Touched off the boot goal replays.

[kickazz]

Is there a more spoil sport aspect to the game than this?

Twice tonight some good pieces of play ending in what for 100 years, or at any other league, would be a goal.

Now, we have this hold up, looking at a replay that I'll admit sometimes is conclusive but often is not. Surely to count as touched you should have to get enough on it for an umpire to notice. If not, * it, should be a goal.

At least with goal line deciding there is a hope of getting a consistent picture each time it happens. With touched off the boot, you bring in to much variability based on what the camera man was doing at the time and where it happened.

I'm not convinced it gives us much more accurate results in the long run, but i do know it is a horrible anti climax. Remember an awesome goal on ANZAC day denied via replay a few years ago.

What do we want to see, big footy? Player celebrations and the crowd going nuts, or three out of focus frames of vision rocking back and forward for fifteen seconds?

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

If you know you've touched it you should have every right to say "hang on ump, I touched that" - especially when there is a system in place (albeit a broken one) to check for this. Cutting a deficit from 6 to 1 point is massive.

 

[Snarls Barkley]

Both decisions were right to overrule. Very little time was taken up in the review of the decisions. I would call it a massive success tonight.

 

[lordbob]

Review is good for the game, end of story.

 

[BF Tiger]

I understand the OPs point, but touched is touched. What is needed is better equipment and more of it so that all questionable decisions have the correct call made in them.

 

[Wesley2]

Yep, non goals should count as goals

What a wonderful thread

 

[kosifantutti]

If you know you've touched it you should have every right to say "hang on ump, I touched that" - especially when there is a system in place (albeit a broken one) to check for this. Cutting a deficit from 6 to 1 point is massive.

And we can trust players to be 100% honest in this?

I agree with the OP. If it's brushed someone's finger and the umpire hasn't seen it. Then let it go.

The system was brought in to overturn the howlers. Neither of those last night were howlers.

 

[lordbob]

And we can trust players to be 100% honest in this?

I agree with the OP. If it's brushed someone's finger and the umpire hasn't seen it. Then let it go.

The system was brought in to overturn the howlers. Neither of those last night were howlers.

Wrong, all goals are reviewed. Where a player protests the replay is probably just looked at a little closer with more focus on a particular players hands. That they said they touched it had no impact on whether the goals were reviewed. The umpire can however ask specifically for a review and ask for a specific area to be looked at, in which case the review is given more time. The extra bit of time is the only thing which is different from the auto review and the umpire called review.

In the end both were correct calls.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

Doesn't matter what level you play at you will scream touched if you touch it. Probably not likely to ever get the result unless a noise is heard at non AFL level.

Both correct calls but real downer moments if you are supporting a competing team and you celebrated the goal with them. Would have probably been an issue with a different result but as both got one it kind of neutralised the call.

 

[Mr Lizard]

And we can trust players to be 100% honest in this?

If you claim you touched it and replay shows you to be lying, loss of match payment and one week suspension.

 

[HawkMongrel]

Both decisions were right to overrule. Very little time was taken up in the review of the decisions. I would call it a massive success tonight.

This.

The idiots having a cry here and booing at the ground on the night are just that. Idiots.

 

[HairyO]

Doesn't matter what level you play at you will scream touched if you touch it. Probably not likely to ever get the result unless a noise is heard at non AFL level.

Both correct calls but real downer moments if you are supporting a competing team and you celebrated the goal with them. Would have probably been an issue with a different result but as both got one it kind of neutralised the call.

We always get told the score review people have different vision, which I really hope is true. The first one was hard to say, but there was some movement from Hodge's finger, but the second one was a blurred mess. No way you could see anything in that one.

But in both cases the players were adamant they touched it, so you would hope they are being honest about it.

 

[cryptor]

We could almost completely do away with any score reviews if the scoring rules were changed so that as long as the last touch from the attacking side before going over the goal line was off one of their players boots or lower leg.

So as long as their last disposal was a legal kick then it wouldn't matter if it was touched by the opposition or deflected off the inside of the post.

Takes almost all of the complexity and subjective judging of blurry low framerate slow mo replays out of the process.

 

[Mr Lizard]

They should put wings on the goalie's hat-cam, and have an array of lasers mounted behind the goal post padding.

 

[FastLane]

ANyone notice how Cats first (or maybe second??) goal was claimed as touched by swans players- they even set up for kick in- only for no replay to be shown and goal awarded.

Like all umpiring- all I ask for is consistency- last week hawks/dogs- all replays of claimed touched replayed- last night- no.

 

[kickazz]

ANyone notice how Cats first (or maybe second??) goal was claimed as touched by swans players- they even set up for kick in- only for no replay to be shown and goal awarded.

Like all umpiring- all I ask for is consistency- last week hawks/dogs- all replays of claimed touched replayed- last night- no.

They check them all anyway. Sometimes the umpire sets up for a bounce and it gets called back.

 

[FastLane]

They check them all anyway. Sometimes the umpire sets up for a bounce and it gets called back.

transparency needed

 

[Skirvoump]

It's alright at the top level where there is technology is available but at lower levels if the field umpire did not see or hear it was touched off the boot (the goal umpire doesn't have conclusive evidence it was touched unless it was close to the line) the goal umpire does not have any other choice but to signal a goal. these are 50 50 decisions not howlers and there is always debate anyway about whether the review attendant got the call right anyway.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Seems inconclusive has gone out the window. There have been many reviews in the finals that I assumed would be umpires call based on the footage, then they've called it one way.

 

[Doggy Dan]

Wrong, all goals are reviewed. Where a player protests the replay is probably just looked at a little closer with more focus on a particular players hands. That they said they touched it had no impact on whether the goals were reviewed. The umpire can however ask specifically for a review and ask for a specific area to be looked at, in which case the review is given more time. The extra bit of time is the only thing which is different from the auto review and the umpire called review.

In the end both were correct calls.

But not every point is reviewed. What happens if a goal umpire incorrectly

 

[eddiesmith]

All decisions are reviewed, but they only have until the next act of play to formally start the review process.

So if a point is given, they have until the player kicks in to intervene, a goal they have plenty of time though.

Best one was when Pies played Roos last year or year before, it was given touched, Harvey was so slow in bringing the ball back in the reviewer had a chance to have a look and decided to stop the game. Replays showed it was clearly over the line when touched, goal given. But if Harvey had grabbed the ball and played on instantly, point would have stood.

 

[The Drug]

The ball should only be counted as "touched" if its trajectory is significantly deviated. So a punch or a smother through the goals is a touched behind, but if a defender gets just a fingertip on the ball it's a goal anyway. That eliminates the need for all these score reviews (because if the umpire doesn't see it, then it's too small to count for anything.)

 

[cryptor]

The ball should only be counted as "touched" if its trajectory is significantly deviated. So a punch or a smother through the goals is a touched behind, but if a defender gets just a fingertip on the ball it's a goal anyway. That eliminates the need for all these score reviews (because if the umpire doesn't see it, then it's too small to count for anything.)

That just adds more complexity and inconsistency as you're asking them to make a subjective judgement.

If they kick it and the opponent touches it but it still goes over the goal line it should just be counted as a goal. Removes all the grey area around touched calls. Did that blurry finger go back? Did the ball deviate from its spin marginally?

Where the biggest change with this would be is when long kicks at goal from outside 50 are just touched as it goes over the pack. I reckon an accurate kick at goal from outside 50 is more difficult than simply getting a finger to it on the goal line. So if the ball still manages to go through there it should be rewarded with a goal.

 

[The Drug]

If they kick it and the opponent touches it but it still goes over the goal line it should just be counted as a goal. Removes all the grey area around touched calls. Did that blurry finger go back? Did the ball deviate from its spin marginally?

Yes, I agree that is actually the best solution.

 

[The Drug]

Bottom line: players shouldn't be denied a goal because the ball scraped an opponent's finger.