Krak's Controversial Goal Disallowance

[Territory Magpie]

I was appalled by the video review decision to overturn Krak's goal (what was to be our first of the night, before it was disallowed). The goal was given, goal umpire and boundary umpire were on the spot maybe 3 m away from the ball, so had a clear view. All clear given, ball back in the centre for the next bounce, when video umpire (Gieschen I think), intervenes and calls for the video review.

Vid review is inconclusive; ball looked maybe over the line from 1 angle, but you had to assume that because the goal post obscures the ball. From the overhead angle, not all of the ball appeared to cross the line, therefore "play on", therefor Krak's goal should stand. You could also hear the field umpire say the boundary umpire thought the ball didn't cross the line.
To review it under those circumstances, and then for Giesch to announce deadpan "Conclusively over the line, give it a behind" left me absolutely flabbergasted. Do these blokes blatantly cheat against us, or is it another case of the umpire saying "look at me, I'm making a controversial call"??

 

[TheWoodsOf72]

Absolutely. They gave the 'all clear' It's only video if they are unsure. What happened tonight was disgraceful

 

[Beary17]

I was frustrated, but if it went through the correct channels for reviewing it then there's no point complaining.

 

[Adz]

Was a disgrace. Sets a precident for changing scores at half time etc.

 

[Pera]

My only gripe with the video review is when the umpire looks at the replay on the scoreboard and then decides to review it. All the players have returned to the middle of the ground, the umpire has given the all clear and the ball then has to return 100m's backwards if it is overturned. Once the all clear is given, the decision should stand. If there ever is doubt, go to the review system but dont wait until the ball is about to be bounced in the middle to restart play.

 

[MeisterBot]

My only gripe with the video review is when the umpire looks at the replay on the scoreboard and then decides to review it. All the players have returned to the middle of the ground, the umpire has given the all clear and the ball then has to return 100m's backwards if it is overturned. Once the all clear is given, the decision should stand. If there ever is doubt, go to the review system but dont wait until the ball is about to be bounced in the middle to restart play.

This.

The actual decision didn't bother me, it's that they initially gave it the okay (asking the boundary ump and all) and awarded it the goal, THEN changed their minds as everyone was moving back into the middle.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I thought the video referee was purely a resource that the umpires could call upon if needed?

Given that the goal, boundary and field umpires were happy with the decision, then quite frankly the central umpire should have told the video umpire to f'' off, and bounced the ball in the middle.

 

[Yonchi]

Compared with close up binocular vision (i.e. an umpire) a video camera view is partially compromised because of the angulation of the shot - the ball can appear out even if it's not. There should be a guidelines in place to make allowances for the inaccuracy of video technology. Given the vast knowledge regarding inaccuracies in video perception this call was behind the times

 

[Swooop]

Given that the rules say to overturn the original decision you have to be conclusive ( or words to that effect)
then it was a mistake to overturn it, because it wasn't conclusive, it was just suggestive.

I didn't actually mind that they reviewed it, I'm all for getting as many decisions as right as possible.

It's just they didn't follow their own rules.

 

[Territory Magpie]

What if Krak's shot had been smothered and the Eagles' defence had cleared the ball down the ground? No video review, that's what! how is that consistent or fair. The AFL and its officials just make it up as they go along, fair dinkum!

 

[Go_Brad_Dick]

What if Krak's shot had been smothered and the Eagles' defence had cleared the ball down the ground? No video review, that's what! how is that consistent or fair. The AFL and its officials just make it up as they go along, fair dinkum!

Good point! the video review is to check if a ball is a goal or not, not to go back in play to a line call.
disrgraceful decision and thank god it didnt cost the match or there would have been riots

 

[Smokeyr67]

I'm happy that it was a behind, but it pissed me off that it took so long to decide.

 

[PieNSauce]

If the truth be known I actually reckon the final result was probably correct but that isn't the point. There is a precedent set here that the AFL will now have to deal with because the rules are very clear in stating that unless the replay is 100% conclusive the original decision must stand. There is no way on god's earth that anyone with both eyes open could be 100% sure. You cannot overturn an umpiring decision on the balance of probability because that's not the way the rules are framed. In the end it's just a technicality but you would have to think that whoever made that call needs a serious please explain!

 

[jimmy35]

Yeah I think it was a point anyway but dont agree with that process and the outcome.

 

[carnthepies19]

Something which I noticed watching the replay was that the clock wasn't turned back or stopped while that drama was going on. Pretty poor decision IMO. I think once the umpire has waved the flags then that decision should be final. There is time before the umpire does so that an umpire can request a review.

If the bloke up in the stands requests a review I don't think that's fair. There were 2 umpires less than 3 meters away, if they both couldn't see that, then they don't deserve to be out there in a critical finals match.

 

[September Action]

It was a point. Put yourself in WC's shoes and ask yourself how pissed you would have been if the goal had stood and you lost by a point.

Move on.

 

[rose jam]

It was a point. Put yourself in WC's shoes and ask yourself how pissed you would have been if the goal had stood and you lost by a point.

Move on.

I don't think it was a score. That one angle about 45 degrees where you see Goldsack's hands it looks like the ball is still on the line.

Process was meant to be at umpires referall and they were certain it was play on. WTF triggred them to go to the replay? They retty much stopped using the video referal about 2 months ago and now pull one out of their poopers

 

[76woodenspooners]

What if Krak's shot had been smothered and the Eagles' defence had cleared the ball down the ground? No video review, that's what! how is that consistent or fair. The AFL and its officials just make it up as they go along, fair dinkum!

That's a very good point. What if 30 seconds of play had elapsed between the incident and Krak's goal? 10 seconds? 60 seconds? At what point do the umpires let it go?

 

[Daics35Marvel]

Can anyone show me a screen grab where you can see green grass between the line and the ball? Every shot I saw, there was never a gap between the line and the ball, therefore play on, the goal should have stood.

The AFL are amateurs at video technology. It is beyond a joke how many wrong decisions have been made this year with the review system.

 

[76woodenspooners]

There are probably a dozen line-ball decisions that lead to a goal being scored or not being scored during a game.

It might be the umpire giving or not giving a player-holding or chopping free kick to a Full Forward. It might be the umpire deciding to ping a player for holding the ball or not in a forward 50 scrum situation. It might be the umpire giving a free kick to one team or the other when a player ducks into a tackle.

During a game we win some and we lose some. The opposition win some and the opposition lose some. You just hope that in the end it all balances out.

There's no reason to get precious about calls like that.

The video umpire should not have intervened.

 

[76woodenspooners]

What would have happened if Goldsack's collect had occurred 5 meters away, along the boundary line?

Would it have been reviewed then? Obviously not.

The video umpire should not have intervened.

 

[Territory Magpie]

There are probably a dozen line-ball decisions that lead to a goal being scored or not being scored during a game.

It might be the umpire giving or not giving a player-holding or chopping free kick to a Full Forward. It might be the umpire deciding to ping a player for holding the ball or not in a forward 50 scrum situation. It might be the umpire giving a free kick to one team or the other when a player ducks into a tackle.

During a game we win some and we lose some. The opposition win some and the opposition lose some. You just hope that in the end it all balances out.

There's no reason to get precious about calls like that.

The video umpire should not have intervened.

Yes, but this just means that our game, which is already way too subjective, ets injected with yet another "grey" area open to individual umpires' interpretation. Our game's administrators are amateurish.

 

[pies1958]

For me, by the time this happened the Eagles had already been given the blind favour of the umps and a handy lead and we were all pretty pissed off. To deny our first goal in a last chance final was petty shocking and looks like the umps were trying to create drama. It was groundhog day for us as the first quarter was just like the first quarter against the hawks (and the Bulldogs game earlier in the year. Schmitt umpired that one too).

 

[Tippy78]

Yet another disappointing result in the video referee saga.
I'm against the whole principle of the video referral system. Errors are made by every person on the ground throughout a match and we just need to accept they happen, argue about them with people through the week and keep the game going. The resounding boos that occur at the ground during almost every review indicate to me that the supporters don't like the long delays.

Also, why don't they review all marking contests inside 50? Why is an umpiring mistake that results in a goal any different to a goal umpiring mistake that results in a goal? West Coasts first (or was it second) goal looked like a blatant hands in the back. Why wasn't it reviewed?

 

[Didak_attack]

I haven't had a real proper look at it to make a decision but here is a hypothetical.

Say it did in fact cross for a point

If we didn't kick a goal afterwards, and west coast had of just cleared it, would the score of been reviewed and us correctly awarded our point? Not a chance and we would of been robbed of a point (which in finals who knows how important even and solitary point could be. It was only referred once all the players were back in the center and was due to a mixture of the big screen and crowd noise that the umpire noticed it.