Opinion The video review?

[Tippy78]

Was hoping to get a poll going but couldn't figure out how to do it...

I was at the game today and I think the benefits of the video review are completely overshadowed by the break in the game.

Keen to hear what others think. Am I the only one who thinks this technology should be removed?

 

[Quicky]

What options do you want for your poll mate. You can do it yourself when you start a thread but I can fire one up for you now if you want.

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

Was hoping to get a poll going but couldn't figure out how to do it...

I was at the game today and I think the benefits of the video review are completely overshadowed by the break in the game.

Keen to hear what others think. Am I the only one who thinks this technology should be removed?

I reckon the players appreciated the quick breather Goldsack decision was iffy. Blair decision was proved correct. I think you'd rather have a result based on the truth if there had to be a choice made.

 

[Tippy78]

Thanks Quicky. How about something simple like:

Do you think the video review should be kept in our game?

- Yes
- No

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

The first video review, looked like a goal and didn't deviate at all as it passed the goal post. This should have been the normal decision made by the goal umpire before the video review 9 out of 10 times a goal. Incorrect decision.

 

[blaze036]

Its first year was always going to be its worst, as it seems to be doing okay its here to stay. It'll will be better over the years as people accept it, and its done more effeciently. I would like to see a decesion pending thing similair to what cricket has, after a few replays have been played so we can watch something instead of the awkward break when the umpire is being told the result.

 

[Paul.]

No problems with it.

 

[ash84]

Thought the first Collingwood one they reviewed was a goal...

 

[Quicky]

Thanks Quicky. How about something simple like:

Do you think the video review should be kept in our game?

- Yes
- No

Added.

I think we should keep it. It's a bit annoying when it doesn't determine the truth like today.

What happens if the goal ump makes a mistake? Can it only be used if they call for the review?

 

[SuperSub17]

I like it in theory but practically it has some deficiencies. Goldsack kicked a goal, I was at thegame and everyone kmew it was a goal. It then went up the other end and the Bummer kicked one. Would have put us 18 pts up but instead it was only 7.

The one at the end of the game was just dumb, I fear it is going to become like cricket where the third ump is called for 99% of run outs. That was clearly a goal but it still took 90 seconds to prove it.

 

[entourage]

I don't like it, at least not the way it has been implemented. If the question was, do you like the idea of it but wish the execution was better, then I would say yes.
As it stands it sucks IMO. Too slow, the cameras aren't good enough or positioned well enough, and the rules on when/why/how a replay should occur are not well thought out.

 

[Tippy78]

I like it in theory but practically it has some deficiencies. Goldsack kicked a goal, I was at thegame and everyone kmew it was a goal. It then went up the other end and the Bummer kicked one. Would have put us 18 pts up but instead it was only 7.

The one at the end of the game was just dumb, I fear it is going to become like cricket where the third ump is called for 99% of run outs. That was clearly a goal but it still took 90 seconds to prove it.

This is my biggest fear. The umpires will become so paranoid that they will refer every decision. And then who knows where we will go? Do the umpires review key holding the man or in the back decisions that result in direct shots on goal? We could end up like gridiron.

 

[mattys123]

They only called for the Blair one because it was so important, it wouldn't have even been thought about if it was in the second quarter.

And that's part of the problem with the current system, so I voted no.

Unless the umpires are only instructed to call for it when they clearly believe they missed something or that it was too close to call, don't ask for it.

I haven't seen the Goldsack one yet, but at the ground it looked like a goal, so that's 2 needless calls today.

It certainly didn't "add" anything to today's game, Blair kicked the winner and we had to wait (while most of us were abusing the umpire for even calling for it).

Ideally, I don't think it should be an on field call, if a mistake looks obvious to the
"3rd goal umpire" sitting in the booth, then he makes the call without any assistance and relays it to the field umpire who then stops play and reverts to the correct score.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Yes, I don't think the delay really alters the game too much, but the Goldsack one was completely stupid. Inconclusive my ass, I didn't need a replay, as soon as I saw it go in I knew it hadn't hit the post, so no idea what that jackass up there was thinking.

 

[Ess_don]

Hate to admit, but I reckon the Goldsack one where he got a stud on the ball was technically a goal, didnt touch the post.

But hey, it made the game more exciting right?

Enjoy the win fellas, now I know how it must've felt at '09..