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

[oak79]

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.

They just made more problems.

The fix in that case is that umpires should have better training to know when to review.

 

[The_Todd07]

They just made more problems.

The fix in that case is that umpires should have better training to know when to review.

Problem is a confidently incorrect umpire will never review

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

They just made more problems.

The fix in that case is that umpires should have better training to know when to review.

So translated....what Swann is saying is that from now on every single score will be reviewed and we'll have to sit through it.

 

[oak79]

So translated....what Swann is saying is that from now on every single score will be reviewed and we'll have to sit through it.

That's not what he said....

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

That's not what he said....

So will the AFL allow a other Adelaide situation?

Surely not.

And if not, that means that the goal umpire will call for a review every single time!

 

[kaiserchief13]

So anyone investigating the arc person or umpires? Marshall for a goal maybe?

 

[deck]

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.

It appears people only like it if it happens in the last minutes of a game and/or when it suits there own narrative.

The only real fuss in all of this should be about the lost 37 seconds.

 

[deck]

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

Should be solely for score reviews. Personally don't like them interfering with the out of bounds touch rule that they have been doing.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It appears people only like it if it happens in the last minutes of a game and/or when it suits there own narrative.

The only real fuss in all of this should be about the lost 37 seconds.

I agree.

Just make the decision faster.

Greg Swann will lose his job immediately if there's another Adelaide situation. And he of course won't want that - so goal umpires will be told to review every single f***ing thing!

 

[oak79]

So will the AFL allow a other Adelaide situation?

Surely not.

And if not, that means that the goal umpire will call for a review every single time!

An umpire made a mistake. It's no different from an incorrect free gifting a goal that decides a game.

So yes, mistakes may still happen - like they have for 100 years. It's better than a million reviews - that aren't always correct anyway - that turns people off the game.

You seem obsessed with 1 example.

Once play has restarted, the game has moved on.

Edit: the guidelines outlined today make sense, but if you want a solution to the Adelaide example without stopping play or adding reviews - allow 1 captains call per game (in addition to the current system).

 

[Bluelegs]

Just finding out that the chip in the ball tech is dead? The AFL buried the lead on that one. How many millions was wasted going down that path?

 

[Soggy2112]

Might be a controversial take but we should just bin the ARC entirely, let the umpires do their jobs, and accept that riding your luck always has and always will be a part of sport.

With the exception of tennis, I can’t think of a sport where the viewing experience has actually been improved by technology being added to the umpiring.

It creates as many problems as it’s solves and leaves people more frustrated than before.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You seem obsessed with 1 example.

It's not me that's obsessed by it. It was the football public, and subsequently the AFL that was. They literally changed the rules so it would never happen again.

And on Saturday they actually apply that rule for the first time, and suddenly everyone hates it and it's back to the old rule again that everyone hated!


FWIW though, I'm not here to defend the rule per se.

My point from the very beginning was that it wasn't cheating, and it wasn't just a made up rule on the day as people were melting down about (include the ******* commentators mind you) - it was actually an existing AFL rule that was applied.

That's what I was debating.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Just need to call out how dumb Gerard Whateley's melt was today about this.

Apparently because the goal umpire and the boundary umpire saw it and both called it a Behind, means that it 100% was. Cause, you know, apparently umpires never get anything wrong I guess??

Isn't that literally why they introduced this rule in the first place?? Because umpires were right there, and we're 100% certain of something....and we're totally wrong.

He's legit the dumbest smart bloke on television.

 

[The Feeder Club]

My point from the very beginning was that it wasn't cheating, and it wasn't just a made up rule on the day as people were melting down about (include the ******* commentators mind you) - it was actually an existing AFL rule that was applied.

That's what I was debating.

Apart from an extremely small number of emotional eagles fans, there is not a single person that claimed this was about cheating or a made up rule.
A friendly observation - you're not the voice of reason you seem convinced you are. Virtually everyone except you can see this was an absolute WTF moment for the game - fans, commentators, club people and now the manager of football performance at the AFL all saying the same thing - it was idiotic, it should never have happened and (thankfully) it won't happen again

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

...it should never have happened ...

Huh??

A rule being applied correctly should never have happened?

 

[Linda Lovelace]

The game has always had two sh*t rules that unnecessarily complicate things and we should fix them before we move on to fixing the review system.

Hitting the post should not be an automatic behind (or on the full) - if the ball deflects into the goals it should still be a goal. Like in more sensible sports.

There should be no touched behinds. If the ball goes through the goals, it doesn't matter that the opposition got a hand on it.

Of course these won't solve all close calls, and these new rules will create certain complications of their own that will need to be worked through.

But removing these arbitrary nonsense rules that add nothing to the game other than further complicate an umpire's job would remove a lot of problems in the first place.

 

[Mofra]

See Mrs Mofra? 90 seconds IS a long time

 

[The Tilt]

Might be a controversial take but we should just bin the ARC entirely, let the umpires do their jobs, and accept that riding your luck always has and always will be a part of sport.

With the exception of tennis, I can’t think of a sport where the viewing experience has actually been improved by technology being added to the umpiring.

It creates as many problems as it’s solves and leaves people more frustrated than before.

I'd stop short of scrapping it entirely, but it should be limited it to a goal review system, with nothing else eligible for review:

• A decision on whether it's a behind or no score should not be eligible for review.
• Boundary umpiring decisions of any kind (lasso rule or anything else) should not be eligible for review.
• Anyone who suggests making field umpiring decisions open to video review should face jail time.

Beyond that, I cannot believe that anyone thinks it's a good idea to allow the game to be called back to correct decisions after an additional minute or more of game time.

 

[DocSholl]

Might be a controversial take but we should just bin the ARC entirely, let the umpires do their jobs, and accept that riding your luck always has and always will be a part of sport.

With the exception of tennis, I can’t think of a sport where the viewing experience has actually been improved by technology being added to the umpiring.

It creates as many problems as it’s solves and leaves people more frustrated than before.

Ultimately technology generally still requires human input, so there is still scope for error. And what constitutes a clear and obvious error (or a howler) is also subjective.

 

[Soggy2112]

I'd stop short of scrapping it entirely, but it should be limited it to a goal review system, with nothing else eligible for review:

• A decision on whether it's a behind or no score should not be eligible for review.
• Boundary umpiring decisions of any kind (lasso rule or anything else) should not be eligible for review.
• Anyone who suggests making field umpiring decisions open to video review should face jail time.

Beyond that, I cannot believe that anyone thinks it's a good idea to allow the game to be called back to correct decisions after an additional minute or more of game time.

I just don’t think there is a system where we get to a happy medium with score reviews.

Your ideas absolutely are sensible, but I guarantee you at some point, something’s going to happen that causes a big controversy.

It’s why the longer it’s gone on, the more I think video review is a net negative in basically all sports.

In soccer, VAR has led to offside and handball rules being completely removed from their original intent, and there is still constant controversy over referee decisions.

In cricket, the “umpires call” system is borderline shambolic and catches being claimed or not is a complete mess.

Tennis is the only sport I can think of where it really works, and that’s pretty much just because they present it in a 2D graphic that can’t be argued with. It could be just as inaccurate as any other system and we wouldn’t know.

All of this has also taken away from so much of the theatre and emotion of sport.

I just think if we went back to getting the best umpires you can, trusting them to get it right more often than not, and accepting that luck is a part of the game, would lead to a better overall experience for us as fans.

We’re chasing this impossible vision of perfect umpiring decisions which is not actually improving our experiences of watching the game.

 

[Goosecat]

I just don’t think there is a system where we get to a happy medium with score reviews.

Your ideas absolutely are sensible, but I guarantee you at some point, something’s going to happen that causes a big controversy.

It’s why the longer it’s gone on, the more I think video review is a net negative in basically all sports.

In soccer, VAR has led to offside and handball rules being completely removed from their original intent, and there is still constant controversy over referee decisions.

In cricket, the “umpires call” system is borderline shambolic and catches being claimed or not is a complete mess.

Tennis is the only sport I can think of where it really works, and that’s pretty much just because they present it in a 2D graphic that can’t be argued with. It could be just as inaccurate as any other system and we wouldn’t know.

All of this has also taken away from so much of the theatre and emotion of sport.

I just think if we went back to getting the best umpires you can, trusting them to get it right more often than not, and accepting that luck is a part of the game, would lead to a better overall experience for us as fans.

We’re chasing this impossible vision of perfect umpiring decisions which is not actually improving our experiences of watching the game.

The problem with that idea is the television coverage. As long as the coverage continues to "slow mo" replay and dramatise commentate every umpire decision it thinks adds to the "drama" of the game, umpires are screwed.

This is arguably the most difficult game in the world to umpire, with 360 degree challenge and a ridiculous number of "grey", interpretational, non black and white rules. As long as the games "custodians" continue to focus attention like this on umpires with "slow-Mo" replays from every angle, we are forced to go further and further down the technology route for each and every decision.

The tennis example you raise has a stated error margin of 2.5-5mm. Can you imagine if instead of putting up the graphic they do, elliminating all doubt and question by showing an already manufactured result, they instead stopped the game and replayed from every angle, "slow-Mo" camera replays of each and every line ball call for everyone to argue over? That's what we do in AFL.
Much of the issues the AFL has in this area could be ameliorated by setting some television coverage parameters.

 

[Soggy2112]

The problem with that idea is the television coverage. As long as the coverage continues to "slow mo" replay and dramatise commentate every umpire decision it thinks adds to the "drama" of the game, umpires are screwed.

This is arguably the most difficult game in the world to umpire, with 360 degree challenge and a ridiculous number of "grey", interpretational, non black and white rules. As long as the games "custodians" continue to focus attention like this on umpires with "slow-Mo" replays from every angle, we are forced to go further and further down the technology route for each and every decision.

The tennis example you raise has a stated error margin of 2.5-5mm. Can you imagine if instead of putting up the graphic they do, elliminating all doubt and question by showing an already manufactured result, they instead stopped the game and replayed from every angle, "slow-Mo" camera replays of each and every line ball call for everyone to argue over? That's what we do in AFL.
Much of the issues the AFL has in this area could be ameliorated by setting some television coverage parameters.

Commentators who have never umpired a game think playing entitles them to be experts in officiating. It doesn’t.

They should talk about the game and stop dwelling on every mistake.

For example, the Rachele throw against Carlton. Riewoldt ranted about that for minutes. Obviously, the umpire just missed it, chances are, the umpire was blindsided, couldn’t see Rachele’s hands and so did the right thing and let the game continue.

It’s bad luck for Carlton, but luck is a part of the game. I wish the commentators would just say, umpires missed that one, and get on with it.

We have a game where a 70% disposal efficiency is generally considered good, but an umpire makes 1 bad call out of 10-20 and we obsess over it for weeks.

 

[javaguice]

Unfortunately caught Swan on 360. That bloke sucks so much *. What a ****ing evasive pathetic cu hunt. Can u imagine how much * that bloke has eaten to get where he is? I'm so over this shit stain competition.

 

[javaguice]

I didn't italic and bold that btw. Bf is shit and obviously using bots