PSA: ARC can now call for reviews 90sec after the event

[SSSSSS]

Just do away with goal umpires, boundary umpires, and maybe even field umpires. Just have people umpiring the game from the stands from now on.

Joe from the Ponsford stand has called it touched off the boot. Decision on the scoreboard.

 

[The_Todd07]

An incorrectly called freekick or mark or similar in the goal square can as well. I don't think we want play stopped a minute later and brought back because of it though

That can happen but it's completely irrelevant when talking about a SCORE REVIEW SYSTEM.

A free can lead to score but it hasn't happened yet so doesn't matter. We are only looking at if a score has or has not happened and what it may be

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

That can happen but it's completely irrelevant when talking about a SCORE REVIEW SYSTEM.

A free can lead to score but it hasn't happened yet so doesn't matter. We are only looking at if a score has or has not happened and what it may be

Read the post i was replying to

 

[The_Todd07]

Read the post i was replying to

I wrote the post you were replying to

 

[The Blue Max]

Greg Swan to address the Media at 3pm today.

My guess is ‘He screwed up, we’ve sacked him, nothing to see here’.

 

[mehow2g]

You wonder how we ever had games of footy before the introduction to the ARC, umpires are just passengers out there at this point everything seems to get reviewed by the ARC no matter what position the umpire is in or how obvious the call is they always go upstairs for the ARC, why even have goal umpires at this point.

shit viewing.

 

[oak79]

You wonder how we ever had games of footy before the introduction to the ARC, umpires are just passengers out there at this point everything seems to get reviewed by the ARC no matter what position the umpire is in or how obvious the call is they always go upstairs for the ARC, why even have goal umpires at this point.

shit viewing.

I'd rather arc didn't exist at all this point. Goal line errors are no less influential that free kick errors that result in the score, yet we accept those errors (yes we argue about them, but people don't want every decision reviewed.

It's simple - once play resumes, no score reviews. Only 2 things should trigger a score review - an umpire onfield requesting it, and a quick check in the 30sec post goal BEFORE play restarts.

Any other mistakes are part of sport.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

North got screwed.

ARC should be used for goals only. Calling the ball back after the umpire has made a decision and play has continued for stupid ‘lasso’ infringements or checking behinds is wrong.

Believe or not 1pt can make a difference in some games

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

I wrote the post you were replying to

haha. Fair point.

Regardless, just because something is a score or not, doesnt mean it is more consequential than other decisions or non-decisions made

 

[Elixuh]

How far back in play can you go? Can we go back to the 2023 grand final and give Zac Bailey

33

Zac Bailey

Age

26

Ht

181cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.7

3star

K

6.9

3star

HB

5.9

4star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.2

4star

CL

0.9

3star

D

12.9

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

5.6

3star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.4

3star

CL

0.7

3star

D

13.4

4star

K

6.6

3star

HB

6.8

5star

M

3.2

4star

T

2.8

5star

CL

0.6

3star

his free kick instead of the erroneous advantage call.

Wait until the league brings in AI to do this. Will be the end of the sport.

 

[matthew_s]

Yeh, but you can say that about every wrong or missed free kick. Onus is on the onfield umpires to review if they are unsure. Otherwise accept it and move on.

And with the amount of elapsed time, Saints could have easily kicked a goal from a goal from the kick in, or the Eagles could have scored.

At worst, once the review was initiated, the on field umpires should have been alerted and they could have stopped play at the first available moment.

 

[The_Todd07]

At worst, once the review was initiated, the on field umpires should have been alerted and they could have stopped play at the first available moment.

Seems like too much of a common sense approach for the AFL.

Ideally they would also implement a time limit on deciding to overturn. If you need more that 20-30 seconds to decide it clearly wasn't a bad enough error in the first place and can be umpires call.

Would also require a robust system to provide replays in a timely fashion though

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Seems like too much of a common sense approach for the AFL.

Ideally they would also implement a time limit on deciding to overturn. If you need more that 20-30 seconds to decide it clearly wasn't a bad enough error in the first place and can be umpires call.

Would also require a robust system to provide replays in a timely fashion though

I don't think that need a time limit. Just do it as quick as you can.

Surely they just make the bar higher for something to be 'conclusive' so a decision can be made faster.

But then you're sacrificing accuracy. And if you're doing that - why even bother with the tech in the first place?


Goes back to my initial point on this. Get rid of the tech completely and just trust the umpires to do their job. And don't f***ing whinge and whine when it doesn't go your way.

Or, keep the tech and do it properly. Like what happened on the weekend.


You can't have it both ways.

 

[The Feeder Club]

AFL footy boss Greg Swann said the Marshall decision took too long to make, and the League will make a change going forward where the AFL Review Centre (ARC) will no longer intervene in scores - apart from reviewing all goals while the ball is being taken back to the middle - unless the goal umpire asks for a review.

Good. now can those people arguing that it ever should have been otherwise please sulk quietly

 

[The_Todd07]

A

I don't think that need a time limit. Just do it as quick as you can.

Surely they just make the bar higher for something to be 'conclusive' so a decision can be made faster.

But then you're sacrificing accuracy. And if you're doing that - why even bother with the tech in the first place?


Goes back to my initial point on this. Get rid of the tech completely and just trust the umpires to do their job. And don't f***ing whinge and whine when it doesn't go your way.

Or, keep the tech and do it properly. Like what happened on the weekend.


You can't have it both ways.

Time limit and raising the bar on what conclusive are basically the same thing.

If you can't overturn it looking at 1 or 2 replays then it's not obvious enough and reverts to umpires call.

Every single video review system in sport was brought in after high profile, obvious mistakes and that's what it should be there for.

Every single video review system in sport however is mostly used to scrutinise to the nth degree very marginal decisions that no one would complain about before the system was in place.

I would much rather have a system in place with a well communicated threshold for overturning, than no system at all or one that is too intrusive

 

[oak79]

A

I don't think that need a time limit. Just do it as quick as you can.

Surely they just make the bar higher for something to be 'conclusive' so a decision can be made faster.

But then you're sacrificing accuracy. And if you're doing that - why even bother with the tech in the first place?


Goes back to my initial point on this. Get rid of the tech completely and just trust the umpires to do their job. And don't f***ing whinge and whine when it doesn't go your way.

Or, keep the tech and do it properly. Like what happened on the weekend.


You can't have it both ways.

Of course you need a time limit or else your left with a stupid situation like this. Is 10 minutes later OK? Or even more obvious, once play has resumed, the time for a review is done !

But yeh, I kind of agree - get rid of the tech completely except when a review is called onfield (or in the time it takes to restart play). Back the umpires in

 

[oak79]

Happy to hear the AFL has announced they're doing exactly what I said.

Reviews only after goals before restart, and when umpire requests one.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Time limit and raising the bar on what conclusive are basically the same thing.

If you can't overturn it looking at 1 or 2 replays then it's not obvious enough and reverts to umpires call.

Every single video review system in sport was brought in after high profile, obvious mistakes and that's what it should be there for.

Every single video review system in sport however is mostly used to scrutinise to the nth degree very marginal decisions that no one would complain about before the system was in place.

I would much rather have a system in place with a well communicated threshold for overturning, than no system at all or one that is too intrusive

I just think it's dumb when you have the technology to prevent incorrect decisions and it doesn't get used.

Why have it if you're not going to use it? An incorrect decision is an incorrect decision. The blatantness shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether we care about something or not, it should be the importance of it.

The Marshall one was an actual, literal 5 point decision at an important stage of the game. I'd much prefer they get those right, then only worry about blatant howlers. That sounds much more focus on an entertainment product than a serious sporting competition to me.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

Thats some world class gaslighting from Swann, suggesting the decision was correct but just a bit late and tweaking the rules accordingly.

When someone does something so obviously ****ing idiotic that the entire footballing world is united in amazement that anyone would be so stupid, the problem is not the rules, the problem is the absolute blathering morons administering the rules, Swann included.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Happy to hear the AFL has announced they're doing exactly what I said.

Reviews only after goals before restart, and when umpire requests one.

Isn't that exactly why we're here in the first place though?

An Adelaide Goal that was called a Behind by the goal umpire (so no review), and the umpire didn't request a review (so no review).

That was literally the Problem that they fixed.

 

[jannissary]

laughable couple of weeks for AFL and the ARC. i'd hate to see a game that actually matters be on the recieving end of some of this shit

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

laughable couple of weeks for AFL and the ARC. i'd hate to see a game that actually matters be on the recieving end of some of this shit

Like Adelaide vs. Sydney from a couple of years ago?

 

[The_Todd07]

I just think it's dumb when you have the technology to prevent incorrect decisions and it doesn't get used.

Why have it if you're not going to use it? An incorrect decision is an incorrect decision. The blatantness shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether we care about something or not, it should be the importance of it.

The Marshall one was an actual, literal 5 point decision at an important stage of the game. I'd much prefer they get those right, then only worry about blatant howlers. That sounds much more focus on an entertainment product than a serious sporting competition to me.

The AFL is both a sporting competition and entertainment and they have to find a balance between between the two that pleases the maximum number of people.

You might be happy with no review system but its clear that a lot of fans don't want that. It's also clear that a lot of fans don't want the other end of the spectrum and forensically go over every decision to ensure maximum accuracy.

Therefore how the system is implemented has to be somewhere in the middle, where massive mistakes are fixed but reviews don't take so long that people get frustrated and switch off.

 

[Old M8]

Goes back to my initial point on this. Get rid of the tech completely and just trust the umpires to do their job. And don't f***ing whinge and whine when it doesn't go your way.

I am fully in the **** it off camp. I will happily accept swings-and-roundabouts human error over painfully-slow reviewed decision errors.

Whatever benefit we get by correcting a score here and there is completely offset not being able to get fully excited after the ump signals a goal, and them not getting reviews correct anyway.

Unfortunately, the hardest thing about going back to a purely human system is getting the broadcaster/commentators to shut the **** up about errors and move on. What we don't know won't hurt us, but unfortunately the commentators will make the umps look stupid by over-analysing 4k vision and talking about it non stop.

Nobody can get outraged if you don't show us a close up replay of a potential fingertip off the boot. Viewers will move on so fast if they don't show it.

 

[oak79]

I just think it's dumb when you have the technology to prevent incorrect decisions and it doesn't get used.

Why have it if you're not going to use it? An incorrect decision is an incorrect decision. The blatantness shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether we care about something or not, it should be the importance of it.

The Marshall one was an actual, literal 5 point decision at an important stage of the game. I'd much prefer they get those right, then only worry about blatant howlers. That sounds much more focus on an entertainment product than a serious sporting competition to me.

Youre happy with a 6 hour game that stops after every decision on the ground?