Certified Legendary Thread The Score Review System

[Vooligan]

It's a joke.

It's an absolute joke that in this "professional" sport, they still can't get this right. Week after week we are on the losing end of these reviews.

I've had enough. Get it right AFL.

 

[radiojake]

Yeah when you got HD cameras getting footage of touched balls 40 metres out from goal but you can't get any decent footage on the goal line is a joke

 

[Brentmeister]

It's a joke.

It's an absolute joke that in this "professional" sport, they still can't get this right. Week after week we are on the losing end of these reviews.

I've had enough. Get it right AFL.

Pretty appalling. Let's hope Pyke calls the umpires out for having pre-conceived ideas on how to adjudicate Crows' score reviews.

 

[Stephen2]

I like those videos on Youtube of 20,000 -> 170,000 or more FPS - crystal clear, amazing shots of super fast action... But we get like 2 frames per second to judge on HAH!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Goal reviewer North supporter got to win the silly fellowr this week.

May as well be sponsored by the rsb!

 

[Paladin]

We keep getting screwed over! Its bullshit!

 

[Scorpus]

You could easily fit a 1080p 120fps camera in each goal post, with decent high ISO for high shutter speed (no blurry shit)

Instead we get 480p50 or some garbage like that.

 

[Coopers]

Why is it so hard to get decent cameras in place?

They are not expensive anymore.

 

[Brentmeister]

You could easily fit a 1080p 120fps camera in each goal post, with decent high ISO for high shutter speed (no blurry shit)

Instead we get 480p50 or some garbage like that.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but you could tell by the way the guy was manipulating the different camera angles on Tex's goal that he was searching for a point. It was called a goal, and so there needs to be conclusive evidence to suggest otherwise. He kept focusing on the frame before the ball was clearly touched. Bloody joke.

 

[IddyBiddy]

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but you could tell by the way the guy was manipulating the different camera angles on Tex's goal that he was searching for a point. It was called a goal, and so there needs to be conclusive evidence to suggest otherwise. He kept focusing on the frame before the ball was clearly touched. Bloody joke.

Who cares. It was touched.

 

[FR0GGY]

Look the system ain't great, but I thought they got each correct tonight, it was unfortunate that each one went against us. Thought they got the correct result in the end.
Tex's one was probably the tightest one but once they went to the down the round shot and put them together the ball hadn't completely crossed yet.
Atkins was clearly touched.

 

[dylan123]

Only one we got unlucky with was the Ziebell goal but that wasn't called for a review which didn't help I suppose.

Would love clearer pictures and better angles though as some were tough to make a quick clear call from.

 

[AFC3000]

Surely they need to spend the money and get it right, instead of relying on what seems like 3 of these...



4K high FPS cameras on the goal line, even the angles we already have would be greatly improved.

 

[jackster83]

North are one of those teams, along with the Bulldogs, who always seem to get the dubious calls going their way.

Even last week they had close to double the free kicks that Hawthorn received. Once a charity club, always a charity club.

 

[Coopers]

Surely they need to spend the money and get it right, instead of relying 3 of these...

View attachment 259874

4K high FPS cameras on the goal line, even the angles we already have would be greatly improved.

Well, that's probably a $200 web cam.

Let's say they spent $2000 on an IP67 (waterproof) camera. So let's say it's really hard, lots of labour, got to get software, training blah blah blah and we end up spending 50k per venue to kit it out.

So what? Chump change for the AFL.

 

[spexau]

Well, that's probably a $200 web cam.

Let's say they spent $2000 on an IP67 (waterproof) camera. So let's say it's really hard, lots of labour, got to get software, training blah blah blah and we end up spending 50k per venue to kit it out.

So what? Chump change for the AFL.

What's the bet the quality of goal reviews increases in the same year the new TV deal kicks in

 

[rocket18]

Let's say they spent $2000 on an IP67 (waterproof) camera. So let's say it's really hard, lots of labour, got to get software, training blah blah blah and we end up spending 50k per venue to kit it out.

So what? Chump change for the AFL.

Norf just paid for two grounds worth.

 

[pmar]

What's the bet the quality of goal reviews increases in the same year the new TV deal kicks in

yep. AFL will hold off doing anything themselves and then just write goal line camera conditions into the next TV deal and make it the broadcasters problem

 

[Elder van Berlo]

I reckon the players are often the best indicator... in cricket you can immediately tell whether it's a run out/stumping by the reaction of the fielding team. Even when it's really close, the players have a sixth sense about it.

Every single player on the park knew that Ziebell's "goal" was touched last night.

 

[Valentino Dmitri]

Something I was confused about - Think I misheard what the commentators were saying, as Dad was banging on about dole bludgers at the time.

With the Atkins review, I think the commentators said all goals get reviewed. It was called a goal then reversed.

With the Zeibel goal, they said that it was paid a goal and no one called for a review, so it didn't matter if it really was touched.

Like I say, I am pretty sure I either misheard of misunderstood what was said. What are the actual rules there? Did a field umpire see the Atkin's touch and call for the review later?

 

[Vooligan]

Another example of my frustrations that I didn't mention in the OP was the game against West Coast. We had score reviews, they took their sweet ass time to review it, only to come back with "umpires call". That is simply unacceptable. If you're going to have a review system, you must have the technology in place to back it up. You simply can not take that long to review and it be inconclusive. Make a decision one way or the other - make it the right decision.

 

[AFC3000]

Something I was confused about - Think I misheard what the commentators were saying, as Dad was banging on about dole bludgers at the time.

With the Atkins review, I think the commentators said all goals get reviewed. It was called a goal then reversed.

With the Zeibel goal, they said that it was paid a goal and no one called for a review, so it didn't matter if it really was touched.

Like I say, I am pretty sure I either misheard of misunderstood what was said. What are the actual rules there? Did a field umpire see the Atkin's touch and call for the review later?

I noticed this as well. We have always been told that every goal is reviewed. I now think what they mean is we very quickly "review" weather or not we will do a full review.

If every goal was reviewed why were we left not knowing if their was a review, who had called for the review and what the result was? surely the reviewer would have to clear and signal every goal to the umpire.

 

[FR0GGY]

There was also the problem apparently of the big screen operator putting up on the screen goal review when he wasn't supposed to.

 

[JP Sauce]

yep. AFL will hold off doing anything themselves and then just write goal line camera conditions into the next TV deal and make it the broadcasters problem

In other words, they'll MAKE IT SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM! THAT'S AS GOOD AS IT GETS!

 

[Jarman3]

Leaving aside the whole issue of whether they got it right or wrong, the other issue is the fact that it just takes too damn long. The rule is that if the footage is inconclusive then the goal umpires call stands. The amount of time they spend looking at some of these things (not just last night, but in general) is ridiculous. It should be done and dusted in 30 seconds max. If you have to slow-mo, single frame forward and back, zoom in on it for a minute or more then the footage is obviously not conclusive. If it was conclusive then the result would have been obvious sooner than that.

There should be a 30 second limit on it - if they can't come up with a result in that time then it's goal umpire's call and get the game going again.