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

[DocSholl]

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.

If Kane was in the chair she would be getting absolutely destroyed right now.

 

[Goosecat]

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.

For that to happen the broadcaster would have to limit to some extent at least, the continual "slow-mo", zoomed in replays of every possible drama inducing, argument starting decision quandary. It really does come down to that. If you want commentators to move on and not fixate on a decision, you have to limit the continual zoom in replay of it. That is what enables the extended commentary and revisiting both live, delayed and of course further played on later in the week for content genrating "footy panel" coverage.

The AFL has been convinced by networks over the years that they need this "Drama" as it grabs attention and spurs debate, arguments and talking point content, translating to additional interest and viewership. Commentators are actually directed and encouraged to point out and amplify any decisions they can use to create further "Drama" as a means of generating attention grabbing content, that's their job as far as broadcasters are concerened.

IMHO it is over-done and a somewhat short-sighted, short term "money spinner" that has had, is having and will have further, negative longer term ramifications for the game and the media and businesses relying on that game and it's growth,
Apart from the issue of continually throwing umpires under the bus and all that entails for the recruitment issues the AFL already has, it risks becoming somewhat of a laughing-stock, parady of rules arguments over actual game play. If you devolve the game too far down that path it loses its playing Gravatas and starts to become more of an inconsistent, interpretive "Joke". This is amply demonstrated by half the entire broadcast being dedicated to continually questioning the "grey", inconsistant rules (as described to me by visiting friends watching their first broadcast), to the point where the actual game becomes over-shadowed by that content.

The AFL needs to wake up and recognise they have been led down a "false dawn" pathway of shorter term gain for longer term loss by the media in this over-done area. If they don't start putting some broadcast parameters in they will suffer and indeed are already suffering a longer term loss, most likely without them having any idea just what they have done.

If you're having to revert to this in order to make the game interesting and financial then you've quite obviously "Screwed It Up".

 

[Soggy2112]

The Soligo overturned goal tonight is to me further evidence to support my point that the ARC should be scrapped entirely.

First things first, any time you have a goal awarded, and then taken away, is detrimental to the flow and theatre of the game. Sport at its best is about raw, authentic moments, and in sort of video review robs spectators of those.

Supposedly, the trade off of that is that we get the correct decision more often. But here’s the catch, sometimes, there might not be an objectively correct decision. I think you can make equally fair arguments that it was a goal or a behind based on the replays available. The goal umpire who was in the best possible position saw it as a goal. That surely should be the end of it?

We’ve become obsessed with having perfect decision making that we’ve lost sight of the whole point of score reviews in the first place. It was brought in because of instances like Tom Hawkins

26

Tom Hawkins

Age

37

Ht

197cm

Wt

105kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.2

3star

K

7.9

3star

HB

4.4

3star

M

5.5

5star

T

1.9

4star

G

2.1

5star

D

12.7

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

4.1

3star

M

5.1

5star

T

2.1

3star

G

1.6

5star

D

7.8

2star

K

5.6

3star

HB

2.2

2star

M

4.2

4star

T

1.0

3star

G

2.2

5star

hitting the post in the 2009 grand final, and how that left a sour taste in some people’s mouths. However, where over a decade in to having score review and if the question is, are we as fans more satisfied with this system than the previous one, then I’d say that’s a resounding no. The score review system is creating as many controversies as it solves, and even the correct decisions it makes are often tiny fingertip touches of slight brushes of the post, which I reckon the majority of fans would neither notice or care about without a review system

 

[daniel_4tw]

The ARC has overstepped its role.

Originally ARC was there for conclusive, beyond reasonable doubt, decisions.

More and more we’re seeing vision like Soligo’s or Saints last week, or 50 angles zooming into blurry footage. Ultimately, ARC then makes a call on what they THINK it was.

That’s not the point.

Give it back to umpires and only have ARC step in for egregious errors. Otherwise let the game go.

Also get rid of it for lassos. If umps aren’t 100% or it’s incidental contact just throw it in.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Last two posts nails it perfectly. Only use it when the goal umpire calls for it, put a 20 second limit on it so obvious errors (like the Hawkins kick in 2009) are picked up and get on with it. There was no way from the ARC footage to tell whether it was a goal or not - best placed source was the goal umpire so go with the decision. Well done to the goal umpire for being decisive. It's a shame, the bloody ARC undermined him.

BTW - if the goal umpire isn't sure it has been touched, there should be a default position of paying the goal. Fine to call for assistance to determine whether it is touched but if the video comes back as inclusive, I don't understand how it is paid as a behind. Seen this happen when the goal umpire thinks it's a behind. How can a behind be paid if neither the goal umpire or the ARC are sure it was touched?

 

[hippyhippy]

New precedent set.. how the hell do they think they can conclusively over rule the goal umpire when arc cannot determine if the spinning ball would have hit the post or not.... that's ridiculous. Afl just got more ******ed.

 

[Goosecat]

The Soligo overturned goal tonight is to me further evidence to support my point that the ARC should be scrapped entirely.

First things first, any time you have a goal awarded, and then taken away, is detrimental to the flow and theatre of the game. Sport at its best is about raw, authentic moments, and in sort of video review robs spectators of those.

Supposedly, the trade off of that is that we get the correct decision more often. But here’s the catch, sometimes, there might not be an objectively correct decision. I think you can make equally fair arguments that it was a goal or a behind based on the replays available. The goal umpire who was in the best possible position saw it as a goal. That surely should be the end of it?

We’ve become obsessed with having perfect decision making that we’ve lost sight of the whole point of score reviews in the first place. It was brought in because of instances like Tom Hawkins hitting the post in the 2009 grand final, and how that left a sour taste in some people’s mouths. However, where over a decade in to having score review and if the question is, are we as fans more satisfied with this system than the previous one, then I’d say that’s a resounding no. The score review system is creating as many controversies as it solves, and even the correct decisions it makes are often tiny fingertip touches of slight brushes of the post, which I reckon the majority of fans would neither notice or care about without a review system

Removing the ARC won’t change anything as far as continually throwing umpires under the bus in the worlds hardest to umpire game, or the “cheapening” of the game product by devolving it into a farce of continually argued and purposefully “dramatised” decisions.
All that will happen is the network broadcaster will continue to show all the “slow-Mo”, zoomed in replays of decisions that umpires can’t possibly always get right at normal play speeds regardless and everyone will continue to argue the need to bring back something like the ARC. The network keeps insisting the “Drama” of that reality generates content. They have convinced the AFL custodians this is a smart move for the game and their viewer numbers.
It’s a self perpetuating devolution “cheapening” the actual game and reducing it to a level of farce each and every game now. The custodians and short sighted broadcaster are incapable of grasping the long term loss to the games gravitas and turn off of prospective growth audiences whom genuinely watch it and think; “What a laughable joke”.
There has to be discussions about the broadcast and the continual replays of “slow-mo”, zoomed in decisions or nothing will change, with or without an ARC.

 

[Soggy2112]

Removing the ARC won’t change anything as far as continually throwing umpires under the bus in the worlds hardest to umpire game, or the “cheapening” of the game product by devolving it into a farce of continually argued and purposefully “dramatised” decisions.
All that will happen is the network broadcaster will continue to show all the “slow-Mo”, zoomed in replays of decisions that umpires can’t possibly always get right at normal play speeds regardless and everyone will continue to argue the need to bring back something like the ARC. The network keeps insisting the “Drama” of that reality generates content. They have convinced the AFL custodians this is a smart move for the game and their viewer numbers.
It’s a self perpetuating devolution “cheapening” the actual game and reducing it to a level of farce each and every game now. The custodians and short sighted broadcaster are incapable of grasping the long term loss to the games gravitas and turn off of prospective growth audiences whom genuinely watch it and think; “What a laughable joke”.
There has to be discussions about the broadcast and the continual replays of “slow-mo”, zoomed in decisions or nothing will change, with or without an ARC.

It will mean we won’t have excessive delays to the game and that hollow “it’s a goal, but is it” feeling.

 

[SSSSSS]

Surprised not much media attention going into the scrapped Gunston goal. No explanation from the ARC to overrule the umpires call and the footage was grainy.

 

[Soggy2112]

Surprised not much media attention going into the scrapped Gunston goal. No explanation from the ARC to overrule the umpires call and the footage was grainy.

Was this the one early on? I thought the replay clearly showed the ball deviate off the Pies player

 

[Rotayjay]

Is my memory playing tricks on me? I could swear goals never got retrospectively disallowed before the ARC came into being.

It is against the spirit of the game to have fans celebrating a crucial goal and then have the goal overturned because of some ticky-touch minor infraction that happened at about the same time which no one saw or cared about. Who gives a shit? The goal was kicked, move on.

 

[The Tilt]

Is my memory playing tricks on me? I could swear goals never got retrospectively disallowed before the ARC came into being.

It is against the spirit of the game to have fans celebrating a crucial goal and then have the goal overturned because of some ticky-touch minor infraction that happened at about the same time which no one saw or cared about. Who gives a shit? The goal was kicked, move on.

Yeah, your memory is playing tricks. Goals have been checked automatically (even without a goal umpire requested review) since ARC was introduced.

 

[Rotayjay]

Yeah, your memory is playing tricks. Goals have been checked automatically (even without a goal umpire requested review) since ARC was introduced.

How about before the ARC? That's what I meant

 

[The Tilt]

How about before the ARC? That's what I meant

Right. Pre video reviews there was an option of overturning goal umpiring decisions, though obviously it hardly ever happened (I think i can only recall seeing it once). The goal umpire would do this weird signal where he'd cross the two flags (kind of making an 'X') indicating the previous decision was to be voided.

 

[kickazz]

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.

It is a big departure from the traditions of the game. But it has merit.

First, it means we could almost get rid of the ARC.

Posters being goals I struggle with a little. But touched off the boot? Far out if you don't get enough hand on the ball to deny it a trajectory through the goals, then you didn't really deserve to deny that goal.

Touched on the line / rushed I have a bit more time for. If course there will then be grey areas between touched off boot and touched in goal square, I get that.

 

[Rotayjay]

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.

I agree. I'm normally a preponent of keeping the uniqueness of the Australian game and not imitating other sports. But in almost every other world sport, if it goes in, it's a goal. Keep it simple, stupid.

 

[SSSSSS]

Was this the one early on? I thought the replay clearly showed the ball deviate off the Pies player

Was in the first quarter. My Kayo was playing up so not sure they actually showed the ARC footage? If they did I stand corrected.

All I recall was the ump called it a goal and about thirty seconds later it was overruled but without any explanation from the ARC.

 

[Soggy2112]

Was in the first quarter. My Kayo was playing up so not sure they actually showed the ARC footage? If they did I stand corrected.

All I recall was the ump called it a goal and about thirty seconds later it was overruled but without any explanation from the ARC.

I’m not sure I was watching the 7 broadcast.

If it’s the one I’m thinking of I thought there was a clear deviation on the replay.

The 7 broadcast seemed to focus on whether the Pies player’s fingers flicked back, but when they went back a couple frames first you could see the ball change path.

 

[kickazz]

Time to call this out for what it is. Advertising for crypto.com. AFL is addicted to gambling revenue and this is no different. If there aren't enough 'reviews' then the sponsor isn't getting their money's worth, are they?

 

[NSWCROW]

The afl come out and addressed the soligo overturn ?

 

[oak79]

I agree. I'm normally a preponent of keeping the uniqueness of the Australian game and not imitating other sports. But in almost every other world sport, if it goes in, it's a goal. Keep it simple, stupid.

100% this ... who cares if it's touched or hits the post. But it still has to be from a kick.

Can't handball or walk the ball through for a goal. A spoil should be treated as a rushed behind.

 

[kickazz]

100% this ... who cares if it's touched or hits the post. But it still has to be from a kick.

Can't handball or walk the ball through for a goal. A spoil should be treated as a rushed behind.

Yep. All makes sense.

Make the goals narrower to compensate for it being easier if you must.

I'd just add:

1. Ball hitting goal post and coming back into play is a behind. (Not play on)
2. Ball hitting a behind post and coming back into play should stay as OOB, but 'play on' in this situation is more palatable than in point 1 above.
3. We will still get grey areas with touched. Like what is a spoil / smother / fingertip.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

I’m not sure I was watching the 7 broadcast.

If it’s the one I’m thinking of I thought there was a clear deviation on the replay.

The 7 broadcast seemed to focus on whether the Pies player’s fingers flicked back, but when they went back a couple frames first you could see the ball change path.

An arguement could be easily made that the deviation occurred because Gunston initially shinned it before the ball hit his foot.

 

[Soggy2112]

An arguement could be easily made that the deviation occurred because Gunston initially shinned it before the ball hit his foot.

You’re right, I hadn’t watched the angle from behind Gunston too closely, but on another look it looks like shin then foot might have been the case.

Another mark against the ARC, just bin it altogether.

 

[astrowizzle]

Dumb question but the time they let lapse does that go back onto the clock