Roast Goal review

[eddiesmith]

True. But wtf do goal umps insist on standing against the post. Stand side on a cm behind the line and you have no problem

They stand on the line so they can tell when the ball crosses the line or is touched. You cannot do that from behind the line.

I’ve ended up inside the field of play getting out of the way of a ball like last night, a football doesn’t always bounce the way you expect, shit happens.

 

[eddiesmith]

Are you trolling, or do you not understand that the ball was coming from a different angle than the camera?

Inexplicable decision, unless the rule reads that it has to be an absolute certainty to be deemed a goal.

Sounds like you need to open the other eye when watching

 

[bucksisbest]

The video reviewer had the right to overturn the decision. But I don't think it was clear enough to confidentially predict the ball would have hit the post.

 

[sr36]

Sounds like you need to open the other eye when watching

I'm referring to the picture you think is proof. Dumbest proof I've ever seen.

 

[sr36]

The video reviewer had the right to overturn the decision. But I don't think it was clear enough to confidentially predict the ball would have hit the post.

It'd be an odd system if his predictions were confidential.

 

[Run n Spread]

They stand on the line so they can tell when the ball crosses the line or is touched. You cannot do that from behind the line.

I’ve ended up inside the field of play getting out of the way of a ball like last night, a football doesn’t always bounce the way you expect, sh*t happens.

Maybe but will it affect the depth perception that much if you're a fraction behind the line? Or stand right back to view the posts. But yeah given the angle one of those odd ones.

 

[eddiesmith]

Maybe but will it affect the depth perception that much if you're a fraction behind the line? Or stand right back to view the posts. But yeah given the angle one of those odd ones.

It does, because it happens so quickly, you’re watching the ball so if you’re dead level with the line you know if it’s over.

I remember one from the early days, Pies v Roos, Collingwood kicked a goal, goal umpire said touched. Harvey was so slow to take the kick in the reviewer had a chance to review and stopped play.

Replay showed ball touched over the line, but was dead in line with the goal umpire who was behind the line, hence his incorrect call

 

[Big Bryza]

100% correct decision, learn the rules

Haha you're taking the piss. Not meant to overturn a decision that a goal umpire gives without conclusive evidence. It was a goal and should have been paid a goal every day of the week, for any team in the comp as well mind you. Disgraceful decision.

 

[jjsmitty8]

Seemingly unpopular opinion: I’m not outraged by the call. If the goal umpire said “I think it’s a goal”, then yes there needs to be conclusive evidence to overturn or else it’s umpires call and therefore a goal. Review person obviously felt like they had the evidence to support overturning it, therefore they did. I don’t think there’s any conclusive way you can absolutely guarantee it would’ve hit the post, but in my opinion I thought it would’ve, hence my low level of outrage.

Be kind, don’t hurt me..

 

[eddiesmith]

Lol, given how blind some people are, perhaps we should go back to the good old days and if it hits the goal umpire it’s play on. So Collingwood wouldn’t have got anything last night, prefer that?

 

[eddiesmith]

I'm referring to the picture you think is proof. Dumbest proof I've ever seen.

Not as dumb as acting as if the ball is coming in from the opposite pocket to where he actually kicked it!

 

[sr36]

Not as dumb as acting as if the ball is coming in from the opposite pocket to where he actually kicked it!

That would be similarly stupid, but nobody is doing that. So we're just left with your example of dumb proof.

 

[sr36]

Seemingly unpopular opinion: I’m not outraged by the call. If the goal umpire said “I think it’s a goal”, then yes there needs to be conclusive evidence to overturn or else it’s umpires call and therefore a goal. Review person obviously felt like they had the evidence to support overturning it, therefore they did. I don’t think there’s any conclusive way you can absolutely guarantee it would’ve hit the post, but in my opinion I thought it would’ve, hence my low level of outrage.

Be kind, don’t hurt me..

No that's fair enough. Could have hit the post. So no real reason for outrage. There's always more blatant errors. But bizarre that the video umpire was so convinced that he overturned the decision. Got to wonder how much training they have around technology, angles, depth perception, etc...

 

[eddiesmith]

That would be similarly stupid, but nobody is doing that. So we're just left with your example of dumb proof.

You’re the one trying to claim the balls going in the opposite direction away from the post...

 

[sr36]

Lol, given how blind some people are, perhaps we should go back to the good old days and if it hits the goal umpire it’s play on. So Collingwood wouldn’t have got anything last night, prefer that?

My view is that unless you use ball tracking like in cricket, camera angles distort and remove depth perception, so you can't tell. I don't think that goal review adds much at all. Except the negative of making people feel that we should always be able to get the correct decision, which we can't do because we don't use good enough technology. Like with all umpiring, errors are a part of the game. Get on with it, without the farce of the review system.

 

[sr36]

You’re the one trying to claim the balls going in the opposite direction away from the post...

No I'm not. May have hit the post. May not have. In that footage you can't even be sure exactly where the ball lands, because it's obscured by the feet of the Essendon player, so you can't work out the angle it was coming in and you also can't work out exactly when and where it hit the umpire or how much more the ball would have rotated and thus it's shape as it either clipped or missed the post. Basically, you just can't be particularly confident either way.

 

[sr36]

They stand on the line so they can tell when the ball crosses the line or is touched. You cannot do that from behind the line.

What I don't get is that the umpire has to be on the line to tell, but you think you can tell from a camera that isn't on the line?

 

[Finn Jim]

I personally think they should add at least 2 cameras at the midway up or higher on the goal post, looking down at the goal line. The goal line would be superimposed on the camera image, opaque, so that the image of the ball would appear on one side or the other. The current post-mounted cameras are fine but why not more?

On the other hand, get rid of all the goal related cameras, give us one nameless goal umpire to hate right or wrong, (and give him his coat, tie and hat back; moustache optional) and ditch the review process altogether.

 

[eddiesmith]

What I don't get is that the umpire has to be on the line to tell, but you think you can tell from a camera that isn't on the line?

Because the umpire is making a split second decision so being in the best position allows them to make the right decision. If you’re still and level with the line you know if the ball is touched in front of you or behind you. If they are not on the line they are having to look at the ball and the surroundings to make that decision.

Replays are slowed down, paused, zoomed etc and can use multiple reference points to make the correct call.

 

[Captivating]

I think you need conclusive proof that it‘s a. goal to award a goal. Any doubt, even if the goal uMoore thinks it’s a goal isn’t enough to award a goal.

 

[pablo disco bar]

Could only happen to collingwood