoted to Emergency this week. Probably only got 3 umpires in QLD!