Goal reviews

Rob

Brownlow Medallist
Nov 8, 2000
27,537
13,181
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
I’ve been puzzling over that one since yesterday. Umpire calls it a goal. Absolutely no evidence to show it was touched on the video that we saw. How on earth does a guy in a room take nearly a minute to make a howler like that. To overturn a decision made onfield no less. Isn’t the reviewer only meant to overturn when there is conclusive evidence?
That one can be put down to 'idiot reviewer'. We had a few of those a couple of years ago.

Whateley's hysterical ramblings about scrapping the whole system should be ignored, simply on the basis that a hell of a lot more wrong calls would have been made if the system (as it currently stands) didn't exist.

Up until this call where a correct on field decision was overturned, all the controversial decisions this year have been a wrong call on field that hasn't been overturned. There was a score review on Saturday where the umpire's call was touched, yet in reality the ball was a foot over the line. Get rid of the review system and we'd be talking a lot more about umpire howlers.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Diverbelow

Rookie
Mar 4, 2016
38
32
AFL Club
Fremantle
The review should stay but for God's sake if 2 million viewers can see the correct result then surely an experienced reviewer can also. On saturday in the freo v port game the goal umpire was knocked over and because she couldnt see the ball she called touched and asked for a review. If the review system was scrapped that touched call would stand even though the ball was clearly a foot over the line.
 

Ricmel

Premiership Player
Jul 13, 2009
4,702
2,808
AFL Club
St Kilda
Why not get rid of the problem altogether?

Any ball that goes through the goal posts is a goal - whether it shaves the post or is touched by the opposition. Every other ball game that involves "goals" follows this rule - soccer, rugby, gridiron, hockey etc.

It would not change the fabric of the game, players would still try to smother, punch the ball out from goal etc etc. No team gets unfair advantage because obviously same rule for everyone and 99% of adjudications are taken away.
 

Wallaby

Norm Smith Medallist
May 8, 2007
8,447
9,157
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
Why not get rid of the problem altogether?

Any ball that goes through the goal posts is a goal - whether it shaves the post or is touched by the opposition. Every other ball game that involves "goals" follows this rule - soccer, rugby, gridiron, hockey etc.

It would not change the fabric of the game, players would still try to smother, punch the ball out from goal etc etc. No team gets unfair advantage because obviously same rule for everyone and 99% of adjudications are taken away.

Well, no. Every sport has rules about how a goal, try or whatever is scored. Sure, in soccer, the ball can trickle over the line of almost any part of the body - except the hand and arm. In both rugbys, the ball must be 'grounded' - and if you have watched any NRL this year, you have seen plenty of controversies there. NFL has complicated rules - the ball must cross into the 'box' of the in-goal area, but it must be under control of an offensive player (although that player does not need to be in the in-goal area - just the ball - except if the player is out of play. The ball can actually be caught when outside the box (across the sideline), provided the player is in the in-goal area. It's complicated. And they have controversies with video decisions.
Ice - hockey - yeah, you can basically swallow the puck and s**t it into the goal, and it will be paid. Pretty much no rules. Hit it, kick it, throw it. No one wants to go that far.

Australian rules is easy. If the ball goes through the goal (without touching the post) - last touch has to be an attacking player's foot. Anything else - it's a point. Australian Rules has the greatest use of kicking skills of any football, and so it makes sense that a goal should be dependent on the kicking skill.

We probably used to get 85-90% of goalpost/touched decisions right. When we got decent TV replays, we could see a lot of the ones that were wrong. We probably now get 95-97% right. So, overall it's better. The problem is - back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, we had no way of assessing those decisions better than the umpires - because the video technology was too poor. Now that it is better, and generally, demonstrable better than the umpires regarding the close ones, it still doesn't mean that it can get ALL decisions right. But because we can use video to overrule umpires SOMETIMES, there is an expectation that video replay can get 100% right.

TL,DR version. Leave the rules alone.
 
Top Bottom