Some of the footage they make "conclusive" calls on is ridiculous. A bent finger when there is no frame clearly showing the ball touch the hand (lets train for this). That view from the side to see if the goal crossed the line, even though the camera is on an angle that if changed, would probably change when it looked like the ball crossed the line.
Certified Legendary Thread The Score Review System
- Thread starter Vooligan
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Some of the footage they make "conclusive" calls on is ridiculous. A bent finger when there is no frame clearly showing the ball touch the hand (lets train for this). That view from the side to see if the goal crossed the line, even though the camera is on an angle that if changed, would probably change when it looked like the ball crossed the line.
We've been unlucky with the reviews this year, I admit it's frustrating but it's not what I'm concerned about. What really annoys me is that the AFL decided to go ahead with this review rule when the technology in place is clearly not up to the task and this is made worse by the lack of cohesion in some umpiring teams that leads to long periods of wasted time. Sometimes it feels like we're watching circus clowns, except those clowns actually know what they're doing whereas our clowns are just as confused as the audience.
Last nights reviews...sure...I was able to conclude the result before the umpires made their final decision. There was enough evidence to say they pretty much got it right.
But....
What I think the huge issue now is, is that the Goal Umpire is second guessing himself more often than not when it is not clear cut. We need assertive umpires out there who are prepared to say what they see and back themselves in. This technology undermines any authority that a goal umpire has. Not convinced it is good for this game.
But....
What I think the huge issue now is, is that the Goal Umpire is second guessing himself more often than not when it is not clear cut. We need assertive umpires out there who are prepared to say what they see and back themselves in. This technology undermines any authority that a goal umpire has. Not convinced it is good for this game.
That's a significant weakness and simply unacceptable. What shat me about the goal line review was that you couldn't tell that the North player's hand was touching the ball in the footage that they uses because the hand was in front of the ball. To me it looked more like an 'inconclusive umpires call' result. But I've got this feeling that the reviewers are being pushed to make a determination because the AFL is possibly embarrassed by too many being inconclusive. If it's not an obvious error, then it's umpires call. It's not rocket science and we don't need to watch 3 minutes of the same footage.
INCONFURKINGCLUSIVE AND MOVE THE FURK ON. OR FURKING UPGRADE YOUR FUFKING TECHNOLOGY IF YOU WANT TO TAKE FURKING HUMAN ERROR OUT OF THE FURKING EQUATION. YOU FURKWITS HAVE JUST SHIFTED THE FURKING ERROR FROM THE BLOKE ON THE FURKING GROUND TO SOME OTHER FURKWIT IN A CUBICLE THAT FEELS COMPELLED TO MAKE A FURKING DECISION.
I agree. Unpalatable as it is, the decisions were correct
Vooligan
Norm Smith Medallist
- Thread starter
- #32
This article from The Advertiser today sheds a bit of light on the second review.... Or should I say non-review...
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...l/news-story/9089c1ca846cb0dcd7dd03841c4c438d
Luckily this didn't cost us the game.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...l/news-story/9089c1ca846cb0dcd7dd03841c4c438d
Luckily this didn't cost us the game.
pmar
Senior List
- Apr 1, 2014
- 229
- 403
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I'm not even fussed on the outcome of any of the reviews (or non-reviews).
The process is whats got me annoyed.
No umpire called for a review of Rats goal/point. Yet it was reviewed and overturned. As we have been told previously that every goal is reviewed.
The Ziebell goal was contentious from the start with Crows calling for touched as soon as he kicked it. Ziebell himself started calling players into position for a kickin. However the umpires and reviewer decided that since no one had called officially for a review and it was called a goal then it must stay as a goal. WTF???
The Tex touched behind was just plain dumb by whoever was on the goal line from the crows for allowing Goldstein a free run at ball.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,426
- 81,976
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
Completely agree - if it is not clear after say 2 viewings from different angles, it's obviously grey & the original decision stands.
None of this 20 viewings over 5 minutes holding up the play, by which point they guess on their balance of probabilities.
The review should be to stop any howlers, not overrule grey decisions & waste time, which often costs momentum.
It's so simple. And yet we end up with the abortion of a system that presently exists. Either we've got the most officious moron at our games or the role is being pressured to make a decision one way or the other. AFL seems to have a knack for screwing up the fundamentals.
I think some people don't understand when they out multiple screens up they are comparing different angles from the same point in time. For example in one screen the ball is over the line but can't see its touched and in the other screen the ball is touched but can't see the line, with the combination of shots it can be concluded that the ball is over the line by the time it is touched.
But that doesn't take away from the fact that the video is rubbish and the process of calling for a review is rubbish.
But that doesn't take away from the fact that the video is rubbish and the process of calling for a review is rubbish.
- Jun 21, 2014
- 8,593
- 9,374
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Just keep fining Brad Scott to fund them.
Given that the technology is seriously ordinary, how can you be certain that both cameras are exactly time aligned?
We can't
- May 3, 2014
- 2,659
- 3,490
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, King James
There's nothing wrong with the score review system, apart from it being deflating and ruining moments in a game, it's still fine as long as you have someone competent running it. The dope who was doing it on Thursday night incorrectly pressed the score review button after a goal was kick, it came up on the scoreboard and then everyone stood around for 2 minutes waiting for a decision before the umpires smartened up and queried what was taking so long. If you don't have incompetent people doing important jobs like that, we probably wouldn't be discussing this.
Whilst I understand what the reviewer thought they were doing, I have 2 issues.
1. There's no certainty that that the 2 images captured the exact same moment in time.
2. Whilst the goal line shot showed the ball to not be completely over, the other angle had the ball behind directly behind the player's hand. So there's no conclusive evidence that he was actually touching the ball at that moment.
An absolute no brainer "inconclusive, umpires call" result.
- Aug 20, 2015
- 1,291
- 3,925
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I discovered today that kids now do "score reviews" when they're kicking the footy at lunch/recess.
The person who is "up" will call for and do the score review.
The person who is "up" will call for and do the score review.
In principle I like the score review system, but you have to get it right. Have a relatively short time limit on reviews and unless there is clear and obvious evidence of a mistake, go with the umpire's call each time.
The call on Atkins' non-goal was correct. No issue there, other than it seemed to take a long time to get to that point.
Not reviewing the next one properly when there was at least some reason to believe it was touched based on the footage was wrong. Unless I'm misunderstanding the process and they did review it and we just didn't hear a conclusive result through the umpire mic? Either way it looked very ugly.
Walker's touched goal was far from conclusive and should have been left as "umpire's call" in my opinion, which would have made it a goal. When the touch occurs between two frames and the ball moves from in to out during those two frames, you can't make a definitive statement. Yes, the ball comes into line with the hand on the first frame but there is absolutely no way to tell whether it is a perspective issue or if contact has actually been made with the ball by that point.
The call on Atkins' non-goal was correct. No issue there, other than it seemed to take a long time to get to that point.
Not reviewing the next one properly when there was at least some reason to believe it was touched based on the footage was wrong. Unless I'm misunderstanding the process and they did review it and we just didn't hear a conclusive result through the umpire mic? Either way it looked very ugly.
Walker's touched goal was far from conclusive and should have been left as "umpire's call" in my opinion, which would have made it a goal. When the touch occurs between two frames and the ball moves from in to out during those two frames, you can't make a definitive statement. Yes, the ball comes into line with the hand on the first frame but there is absolutely no way to tell whether it is a perspective issue or if contact has actually been made with the ball by that point.
If anything, it was too hard to tell if it hit the post with the footage given. Probably should have been Umpires Call which was a goal.
- Banned
- #49
Unfortunately the AFL will never get rid of this abomination because it adds theatre.
Tonites decision was given a goal in the first instance by the maggot in the best position.
Tonites decision was given a goal in the first instance by the maggot in the best position.
Disagree slightly.
Firstly they should have spent more than 10 seconds looking at the footage to begin with. But my biggest pet hate for this is the 3rd umpire is only meant to say goal/behind if they can be 100% sure that they're correct, otherwise it should be 'umpires call'.
It looked like it nicked the post but Jenkin's reaction says even more. If the goal umpire said it was a goal, that's fair enough but the 3rd umpire should be going back to the goal umpires call because there's nothing from the footage where you can see clearly enough whether the ball does/doesn't hit the post.
Similar threads
