Challenge System will improve umpiring and fix dissent

[Colonial]

Wont change anything. NRL, A-League, NBL and cricket all still get it wrong and they have these systems in place.

 

[Philhawk]

Logically, it’s enormously problematic as let’s be real, every single team will use in the first quarter.

Then, when a last min decision in Q4 can’t be challenged, the calls will rise to “let’s have 10 per quarter”.

 

[Purple Suit]

Logically, it’s enormously problematic as let’s be real, every single team will use in the first quarter.

Then, when a last min decision in Q4 can’t be challenged, the calls will rise to “let’s have 10 per quarter”.

Just have it so you can only do it in the last quarter if that is the concern. I’m not a fan of this idea though.

Adelaide were stitched up but I don’t think changing the rule would add something to the game. 50/50 decision still exist and we will just pause the game for 5 minutes trying to figure something out and ruin the momentum. Goal Reviews do this too but they are less subjective.

 

[btdg]

Please god no.

One of the best things about this sport is the ebb and flow, the continuous pace.

The only noticeable breaks in play are for goals - which is perfect. Just enough time to provide a highlight or two, and it helps genuinely 'highlight' the most important part of the game. At the match just enough of a pause to let people who went to the bathroom back to their seat. At home just enough pause to grab a beer from the fridge. Etc.

The only other break we have is for goal reviews and everyone hates it. Why? Because it goes too long, and it's a bad break. At worst, the review goes for two minutes and is inconclusive. In the middle is a terrible outcome where a match highlight gets removed (goal overturned). Very rarely does it make the game better. This season, thankfully, the AFL has sped this up but it still a bad break in play.

Reviewing umpiring decisions is an awful addition to every sport. It is a long break that is almost always focused on something negative (ie a bad play that is being penalised). It breaks the flow of the game and rarely leaves anyone satisfied.

I actually think the umpires do a great job and honestly their decisions and fallibility are both important. They also usually understand the moment and add a human element - for example erring on the side of 'play on' in close games. Had Adelaide got that free kick yesterday, GC fans would be rightly pissed. Either way, waiting 3 minutes for a grainy video camera to provide multiple angles in review would make the game objectively worse....

 

[CrowToon]

Since my first go at this I'd be happy enough just having the last 5 mins of the last qtr reviewed. Yes there will be other decisions throughout the game that will be left unturned but at least there is time to reverse it.

The game could be left to flow and everything could be reviewed behind the scenes. If play needs calling back then so be it. A word in the ear of the umpire and the game clock reset. Easy.

 

[Sentinel]

A review only works for a black and white decision. I think Rankine deserved a free kick, but it's still a somewhat subjective call. This idea just couldn't work in the AFL other than for completely clear cut calls like out on the full, throws, high contact etc.

It would be a disaster.

 

[Purple Suit]

Since my first go at this I'd be happy enough just having the last 5 mins of the last qtr reviewed. Yes there will be other decisions throughout the game that will be left unturned but at least there is time to reverse it.

The game could be left to flow and everything could be reviewed behind the scenes. If play needs calling back then so be it. A word in the ear of the umpire and the game clock reset. Easy.

Thinking about this more, another issue with only the last 5 minutes is that a team that gets the rub of the green all game might catch a further break. Eg. The Collingwood v Dogs game a few weeks ago yet the Pies do a review of a final decision and get another advantage. It would be infuriating being on the wrong side of it.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The problem with a challenge system is so few AFL rules are black and white; in/out; etc. Combined with often lousy replay footage/angles and all we do is create further angst.

I believe we would drastically IMPROVE the umpiring treatment if we actually admitted mistakes/misjudgements in post-game reviews. I think a show/segment where the umpires actually go through game footage and explain what they saw/heard/felt in making a decision - exploring the complexity of the decision-making process would go a long way to placating the public.

Umpires probably make >100 calls a game (most to do nothing) - in review how many were 'correct', how many were 'to interpretation' and how many were blatantly wrong? I'd expect the "wrong" to be ~1-2%. If an umpire is going too far from the norm on an interpretation decision (whether by club problematic or by type of infringement) they can then be coached towards a 'standard'. The decision wasn't "wrong", but perhaps it was a little "technical" (Harsh).

Challenging in game is pretty futile. Even the Rankine one - I thought Rankine dropped the mark on impact - I was more concerned with the "tackling" in a marking contest...

 

[Purple Suit]

The problem with a challenge system is so few AFL rules are black and white; in/out; etc. Combined with often lousy replay footage/angles and all we do is create further angst.

I believe we would drastically IMPROVE the umpiring treatment if we actually admitted mistakes/misjudgements in post-game reviews. I think a show/segment where the umpires actually go through game footage and explain what they saw/heard/felt in making a decision - exploring the complexity of the decision-making process would go a long way to placating the public.

Umpires probably make >100 calls a game (most to do nothing) - in review how many were 'correct', how many were 'to interpretation' and how many were blatantly wrong? I'd expect the "wrong" to be ~1-2%. If an umpire is going too far from the norm on an interpretation decision (whether by club problematic or by type of infringement) they can then be coached towards a 'standard'. The decision wasn't "wrong", but perhaps it was a little "technical" (Harsh).

Challenging in game is pretty futile. Even the Rankine one - I thought Rankine dropped the mark on impact - I was more concerned with the "tackling" in a marking contest...

It would be great to show punters how hard it is to umpire due to angles involved. It’s a 360 degree game so umpires can be caught in the wrong position watching from behind a pack and it makes impossible to spot a throw or a missed kick. Place that on top of a massive bunch of subjective rules where they need to determine intent, it’s bloody impossible.

 

[CrowToon]

Thinking about this more, another issue with only the last 5 minutes is that a team that gets the rub of the green all game might catch a further break. Eg. The Collingwood v Dogs game a few weeks ago yet the Pies do a review of a final decision and get another advantage. It would be infuriating being on the wrong side of it.

Its infuriating as it stands. GCS got the rub all day yesterday from the Soligo 'sling' on Walter to him also playing on in the goalscorer and Matt Rowell not having to take his kick and oh yeah, calling someone 50m back to take a free kick they had no idea they had earned. All we got was Keane not getting pinged for a throw. So without a last 5 mins review system we just have a team who got the rub all game get it anyway live.

At the very least we know the last 5 mins was right.

 

[CrowToon]

It would be great to show punters how hard it is to umpire due to angles involved. It’s a 360 degree game so umpires can be caught in the wrong position watching from behind a pack and it makes impossible to spot a throw or a missed kick. Place that on top of a massive bunch of subjective rules where they need to determine intent, it’s bloody impossible.

Sounds like they need help

 

[btdg]

Since my first go at this I'd be happy enough just having the last 5 mins of the last qtr reviewed. Yes there will be other decisions throughout the game that will be left unturned but at least there is time to reverse it.

The game could be left to flow and everything could be reviewed behind the scenes. If play needs calling back then so be it. A word in the ear of the umpire and the game clock reset. Easy.

The issue with this is umpires will respond by calling a lot more free kicks in the last 5 minutes. Including a lot more that are technically there, but would otherwise be let go in the spirit of the game (ie; we don't really want a hundred 50/50 holding the ball, running too far, etc).

This means it more likely that the umpires whistle something technically correct but otherwise BS which cannot be overturned, and we will get more BS results, not less.

Take the Adelaide game yesterday. I didn't see it live, and have only seen replay footage... I don't think that is enough to overturn the decision. Sorry, but it isn't that clear. What is more likely is, I dunno, 30 seconds earlier an Adelaide player was a tiny bit sloppy with disposal, or held on too long in tackle, gets pinged for that, and Rankine never has a chance at a mark in the first place. Oh, and the last 5 minutes now takes 25 minutes and everyone is bored by the end and stops watching neutral games because it becomes so tedious (as has happened with the NBA)

 

[Gethelred]

... and slow the game down to a standstill while the third umpire looks at the footage, and is wildly open to exploitation regardless of whose hands a challenge is placed.

In a final with 30 seconds to go, with Sydney up by 4 points and a rampant Hawthorn on a fast break with even numbers or better ahead of the footy, are you seriously telling me that a video appeal for having run too far - even if it's a straightforward appeal and rejection - resulting in Sydney getting their players back won't have an influence on the game?

Shit umpiring equalises all teams. Sometimes you'll be on the wrong side of it, just like you'll be on the wrong side of conditions.

 

[1990crow]

The overall standard and accountability just isn't there.
If the AFL was serious there would correct and incorrect tallies against every umpire, and repercussions for repeat offenders.

At least with transparency there would be less emotional responses from supporter bases, and a greater likelihood of fairness.

I.e. if an umpire is found to have a clear bias against any particular team they are disqualified from officiating that match.

 

[GC2015]

If this was in place yesterday, I reckon Witts would've successfully challenged for a push in the back on O'Brien in the ruck contest that occurred literally 8 seconds before the Rankine situation. Funnily enough, the umpiring decision (or lack thereof) was in the same sequence of play as the Rankine one. Obviously a challenge system leads to so many stops throughout a game because there's an enormous amount of calls/non-calls made that are/aren't called. Here is the two handed push in the back that O'Brien got away with if you haven't seen it:

 

[Elixuh]

Stop changing the interpretation of the rules which require a high level of discretion and interpretation.

Make the application of rules which require a high level of discretion and interpretation easier to officiated and less complicated.

Deal with teams who try to abuse the system publicly, eg the entire hawthorn forward line which ducks and dives for frees, with consequence - bad fixturing, pushed back in draft order etc.

Alternatively, get rid of umpires. Street rules.

 

[CrowToon]

Lol @ people thinking it will slow down the game to an extreme level...despite this not happening in any other sport that's introduced reviews. Basketball isn't comparable as its a totally different sport. Football/Rugby are field sports that have reviews or VAR and still have fans. It isnt world ending stuff