Roast Goal review

[Pweter]

Maybe with 1 extra game per round, which means at least 3 extra umpires, the quality of the umpiring is spread too thin now? I think they should just have 30 full time umpires on a good salary (say $100k pa plus match payments of $2000), working all year round (with similar working dates as the players), helping out at clinics, working with the rules committee etc. They could have 15 or so part time rookies as well. This would mean only the best of the best are kept in the job because you would attract more umpires. If it were a career option, you would bet that the good junior umpires would stick at it as opposed to going to uni or doing trades that makes it almost impossible to stick with it....

I agree with this concept, it is a professional sport being umpired by amateur umpires.

Further to what you're saying, if they become professional umpires, make them umpire in teams. Have 4 of them (includes emergency umpire) train together and umpire every game together so they understand each other, have the same interpretations etc. It can only help with consistency. That way teams can also understand who is being assigned to their game ahead of time and know the trends for what free kicks are being paid.

Back on topic though, can we scrap the goal review system and just have 2 goal umpires at each end? They deliberate if there is any doubt and the one in best position makes the call. Take the field umpire and boundary umpire out of it.

 

[laxation]

Back on topic though, can we scrap the goal review system and just have 2 goal umpires at each end? They deliberate if there is any doubt and the one in best position makes the call. Take the field umpire and boundary umpire out of it.

You spend the first half of your post talking about how inconsistent umpires are, and then think putting 2 more of them in is a good idea?

All this technology that's available and you want more f-ing umps?

You could get a gig on the rules committee with logic like that.

 

[Jimbone]

Maybe with 1 extra game per round, which means at least 3 extra umpires, the quality of the umpiring is spread too thin now? I think they should just have 30 full time umpires on a good salary (say $100k pa plus match payments of $2000), working all year round (with similar working dates as the players), helping out at clinics, working with the rules committee etc. They could have 15 or so part time rookies as well. This would mean only the best of the best are kept in the job because you would attract more umpires. If it were a career option, you would bet that the good junior umpires would stick at it as opposed to going to uni or doing trades that makes it almost impossible to stick with it....

thats a good point about the extra game, hadnt thought of that. agree totally with making them more of a pro outfit and a desirable career choice. in their defense there has been a lot of 'tweaking' of the rules over the past few years which surely makes their job harder.

not sure what the best option for the goal review system is.. to continue to use it and accept that it is crap and will pretty much only work when its an absolute howler (ie called goal when went through as a point) or scrap it, let the boys do their job and then bring in hawkeye/ FIFA technology when possible. 2 goalies also an interesting thought as well as cameras on the posts looking at the line

 

[daffo]

Shot the field umpires!!!

 

[Pweter]

You spend the first half of your post talking about how inconsistent umpires are, and then think putting 2 more of them in is a good idea?

All this technology that's available and you want more f-ing umps?

You could get a gig on the rules committee with logic like that.

More goal umpires, yes, because the video review system has been proven to be a joke. Cameras are static on posts so what happens when players get in the way? What other technology are you talking about, is it proven and affordable?

2 goal umpires can see either side of a contest/post in the event players get in the way. Get the decision making back in the goal umpires hands and away from the boundary/field umpires. They have basically 2 things to see: did someone touch the ball and did it hit the post. Pretty black and white.

That is very different to trying to get 3 guys adjudicate rules that have several shades of grey in the same manner.

Sorry if you can't differentiate between the 2.

 

[cymarak]

Further to what you're saying, if they become professional umpires, make them umpire in teams. Have 4 of them (includes emergency umpire) train together and umpire every game together so they understand each other, have the same interpretations etc. It can only help with consistency. That way teams can also understand who is being assigned to their game ahead of time and know the trends for what free kicks are being paid.

Some sports do exactly this - e.g. in American football, where they usually work in 'crews' and know each other extremely well, professionally at least.

You often see that when they have certain games where they don't use full crews - e.g. where they mix and match the best official at each position for some postseason games, the umpiring (refereeing) standard drops noticeably.

 

[Andronicus]

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

Sounds like he was being demonstrative. MRP will cite him for that.

As for the decision going to the most confident official? If the video was inconclusive, perhaps it was a misplaced confidence by the boundary wiggle.

 

[Pweter]

Some sports do exactly this - e.g. in American football, where they usually work in 'crews' and know each other extremely well, professionally at least.

You often see that when they have certain games where they don't use full crews - e.g. where they mix and match the best official at each position for some postseason games, the umpiring (refereeing) standard drops noticeably.

No more evidence required than the referee lockout in the NFL for the first... what.... 10 or so weeks of last season. Fans were absolutely up in arms, players were confused beyond comprehension. I still remember the Seattle/Green Bay game decided via a very dubious TD on the final siren (as I had money on Seattle to cover which they did as a result of the call).

 

[cymarak]

I have a suspicion that some of the strong support for the goal umpire last Saturday stems from the fact he believed it wasn't a mark, rather than from respect for the goal umpire's sacrosanct role as the only person with any right to make any goal-line decisions.

If the roles had been reversed - goal umpire saying it was a mark, boundary umpire saying it was not a mark - I'm not sure there would be as much support for the goal umpire being the only man whose opinion is relevant.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

I don't think you can have teams of umprires. Injuries, needing to rest etc mean that it would be almost impossible to have the same 3/4 field umpires on every week. Plus, it should be each individual being picked on their merits, so if you had 2 great umpires, but one who is underperforming is being carried by the other two. If they all train together (because if theyre full time they will be able to train together during the day all the time) and they do workshops together, reviews together etc then they will build up an understanding.

 

[cymarak]

No more evidence required than the referee lockout in the NFL for the first... what.... 10 or so weeks of last season. Fans were absolutely up in arms, players were confused beyond comprehension. I still remember the Seattle/Green Bay game decided via a very dubious TD on the final siren (as I had money on Seattle to cover which they did as a result of the call).

It was 3 weeks (of the regular season), and really was more about how the replacement referees weren't up to the same standard as the normal referees (unsurprisingly), more so than the issue of crews.

The equivalent in the AFL would be using replacement umpires for the first 3 weeks of the AFL season - no-one would be too surprised if they weren't as good as the normal umpires (there's a reason the replacement umpires don't normally umpire at AFL level, and the normal umpires have more recent experience at AFL level anyway), regardless of whether they worked together in teams or not.

 

[laxation]

More goal umpires, yes, because the video review system has been proven to be a joke.

I dont disagree. But I also think adding more umpires won't solve anything. It will just add more inconsistency, more headaches, and won't solve the problem of line ball decisions.

As for what technology is out there, I wouldn't have a clue. But if there is nothing that can be done, whether it is high res slow-mo cameras with more than 1 frame every 16 seconds (like the current one's seem to be!) or an even higher-tech solution similar to hawkeye, I'll eat my hat.

 

[Old Campaigner]

The afl has made a survey which people here might want to use to vent their displeasure. If enough people complain they'll change the system - the AFL exists to make money and that won't happen if half their fanbase is pissed off.

http://surveys.questionpro.com/a/t/AILF3ZPhoM

 

[laxation]

The afl has made a survey which people here might want to use to vent their displeasure. If enough people complain they'll change the system - the AFL exists to make money and that won't happen if half their fanbase is pissed off.

http://surveys.questionpro.com/a/t/AILF3ZPhoM

I did the survey but I can't imagine the Charter actually doing anything good... (I don't trust the AFL to do anything right)

 

[yaco55]

More goal umpires, yes, because the video review system has been proven to be a joke. Cameras are static on posts so what happens when players get in the way? What other technology are you talking about, is it proven and affordable?

2 goal umpires can see either side of a contest/post in the event players get in the way. Get the decision making back in the goal umpires hands and away from the boundary/field umpires. They have basically 2 things to see: did someone touch the ball and did it hit the post. Pretty black and white.

That is very different to trying to get 3 guys adjudicate rules that have several shades of grey in the same manner.

Sorry if you can't differentiate between the 2.

Mo reason to do this because the field umpire or the boundary umpire will over-rule the goal umpires.

 

[efcboy]

For mine the video review was conclusive. The goal post padding is at least twice the size (width) of the white goal line. Given the camera angle showed a significant part of the ball was passed the goal post padding this meant it was definitely over the line. Adding to that when Brown marked following this he actually fell forward and landed behind the line. Therefore it was definitely over the line.

 

[efcboy]

The afl has made a survey which people here might want to use to vent their displeasure. If enough people complain they'll change the system - the AFL exists to make money and that won't happen if half their fanbase is pissed off.

http://surveys.questionpro.com/a/t/AILF3ZPhoM

I suggested that Jeff Gieschen is incompetent and should be replaced...

 

[Old Campaigner]

That's all it needs, a lot of feedback from people unhappy with the rule changes and umpiring and they might actually do something about it.

 

[laxation]

That's all it needs, a lot of feedback from people unhappy with the rule changes and umpiring and they might actually do something about it.

HAH!

Every bloody question in the thing was something like 'what rule do we need to do this...'
Not one question about 'should we leave the ******* game how it is and stop piss-farting around'

I have zero faith in these incompetent pricks to do anything right.

 

[lemon chicken]

Still a farce, if Brown's was inconclusive I'm stuffed if I know how the one tonight was conclusive.

 

[pepsi]

It was touched, his finger clearly went back when the ball passed his hand. I'm happy for it to be used to make the correct decision.

 

[blitzer]

I would have liked that goal but it was the correct decision.

 

[The Dustbin]

No issues with the decision being overturned last night. The issue is the process during a game. Disgrace last night.

 

[rines]

Yeah.. reviews still need to be faster.. can't have the ball being back in the centre circle before calling for a look..

 

[Andronicus]

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.