Goal reviews

RobbieGray17

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 19, 2007
10,705
5,191
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
They got the Richmond - Higgins goal wrong. I can't understand how they overruled the umpires call on this one. The AFL have invested very little in terms of technology and it's extremely poor. This particular incident showed how fundamentally flawed the technology is. If the camera is mounted in the middle of the goal post, including padding then the angle between the camera and the ball will result in a margin of error dependent on the distance between the camera and the ball.

What options do we have to solve this issue?

My suggestion is to have a high speed camera system mounted behind each point post aligned with the padding of the goals. This would be much more accurate than the current inadequate system at present. When we see the reviews there is often at least 5-10cm in change between frames.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Carlos Danger

Club Legend
Sep 9, 2016
1,969
2,457
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Stop reviewing touched balls from 15+ meters out from goal, plenty of marks are paid from touched balls & we just have to live with the umpires call.
The cameras can't pick it up properly most of the time anyway. That would rule out a tonne of questionable reviews.

They also need to use umpires call a lot more. Dont overturn unless it's obviously wrong.
 

FrakturedHalo

The Voice of Reason
May 6, 2017
428
491
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Have to make up their quota of at least two dodgy and questionable reviews per round to meet their strategic kpi for viewer experience-suspense set by the broadcasters. Next season the goal reviews will be 150% longer to facilitate Sportsbet odds flashing across the bottom of the tv screen calling for bets on which way the review is going to go
 

Ron The Bear

Heartbreakers, with your 44
Jul 4, 2006
28,857
26,441
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Richmond on the end of yet another dodgy decision by the third umpires.

Something smells rotten.
I'm sick to death of rulings that seemingly fly in the face of the video "evidence". Are other clubs having controversial rulings consistently go against them?

I strongly suspect the problem is not with the system itself, but with the reviewers. Time to name these mysterious video referees and have them explain their decisions to the public.
 

mehow2g

Premiership Player
Apr 12, 2009
3,888
1,959
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Have to make up their quota of at least two dodgy and questionable reviews per round to meet their strategic kpi for viewer experience-suspense set by the broadcasters. Next season the goal reviews will be 150% longer to facilitate Sportsbet odds flashing across the bottom of the tv screen calling for bets on which way the review is going to go
Pretty much, It's all drama, excitement and entertainment and stars.

The writing is on the wall where this game is heading, there are AFL driven articles letting us to "get to know" the umpires like their our mates... The commentary even calls them by Nickname and jokes about their character.
 

Aramis

Premiership Player
Jul 31, 2016
3,715
7,589
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Invest the money you tight asses... this isn't something you that can be done half cooked. Its honestly farcical as it stands....
Sick of seeing match highlights and its 90% reviewed decisions... absolutely f***ing over it.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RobbieGray17

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 19, 2007
10,705
5,191
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
This is definitely an embarrassment given that the AFL looked into it in 2014, and decided the money could be spent better in other areas of our game. They use technology that is inadequate to overrule correct umpires calls. This is a farce and I bloody hope people in the media read these forums and take this to the AFL, because its time to make our game great again.

1. The frame rates, I assume are at 30 frames per second are inadequate to make sound calls, particularly given the blurred frames.
2. The angle of which I have calculated to be 11.65 degrees from the centre point of the goal post to the centre of the goal line. (3.2m, 0.66m from centre point of goal post to outer point of padding, assuming the padding is minimum 35mm). Therefore, it is not possible to accurately identify when the ball has crossed the line. Obviously, the greater the angle the greater the difficulty in determining the crossover point. Ideally, the camera should be in the precise line of the outermost point of the padding. I'm not sure what that equates to in terms of distance in mm for a margin of error.
3. Lens distortion - We have poor technology with obvious lens distortion as you can see in the images, and I suspect it is not 50mm.

We have a series of technical aspects associated with the technology and I suspect that the person sitting in the box does NOT have the technical qualifications to accurately make a sound judgement call on decisions. This is evident in the Jack Higgins goal reversal.
 

RobbieGray17

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 19, 2007
10,705
5,191
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Steve Hocking has come out today to back the technology saying that the Higgins decision was correct - it was touched.

I suggest Mr Hocking should head to his local Specsavers or OPSM, because something is not right with his vision.
What a ******* idiot. I was watching a goal replay today and given the issues I have raised I wasn't confident of the technology.
 

Dazzler10

Premiership Player
Apr 30, 2015
3,762
8,684
Te Fiti
AFL Club
West Coast
Had an interesting scenario in the Eagles Hawks clash today. Thankfully the right outcome was reached but the process could've seen it go pear-shaped.

* Isaac Smith shoots from the fifty after the siren. Gets touched on the line and lands back on the field of play.
* Goal ump thinks it did NOT cross the line, but wants a review.
* Confers with field ump. Field ump lets him know that where the ball goes back in play, the protocol does not allow for a review. So he asks him to make a decision. i.e. call it as a goal.
* Review is clear. The ball did not cross the line. Correct decision.

The issue is, the goal umpire was forced into making his "soft call" a goal, in order for it to be reviewed. If the video evidence had been inconclusive, the soft call (in this case a goal) stands. Even though the goal umpire didn't actually think it was a goal.
 

RobbieGray17

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 19, 2007
10,705
5,191
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Had an interesting scenario in the Eagles Hawks clash today. Thankfully the right outcome was reached but the process could've seen it go pear-shaped.

* Isaac Smith shoots from the fifty after the siren. Gets touched on the line and lands back on the field of play.
* Goal ump thinks it did NOT cross the line, but wants a review.
* Confers with field ump. Field ump lets him know that where the ball goes back in play, the protocol does not allow for a review. So he asks him to make a decision. i.e. call it as a goal.
* Review is clear. The ball did not cross the line. Correct decision.

The issue is, the goal umpire was forced into making his "soft call" a goal, in order for it to be reviewed. If the video evidence had been inconclusive, the soft call (in this case a goal) stands. Even though the goal umpire didn't actually think it was a goal.
Yep, the system is f’ed. But the Boss said he's going to explain the Higgins goal and why it was right. They've lost all credibility.
 

Tex9798

Team Captain
Sep 25, 2016
404
576
AFL Club
Adelaide
Steve Hocking has come out today to back the technology saying that the Higgins decision was correct - it was touched.

I suggest Mr Hocking should head to his local Specsavers or OPSM, because something is not right with his vision.
I think he is right, you need to use the far goal post vision.

For starters it's a wide angle camera so they have a larger field of vision that means that objects close to the camera can be distorted.

What needed to be shown on TV was both goal post cams synced up, if they did that you may see from the far cam the exact time it was touched and it may have been before it passed the post.

That said I think the goal review system in general is poor.

Sometimes they have clear HD footage of a touch, other times it's footage from a potato and is blurry as.
 

wagstaff

Premiership Player
Nov 28, 2001
4,940
2,596
The Sea of Holes
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Melbourne Stars, Arsenal
So stupid by Hocking to try and justify the decision because of ‘secret footage’ the public can’t see.

At a guess he knew his decision to limit time taken on goal reviews probably led to this rushed and misguided decision and he was trying to protect himself.
 

wagstaff

Premiership Player
Nov 28, 2001
4,940
2,596
The Sea of Holes
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Melbourne Stars, Arsenal
As an aside, it irks me no end how footy media types say this system was brought in to ‘get rid of the howler’:

Systems like this never work like that as you’re going to use it on lineball situations like this and unless the system is expertly managed, you’re going to have lots of controversies like this.

Same thing happened in cricket with DRS and dolts were saying it was supposed to get rid of blatantly wrong decisions. Totally wrong; only exception is tennis where it’s very clear cut but this is much more difficult.
 

tony__montana

Club Legend
Jan 25, 2018
2,277
6,624
AFL Club
Richmond
How about we just use it for the absolute howlers like it was originally intended (like the Tom Hawkins goal when it clearly hit the post). I couldn't care less if a player got a fingernail to the ball, if it didn't deflect the ball in anyway it isn't "touched"

spot on!
 

tony__montana

Club Legend
Jan 25, 2018
2,277
6,624
AFL Club
Richmond
"The Richmond Football Club has had score reviews in its games in the first part of the season that the AFL acknowledges were not performed to the expected standard."

- Garry Hocking

Thank you Garry. Now, about that -62 free kick differential...

wow, thats a pretty big deal for them to come out and publicly state that. About friggin time too, has been shambolic
 

Ron The Bear

Heartbreakers, with your 44
Jul 4, 2006
28,857
26,441
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
wow, thats a pretty big deal for them to come out and publicly state that. About friggin time too, has been shambolic
Reckon we've got about half a dozen admissions of mistakes from the AFL in Dimma's time, as well as a number of denials that didn't wash.

Are these video guys actually umpires? Or are they part-time footy fans who might be letting biases interfere with their decisions?
 
Top Bottom