Roast Goal review

[Goon_Squad]

My concerns are that it seems protesting enough by players will earn a review, rather than uncertainty from umpires.

Players always claim a ball is touched when it is close. When do the umpires choose to listen, and when do they ignore.

This.

So two games in a row, we have had players convincing the umpire to go for a review. Umpires never listen to players over their decisions, why are they choosing to listen now? Having said that, in both cases it was the right thing to do but why are they not making the appropriate call themselves?

The only way the AFL can fix this farce is to implement a proper system that is clear and undisputable (like Hawkeye). And the call should rest with the captain, not the umpire. Give each captain 4 calls per game (1 per quarter) and only 10 seconds to make the call and the issue will not only disappear as a controversy but add interest to watching the review happen. Captains would be honestly told by their players whether it was touched, over the line, whatever so as not to waste a review so the number of claims of "touched!" would fall away.

BTW, agree that it was the right decision last night, just a farce that they were almost ready to bounce before they went to a review.

 

[yaco55]

This.

So two games in a row, we have had players convincing the umpire to go for a review. Umpires never listen to players over their decisions, why are they choosing to listen now? Having said that, in both cases it was the right thing to do but why are they not making the appropriate call themselves?

The only way the AFL can fix this farce is to implement a proper system that is clear and undisputable (like Hawkeye). And the call should rest with the captain, not the umpire. Give each captain 4 calls per game (1 per quarter) and only 10 seconds to make the call and the issue will not only disappear as a controversy but add interest to watching the review happen. Captains would be honestly told by their players whether it was touched, over the line, whatever so as not to waste a review so the number of claims of "touched!" would fall away.

BTW, agree that it was the right decision last night, just a farce that they were almost ready to bounce before they went to a review.

You are wrong about last night's incident.

There is provision in the rules for the video umpire to review a goal decision, without the field umpires asking for a review. As long as it is done before the centre bounce. It's been used before.

 

[Slattery_20]

Of the 50 or so they've reviewed, I don't think I've seen more than 1 or 2 conclusive video replays. IIRC, the wording of the rule is the video has to be conclusive to over-rule.

In the situation where the goal umpire's not in best position, or unsure - by all means, go for the review. But with the quality of cameras they're using, and the angled position they're in, 9 times out of 10 the ump is in a better spot to see - and 9 times out of 10, they're being over-ruled anyway.

Because why? Because TECHNOLOGY!
It's half-arsed, and it basically makes fools of the goal umps.

 

[daffo]

Goal review worked a bit better this week. The Hurley goal was touched. I didn't like how they called it a goal, the ball went to the middle, then they called it. I would much prefer it was called straight away.

 

[Slattery_20]

Even with that one, the rules haven't really caught up (herp derp NO RULE CHANGES),
If it's a point & you want it reviewed, you have 1/3 of a milli second before the defender's put the ball back into play.
If it's a goal, you get maybe 30 seconds - both boundary umpires have to get the ball, run it into the middle, take positions on the square, sometimes wait for TV etc etc.
Clearly that's unfair, but it's also open to abuse - if a side's trying to stall (with time off) for whatever reason.

 

[cymarak]

Of the 50 or so they've reviewed, I don't think I've seen more than 1 or 2 conclusive video replays. IIRC, the wording of the rule is the video has to be conclusive to over-rule.

In the situation where the goal umpire's not in best position, or unsure - by all means, go for the review. But with the quality of cameras they're using, and the angled position they're in, 9 times out of 10 the ump is in a better spot to see - and 9 times out of 10, they're being over-ruled anyway.

I presume you're referring to the goal umpire being overruled by the field umpire, rather than by the video review ?

 

[yaco55]

I presume you're referring to the goal umpire being overruled by the field umpire, rather than by the video review ?

I assume that S20 is referring to the Brown incident, when the goal umpire was signalling a point and the field umpire chose the original decision of the boundary umpire. That should never happen.