Goal reviews

[Rob]

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.

 

[Diverbelow]

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]

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]

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.

 

[kosifantutti]

Today’s howler.
Mihocek kicks a goal and the goal umpire wants to be sure it wasn’t touched. The first replays showed no conclusive touch but another angle was found which showed the balll clearly being touched. A behind was subsequently paid.

One problem, it was a replay of another kick! This was the previous kick by Roughead that deflected towards Mihocek.

Just get rid of the goal reviews.

 

[Aussie Assault]

Today’s howler.
Mihocek kicks a goal and the goal umpire wants to be sure it wasn’t touched. The first replays showed no conclusive touch but another angle was found which showed the balll clearly being touched. A behind was subsequently paid.

One problem, it was a replay of another kick! This was the previous kick by Roughead that deflected towards Mihocek.

Just get rid of the goal reviews.

How could they watch the review and legit think it's the same kick after the first inconclusive angles? The ball goes right angles. Mind boggling.

 

[Captivating]

AFL pushing the line that it was touched off the arm

Get Stuffed

 

[Captivating]

Nothing on the AFL website about the event.

Corrupt

 

[Tap Tap Tapperoo]

AFL pushing the line that it was touched off the arm

Get Stuffed

That was actually hilarious. Typical AFL trying to spin it to justify their stuff ups. Poor old Huddo had obviously got the call from the man upstairs to deliver it.

 

[Captivating]

That was actually hilarious. Typical AFL trying to spin it to justify their stuff ups. Poor old Huddo had obviously got the call from the man upstairs to deliver it.

Yep, took the AFL 2 and half quarters to concoct a bullshit excuse.

They really think the average supporter is a moron.

 

[jatz14]

The use of the word Corrupt on BF is an indication of the problems lots of people have with basic language skills.

 

[Captivating]

The use of the word Corrupt on BF is an indication of the problems lots of people have with basic language skills.

Please explain Sir Genius

 

[FRUMPY]

AFL pushing the line that it was touched off the arm

Get Stuffed

Was this early first quarter and Brayshaw touched it? Mmm called it as touched off the arm instantly

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

 

[Libba39]

Can anyone be kind enough to explain how Suckling could kick a goal from 60 out (powerful enough to clear goal line defenders) and then have it reviewed as touched when their was no conclusive evidence (fingers going back etc). I'm baffled.

 

[kickazz]

If the AFL came out and said they were no longer reviewing touched off the boot scenarios, instead relying on the field / goal umpires call, I honestly don't think anyone would mind. In fact, most people would prefer this.

If you only get a slight finger on it that is not noticed, stiff s**t, it deserves to be a goal.