Goal reviews

[The Joker]

I put this in the other thread...

This is for The AFL and Dimma.



It's so very basic for two very simple reasons!

Now for a question, if you want to get a veiw of the very back edge of the post/padding, why is the camera placed in the center of the goal post?

 

[RobbieGray17]

I put this in the other thread...

This is for The AFL and Dimma.

View attachment 503969
I worked it out at 11% angle for the Higgins example, but I realized it was probably about 9% for the long view, and would have been +15% for the short side.

It's so very basic for two very simple reasons!

Now for a question, if you want to get a veiw of the very back edge of the post/padding, why is the camera placed in the center of the goal post?

Precisely. This seems to have been ignored. AFL needs to just spend the money and get it done right. There was a goal review on Sunday and I was wondering how much margin of error there was on the vision.

A comprehensive system will come at a cost (2014) at 250k per stadium. That's 2.75 Million for 11 grounds. Expensive, but the current setup is very poor.



Turns out the cameras in the goal posts are about $10K, and I don't remember the resistance, but there seemed to be a challenge getting them implemented.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/ruccis-rip/news-story/c029e3019a967e4a683aa759ce9c7686

 

[Aramis]

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.

Just like the technology itself he decided not to go with Specsavers or OPSM due to the cost, instead he he hit up the local lombards for a pair of wide rimmed geek costume glasses.

Essentially the same logic argued over the necessary technology that is actually required.

 

[Aeons]

"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...

#nofreekickrichmond ....something very very fishy is going on with the umpires fraternity...

 

[Ron The Bear]

According to Damian Barrett, the goal reviewer responsible for denying Higgins' goal has been given the arse by the AFL.

Sounds a bit like the interchange steward who told Richmond it was OK to send Shane Edwards back on at the SCG, then laughed when the umpires proceeded to take the ball off Richmond in the forward pocket and give a goal to Sydney at the other end.

 

[worbod]

Why can't the touched goal be overturned and Collingwood awarded the game retrospectively the same way the result of the St. Kilda vs Freo game in Tassie was overturned in 2006?

 

[The Joker]

Why can't the touched goal be overturned and Collingwood awarded the game retrospectively the same way the result of the St. Kilda vs Freo game in Tassie was overturned in 2006?

I do wonder why...

But let's forget that silly idea and think about this!

Can anyone categorically confirm that Collingwood would have won the game if the goal was correctly overturned halfway through the 3rd quarter?

 

[FrakturedHalo]

I do wonder why...

But let's forget that silly idea and think about this!

Can anyone categorically confirm that Collingwood would have won the game if the goal was correctly overturned halfway through the 3rd quarter?

 

[worbod]

I do wonder why...

But let's forget that silly idea and think about this!

Can anyone categorically confirm that Collingwood would have won the game if the goal was correctly overturned halfway through the 3rd quarter?

Confirm? Why no, dear boy, we can't! You're darn tootin' right.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Stop putting it in the hands of the umpires to make the review call. They should be competent enough to make the fall on field.
If a team feels it is the wrong call, they should have 2-3 challenges per half

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Why can't the touched goal be overturned and Collingwood awarded the game retrospectively the same way the result of the St. Kilda vs Freo game in Tassie was overturned in 2006?

Because the siren had sounded and the scores St. Kilda were awarded happened after that iirc, so shouldn't have counted in the first place

Hence it being referred to as sirengate, not pointsawardedinplaybuttakenoffgate

 

[muzhogg]

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.

I thought the umpire's call was a point?

Anyway, putting that aside, I just wanted to mention a moment of comedy gold thanks to Paddy Dangerfield who, when questioned about the Higgins (non) goal, stated:

"I thought it was a goal but how would you know."

Yeah, how would you know? If only there was some sort of system...

 

[Antzzz]

The video review system is a farce.....the AFL are a complete basket case at the moment

changing rules every 5 minutes on the fly.....a review system that has more holes in it than swiss cheese

there has been a complete change in the correct disposal rule.....they are killing the fundamentals of this great game and that's criminal

AFL hang your heads in shame!!!!!!

 

[rumply]

The league released this statement today:

The AFL advises the score review following a Jack Higgins (Richmond) shot for goal in the second quarter of the Round 12 match between Richmond and the Geelong Cats at the MCG has been assessed.

The available vision showed there was clear and sufficient evidence to overturn the umpire’s call of a behind to a goal, however, the score review official did not review this particular piece of vision.

AFL General Manager, Football Operations - Steve Hocking:

“The score review system was introduced to correct obvious scoring errors.

“In the last fortnight, there have been significant errors made during score reviews that have undermined the confidence of our clubs and the football public in the system.

“The AFL acknowledges that our players, our clubs and our fans are incredibly frustrated by each mistake, and we take full responsibility for them.


“We are committed to ensuring we have the best process and technology available and over the last few months have been examining all possible alternative to improve the score review system.

“We will keep the football public fully informed as we explore avenues to improve the system, such as the potential for a centralised officiating facility covering all venues and matches.

“In the interim we will continue to engage our score review officials, broadcast and technology partners in ensuring the current system operates as effectively as possible.”

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I don’t understand the angst

More decisions are being corrected with technology than before the technology

Even the three decisions in the past week - under the old way - still wouldn’t have been correct

Rather than setting perfection as your benchmark - it should be set at improvement

Issues are mainly when a correct decision gets overturned and becomes incorrect - this happens very rarely

However an incorrect decision remaining incorrect is no worse than it would be without tech

 

[D-N-R]

The AFL statement doesn't really tell the whole truth. The reviewer actually decided the ball did touch the post. It didn't get called inconclusive and as 'umpire's call', it was deemed a point by the reviewer.

 

[D-N-R]

I don’t understand the angst

More decisions are being corrected with technology than before the technology

Even the three decisions in the past week - under the old way - still wouldn’t have been correct

Rather than setting perfection as your benchmark - it should be set at improvement

Issues are mainly when a correct decision gets overturned and becomes incorrect - this happens very rarely

However an incorrect decision remaining incorrect is no worse than it would be without tech

I reckon if you looked at all the reviews, most of the time the Umpires initial decision was the correct call. I wouldn't mind if they just scrapped the review altogether or let players challenge it. I don't understand the point in reviewing a decision to see if it was touched when a defender hasn't even appealed.

 

[Antzzz]

I don’t understand the angst

More decisions are being corrected with technology than before the technology

Even the three decisions in the past week - under the old way - still wouldn’t have been correct

Rather than setting perfection as your benchmark - it should be set at improvement

Issues are mainly when a correct decision gets overturned and becomes incorrect - this happens very rarely

However an incorrect decision remaining incorrect is no worse than it would be without tech

I understand the system is not going to be 100% fool proof....but when they have vision that shows the wrong call has been made and they don't use that vision then its going to cause angst...but we roll on

 

[Aeons]

no

Richmond on the end of yet another dodgy decision by the third umpires.

Something smells rotten.

no apology either. and against the cats as well. could they be kissed on the dick anymore than they already are? something fishy alright...

 

[Aeons]

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?

good point. are they actually trained to perform their role in an impartial way or are they just a bunch of geelol fan bois ? who knows!

 

[Hoops]

Richmond on the end of yet another dodgy decision by the third umpires.

Something smells rotten.

Are you a parody?

 

[Cosmic Energy]

I understand that the goal review was brought in to prevent the howler.

What puzzles me is why a possible slight finger touch on a shot at goal is any more important than a clear missed touch on a kick that ends up as a mark 1 metre out straight in front, or a missed high tackle in the square, or a diving mark paid that was actually grassed 5 metres out, or where a ball was clearly out of bounds, but called play on...anything missed that leads to a goal or costs a shot at goal. Why the obsession with the final kick?

I’m not advocating for checking any of of that, I hate that they check CSI-style for things that people could forgive (slight finger touch, possibly over the line etc - stuff happens). I just don’t quite get why the kick at goal is more worthy of forensic investigation than any preceding play that leads to a goal, or could have prevented a goal, if it was adjudicated correctly.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

I think once you have the technology, you may as well try and get as much right as possible. If it clearly hits a finger on the way through it should be overturned as touched, but if it isn't conclusive it should stay as is.

Really though it's the same as no balls in cricket - they only get checked if a wicket is taken, but missed no balls can be a factor in a close match. But you have to find the balance between getting stuff right and not interrupting the game too much, and at least score reviews can be done while the ball is headed back to the centre.

 

[BigRedRoo]

Ben Brown kicked a goal that two angles showed were untouched yet it was given a point?
Anyone?

 

[Whippet1]

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?