Roast Goal review

[ant555]

Not sure where to put this so starting a thread and not to whinge about the Brown goal but to make a comment on the fact that 2 weeks in a row, Hawks v Swans and now Ess v Lions we have seen boundary umpires over rule the goal umpires decision, then go to a review only to have it back to umpires call.
On top of that we had the Tigers v Freo debacle.

The review is just a total wank ! no one has the balls to make a call.
Secondly why are the field umpires listening to the boundary umpires and over ruling goal umpires who have already made a decision ?
Has become an absolute joke.

Now i want to be clear this is not about us and i hardly ever come away from a game blaming umpires and once again i will not today as our stupid play and turnovers cost us the game.
Just wondering what others think of the over ruling of the goal umpires and the review system in general across all games.

 

[Mercurial89]

They weren't originally even going to use the review today. Would seem to show some kind of directive to place more weight in the boundary umpires call? Very interesting if true because we will start having issues where they all try take the lead. Needs to be clear rules with score reviews. It must be the goal umpires decision as a baseline.

 

[doug85]

I was stunned that the boundary umpire overruled the goal umpire.

Also could not believe that Fletch had to correct the field umpire who wasn't listening to the goal umpire - that was a farce.

 

[Kyptastic]

Needs to be more like cricket - let the goal umpire make the call, the players can challenge it, and if it's inconclusive go with the original decision.

FFS though, today's was clearly over the line.

 

[Coldacre]

horse-shi.t

 

[Zach Package]

was very humorous.

Fletcher basically talked him into the review

 

[doug85]

ant555 What did you think of Leigh Matthews suggestion re the point posts?

I thought it had some merit.

 

[rumply]

Well after the debacles of the last couple weeks, it appears that where the goal & boundary umps disagree, they go with the boundary ump, which I find bewildering to say the least.

The role of goal umps is gradually being being eroded round by round.

 

[monty1104]

I didn't mind the review TBH, but the fact that the goal umpire was over ruled was a bit odd, and it's happened twice now. You would never see the goal umpire over rule the boundary umpire.

If every decision comes back as "inconclusive" (which pretty much every one of them does), then what's the point of having the review anyway. I thought last week with Kommer's poster, it clearly showed the ball hitting the post, yet it was still called inconclusive. It is more trouble than it is worth right now.

 

[calyam]

I didn't mind the review TBH, but the fact that the goal umpire was over ruled was a bit odd, and it's happened twice now. You would never see the goal umpire over rule the boundary umpire.

If every decision comes back as "inconclusive" (which pretty much every one of them does), then what's the point of having the review anyway. I thought last week with Kommer's poster, it clearly showed the ball hitting the post, yet it was still called inconclusive. It is more trouble than it is worth right now.

A review should definitely have taken place given how close to the line the mark was. I have no issue with that.

But one of the, admittedly many, issues with the review system at the moment is that to make a decision it has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Instead they should simply make a decision based on the weight of evidence.

So for Brown's mark, the vision suggested that it was more likely to be over the line than not. And with that the case, you'd award a point rather than a mark. It is similar to how goal umpires make borderline goal decisions - just with the benefit of additional footage.

 

[lemon chicken]

Dont really care who over-rules who the bigger problem is the amount of * ups the old codger up stairs has made so far this year. Was clear the ball had gone through before it was marked, every person sitting around me thought the same thing, Lions supporters included.

 

[The Speaker]

Review system doesn't work with what we have available.

 

[cymarak]

Is the footage the bloke upstairs has the same as we get on the replay screen at the game / TV ?

 

[George Washington]

Is the footage the bloke upstairs has the same as we get on the replay screen at the game / TV ?

AFL weren't willing to fork out for the cameras/tech required, so the bloke upstairs actually has to re-enact the incident using a set of very complicated marionettes. As you can imagine he only has so many hands and it becomes quite difficult to simultaneously puppeteer all the players involved, not to mention the ball.

The result is he usually panics after about 30 seconds and calls inconclusive.

 

[cotter101]

Was hard to tell. From what they showed on the reply it did look like it was over. But they really need to do something about all these inconclusive results they are giving.

 

[cymarak]

AFL weren't willing to fork out for the cameras/tech required, so the bloke upstairs actually has to re-enact the incident using a set of very complicated marionettes. As you can imagine he only has so many hands and it becomes quite difficult to simultaneously puppeteer all the players involved, not to mention the ball.

I think the bold bit pretty much is the issue for me.

They only need / use the review system for 'lineball' (pun fully intended) decisions, and the angle and the footage quality isn't good enough for lineball decisions.

 

[Espe]

From my angle it looked like a mark. If brown layed any finger on the ball on the line, then carried it over, it's a mark. Haven't seen any replays though.

But I agree the review system is a joke. But, better then nothing I guess.

 

[cymarak]

Well after the debacles of the last couple weeks, it appears that where the goal & boundary umps disagree, they go with the boundary ump, which I find bewildering to say the least.

It seems to be that the field umpire decides what he thinks - taking input from the goal umpire and the boundary umpire - and that the field umpire's 'decision' is what they go with if / when the vision is inconclusive.

What was the 'rule' before the review system ? The field umpire still made the final decision and could overrule the goal umpire if he wanted to couldn't he ?

 

[Goon_Squad]

But I agree the review system is a joke. But, better then nothing I guess.

The thing is, it isn't. If we didn't have a review system, then this is one of those that the media would be all over as a pretty obvious example of when the wrong call has been made. But we actually have it reviewed and they come back with "inconclusive"? How obvious does it have to be before he actually makes a call?

Combine that ineptitude with the fact that they reverted to the boundary umps call and that Fletch had to question it for them to even call for one, it's a flat out joke and a waste of everyone's time.

The final frustration is to read media reports claiming that it didn't affect the result. Of course it did, as Essendon would have been in front prior to Staker's goal and been in full defensive mode rather than attacking to try to get in front.

Time to either ditch the system or invest in a system that actually works (like Hawkeye)

 

[cymarak]

Are there any stats available on how many times the review has been used so far this year, and how many times it's been inconclusive ?

 

[smcateer]

I was listening on the radio so I might have missed something.

I think this is what happened:
1) goal umpire says, "point"
2) boundary umpire says, "uh-uh; mark"
3) Fletch says, "I recommend a video review"
4) field umpire says, "yeah, what Fletch said, video review"
5) video umpire says, "dunno"
6) field umpire says, "ahem, let's go with (2)"

Aww gawd.

I think it's time the AFL bought a carton of GoPros and hand them over to Channel 7. This would have ended at (5) with a correct decision (not saying it didn't BTW) if there was a camera on the line.

 

[Goon_Squad]

I was listening on the radio so I might have missed something.

I think this is what happened:
1) goal umpire says, "point"
2) boundary umpire says, "uh-uh; mark"
3) Fletch says, "I recommend a video review"
4) field umpire says, "yeah, what Fletch said, video review"
5) video umpire says, "dunno"
6) field umpire says, "ahem, let's go with (2)"

Aww gawd.

I think it's time the AFL bought a carton of GoPros and hand them over to Channel 7. This would have ended at (5) with a correct decision (not saying it didn't BTW) if there was a camera on the line.

Pretty much spot on, only missed the bizarre part where the field umpire ignores the goal umpire and runs with the goal umpire's opinion. How on earth does this happen?

Carton of GoPros would be a winner, isn't this what Eddie has been claiming? Looking at the Pies/cats game, Ch 7 have a camera in the goal post that would have been definititve...

 

[cymarak]

IMO, the AFL needs to do 2 things if they want a good review system:

1. clearly state what the review process is - e.g. the field umpire decides when and if a review should be called for, the field umpire makes and declares their on-field decision (taking input from any of the other umpires as they see fit, and on a balance of probabilities basis, not a lesser-of-the-2-scores-if-any-doubt basis), and if the upstairs decision is inconclusive, they go with the field umpire's decision
2. invest in better technology - namely more, higher-quality, better-placed cameras - so when there's a review it has a reasonable chance of it achieving something more than just wasting time

If the AFL are really that hard pressed for the cash (how much are the TV rights worth again ?), they could consider selling naming rights to the camera system or sponsorship of the review system, or something else creative.

 

[smcateer]

Pretty much spot on, only missed the bizarre part where the field umpire ignores the goal umpire and runs with the goal umpire's opinion. How on earth does this happen?

Carton of GoPros would be a winner, isn't this what Eddie has been claiming? Looking at the Pies/cats game, Ch 7 have a camera in the goal post that would have been definititve...

For a one off cost of a couple of hundred bucks a pop ... the mind boggles.

I would actually go further and have an accelerometer in the ball (surely this is doable with tech used in plones?) so you could register if the ball snicks the post or when it was touched etc. That data plus goal-line cameras would pretty much nail every decision.

Also, you could put a transmitter (<2.5g) on the ball (~500g) and ranging censors on the posts and on the fence at the back to triangulate the position of the ball very accurately. One transmitter on each end of the ball would give you position and orientation. This (plus the accelerometer) would give you a capability far superior to that of Hawkeye.

Then you could dispense with the goal umpires all together just run the software - I still can't figure out why they haven't gone this extra step in tennis.

(The 2.5g transmitter I looked up has a range of ~5km and ~20 days battery life, so much more powerful than needed. Link: http://www.radiotracking.com/merlin.html)

It's actually much simpler than the Hawkeye problem because the ball is large enough and asymmetrical enough to instrument it.

 

[Loonerty]

3) Fletch says, "I recommend a video review"

It was more "HE'S SAYING IT'S A BEHIND!" very emphatically