Petition - Remove the score review system

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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.

So 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?

 

[Wojcinski]

Richmond fans are so mad about two correct goal reviews that ended in behinds wanting the rules changed to accommodate them? lol.

 

[GastevsBeard]

Dunno why if there is ambiguity it doesn't defer to the goal umpires call

There have been 6-7 cases this year where a goal was called, the ball was returned to the centre, then after some mysterious forensic analysis behind closed doors, the goal was over-ruled

Unless you can clearly see a finger bend or some other obvious evidence, go with the umpires call

 

[Dunger]

Back the goal umpires in and scrap the tech.

The umps call is the correct call whether or not it is actually correct. To get it 100% right they need high def and multiple high speed cameras at various angles, the whole point of the goal review system is to get it 100% right but they still can't seem to get it right all the time.

Sometimes you need the camera aimed onto the field to see if a ball was touched, sometimes you need it on the goal line. You can't reasonably cover all that without having cameras absolutely everywhere.

 

[Upgrayedd]

When it came in first i liked it. Was to eliminate absolute howlers.

However we've got this situation where they didnt Review a howler in Tmitch's goal, It's starting to make umpires rely on it then rather then backing themselves in on the call, the "Im pretty sure but" crap is horse-s**t. absolutely you dont want to see more then 1 review per game. Not this s**t where in the richmond v freo game they are about to bounce it, everyone pauses, then they bring it back and over-rule it as a point because they check everything

It's not engaging as a fan if your going to use it 6 times a game

 

[flamethrower]

The problem with the current system is that the technology isn't good enough to judge whether a ball has defintely been touched off the boot, when using 2D cameras positioned 100s of metres away.

The Hartung goal is a prime case - the vision from ONE camera suggests the ball was touched, but without a 2nd camera view it really is only a guess.
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.

Using 2D pictures to represent a 3D world causes optical illusions - until this can be fixed, using the video review system will be inherently flawed.

 

[MattyB_76]

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.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

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.

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.
Supporters will always believe they've been robbed, it's part of the rich tapestry of the game.

 

[david addison]

I like the video review. It gives me a chance to go and grab a coffee. Sometimes I take a crossword puzzle to fill in the time. I reckon the whole game could be umpired by video. All we need is one umpire. He can sit on the sidelines, watch the game on a monitor, and use a megaphone to call out a free kick. A ball machine can toss it in from the boundary, and a little remote control robot can scoot inside play to toss it up. I'm serious about this. It'll eliminate backchat, because players won't bother debating a free kick with a robot. The crowd won't bother booing either.

And another thing - this Hartung goal. The big issue should have been the non-decision for 'in the back'. I'm sick of it not being paid this year. Instead the media hijacked the conversation, as they always do, because the score review system is a hot button issue.

 

[Scanlens Man]

The score review system was brought in to quickly reverse obvious mistakes.

Right now they are trying to be too precise with a system that is not particularly precise, and its starting to look like guess work.

Time to ignore the players calling for a review whilst nursing a sore finger, and just let the umpires do the job they are paid for.

 

[FlyHigh18]

Hear 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?

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

 

[TiggyTig]

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

Where did I say any of those things?

 

[TiggyTig]

So 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?

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

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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

Bullshit theres many variations on the two. More impossible to adjudicate than the current system.

Tell me your new touched rule wont be a problem.

 

[D-N-R]

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.

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.

I think having an appeal system would be beneficial in many ways to the current system.

Firstly, it would allow goal umpires to go back to making decisions in the moment. Goal review was brought in to account for the 'one or two' glaring errors (like the poster in the GF) that were missed in a year. Now it is used 2 or 3 times a game as the goal umpires err on the side of caution. This slows the game down unnecessarily.

Put the decision in the hands of the players and let the umpire make a call like they used to. If a player thinks they've touched the ball but the goal is given then they should appeal the decision. If they haven't touched it and aren't appealing the decision, there is zero reason to review the goal. A goal in the Richmond vs Freo game was overturned after it was 'touched' by Sandilands, even though Sandilands didn't appeal - and players are pretty honest about whether they have or haven't touched the ball.

Herne Hill, I'm not sure about what you mean about 'corrupting goal umpires'. Perhaps you mean that players would try and sway their opinion by appealing?

Anyway, the mechanism for an appeal should be that appeals are made to the field umpire, not the goal umpires and that the appeals are made before the flags are waved or even before the umpire has signalled (although that might be too quick). Frank, 10 seconds is too long, IMO. I think most genuine appeals would happen immediately anyway.

With regards to deliberate time wasting, which is a valid point, one or two appeals would be sufficient per game. Even one would be enough if the players kept their appeal for a successful challenge and it might be enough to discourage time-wasting tactics. If players have a limited number of appeals, they won't blow them early and if they make a frivolous appeal against something that was clearly a goal or clearly touched, then the review should clear it up very quickly, negating any time wasting. Decisions that have inconclusive vision should count as failed appeals and the original umpire's decision stands.

Regardless of which system they use, the quality of vision, the number of cameras and the speed of the reviews has to be improved greatly.

 

[Doggiesfan14]

Do the afl score reviewers actually review each goal before the bounce as they claim to do? I've seen many incidents over the past couple of years where players are adamant that they have touched the ball and even set up the zone for the kick in only to then see the ball bounced. I know players claim they do all the time but I find it hard to believe 'touched' decisions can be decided within 30 seconds compared to the time it takes when the umps officially call for a goal review.

 

[RobbieGray17]

You really think the AFL is that advanced? Have a look at the quality of the vision we generally get for the reviews. I'd suggest to you that the AFL is spending as little as it has to.

 

[Bucking Bronco]

The AFL opened up a can of worms by introducing it.

They can't rescind it now that everyone knows how often goals kicked out of packs and stuff have the tips of opposition players touching them.

The whole fingertip touching the ball in a slow-mo replay is just ridiculous. Why does it matter. There are so many kicks that go into the forward 50 that have an opposition player's finger tips touching it and the ball is paid a mark, and ultimately put through for a goal. There are many, many marks each week in the forward 50 where the defender gets an actual hand or part of his arm on the ball as the ball is being contested and it's disregarded and paid a mark. If they were to start reviewing those two scenarios the game would be slowed down to an unbearable bureaucratic crawl, but the reality is that they are absolutely no different and it is just a case of indirect touch in the one possession preceding the goal, or a direct touch on the shot on goal.

The anti climax of an amazing goal being kicked or of a resurging team kicking a consecutive goal(s) only for the score review to unnecessarily go "oh, nope, let's just absolutely kill the moment so we can check if anyone's thumb touched the ball" is an absolute blight on the game

As I said, why review the goals kicked, when there are copious marks inside 50 that come from touched kicks, and marks taken when defenders clearly touched the ball in the contest with the forward as the ball is juggled. Massive overreaction to the Geelong poster in the Grand Final which started it all, the score review does not work effectively like Hawk Eye in tennis, it is shithouse and convolutes the game even more.

Just back the goal umpires in, they barely ever used to get one wrong, would rather have the occasional wrong call once a round or two, rather than being bogged down in 8 nonsensical score reviews each game, which are not infallible themselves and lead to numerous incorrect calls anyway.

 

[javaguice]

Get rid of it. If it goes through then let it stand.

If u get the slightest finger nail to it and it doesn't affect the kick then fork it

 

[kosifantutti]

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 was one of those that “clearly flicked the finger”.

You have to wonder how many goals have been overturned on that sort of evidence, with no additional view to confirm or deny?

 

[eaglesfan84]

Hardwick slamming the system. ..
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...deplorable-says-hardwick-20180526-p4zhni.html

 

[eaglesfan84]

And the AFL finally concedes it needs some tweaking, wow
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-27/tigers-goal-review-call-wrong-afl

 

[The Joker]

And the AFL finally concedes it needs some tweaking, wow
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-27/tigers-goal-review-call-wrong-afl

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?

 

[kosifantutti]

This is for The AFL and Dimma.

View attachment 503964

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?

Hocking yesterday

When asked if Richmond was robbed of a goal in its win over the Saints, Hocking said: "No, they weren't. If you're looking at what you've seen, it's a different angle. We'll clear that up during the week."

Hocking today

Football operations manager Steve Hocking on Monday said the score review had erred in overturning the original call of a goal, as there had not been sufficient evidence to rule it a behind.

 

[Underarm]

This is for The AFL and Dimma.

View attachment 503964

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?

1. Goal umpire standing in the right position should be able to make the correct call. And guess what - They did!
2. If the goal camera isn't at the very back of the post (I.e the actual line) then using it adds to the confusion and is completely useless.
3. If the reviewer is seeing different angles than we are at the ground, then we would be better off seeing nothing.