So wheres the difference between the ball it scraping a finger and getting punched through on the line?never said that at all.. ball needs to be kicked thru but if it scrapes a finger or shades the post don’t see why that needs to affect the decision.
That sort of thinking led the NRL into the "bunker" though and it 's become way toobig a part of the game. It 's footy and I dont think we need to feed publicity to umpiriing decisions, which is what it does.Here's a novel concept ... invest some more money in better cameras and people to review the video. Standardise it across the grounds. If teams are playing at a 'non-regular' ground, then move cameras from a ground not being used that week.
8 super slow-mo cameras per ground. 2 on goal line at each end, 2 on field of play, or something like that. Get a more powerful system that can process the images faster. Get 2-3 people in the room each time so you can review them quicker.
If we're gonna involve technology in the game, we have the money to do it properly. It's a billion dollar industry, the #1 sport in the country. Let's start acting like it.
Right... so we get 8 of our biggest players and run the ball through the goal or into the post? Why not introduce a touch down for 12 points while we're at itHear me out for a minute.
How about we scrap goal umpires and score reviews and just have it so if the ball is kicked thru for a goal doesn’t matter if it’s touchhed or hits the post. Eliminates a whole heap of bullshit and whinging and brings it in line with every other sport on the planet. Umps can still wave the flags and feel relevant but would improve the spectacle immensely I believe. Thoughts?
Where did I say any of those things?Right... so we get 8 of our biggest players and run the ball through the goal or into the post? Why not introduce a touch down for 12 points while we're at it
Back to basics i say, umpire's call unless it's very very obvious. Keep the dodgy cameras there for big issues like grand final
you said it yourself it would be punched thru and therefore not kicked so no goal. Not that hard to differentiate between the two I would have thoughtSo wheres the difference between the ball it scraping a finger and getting punched through on the line?
Your solution like most solutions just creates more problems than it solves. To fully work, your solution would need to require the ball to not neccessarily be kicked through. Do you really want to intrduce tries to our sport?
Bullshit theres many variations on the two. More impossible to adjudicate than the current system.you said it yourself it would be punched thru and therefore not kicked so no goal. Not that hard to differentiate between the two I would have thought
For people advocating a set amount of challenges per side, this, for me, would really open up the potential to corrupt goal umpires.
Review everything or review nothing.
I think having an appeal system would be beneficial in many ways to the current system.2 unsuccessful challenges per side per game, if the challenge is inconclusive it doesn't get counted as a challenge, same as successful challenges, any player can call for a review within 10 seconds.
This was one of those that “clearly flicked the finger”.The week before in the WB v Carlton game, it seemed that a Toby McLean snap shot goal was touched off the boot, going on vision from one camera (BT went on about it for ages), but a 2nd camera angle clearly showed a large gap between the ball and the Carlton player's hand.
This is for The AFL and Dimma.And the AFL finally concedes it needs some tweaking, wow