"Umpires Call"

[Rickee]

Anyone who looked at the footage and not come to a decision it was touched or not is either a complete and total moron, blind, an out and out cheat or a combination of the three.

It didn't affect the result of the game, but it makes me feel even stronger that clubs like ours have to cop shitty decisions on the chin and just be happy to be allowed to compete with the big guys.

 

[G String]

Anyone who looked at the footage and not come to a decision it was touched or not is either a complete and total moron, blind, an out and out cheat or a combination of the three.

It didn't affect the result of the game, but it makes me feel even stronger that clubs like ours have to cop shitty decisions on the chin and just be happy to be allowed to compete with the big guys.

Just to clarify - are you saying that anyone that thinks it was touched (or is not sure) is a moron, blind or a cheat? And that because of this decision you think the AFL has a conspiracy to influence umpiring decisions to make sure the bigger clubs win?

 

[Boston tiger]

I don't agree but anyway, its beside the point.

If the umpire is asking for a score review then they are unclear of what has transpired.

They always ask for a review. I believe it was touched etc .

 

[backtozero]

They always ask for a review.

And why do you think that might be?

 

[Tugga27]

The problem I have with the Umpires Call is that I believe that the umpires now days are erring on the side of caution and not backing what their eyes, ears and first instincts tell them as they know they have the Goal review system to fall back on. So when the GR then defaults back to the original decision, it is not necessarily the call the umpire would have made without the GR in play.

The main issue but, as most have said, is the woefully inadequate technology. It is an embarrassment that a national competition, the biggest in the country, cant afford decent cameras at all the major grounds to prevent games being decided by guesswork.

It's pretty much become like DRS in the cricket.
You can get 2 different decisions based on what the umpires original call is.

Why can't the umpire say he's not sure and then it goes to the ARC and let them make the call.
On this occasion it's a goal as there is no conclusive evidence the ball was touched.

 

[HTT]

Inconclusively touched = not touched

Benefit of the doubt is with the umpire, not a team.

 

[Frank Grimes]

That's my entire point.

If it goes to a review, that should be the final call. No inconclusive bullshit and passing the buck.

I guess on who's "inconclusive" analysis you want to go by.

It is either the goal ump or the goal review ump.

Personally I'd go by the goal ump. The goal ump would have been closer to the action with a better view. If the blurry footage is inconclusive then the goal ump decision is the next best thing and would have been the call anyway without the review.

 

[Boston tiger]

And why do you think that might be?

Because it’s there and probably instructed to do so

 

[Plugger35]

I guess on who's "inconclusive" analysis you want to go by.

It is either the goal ump or the goal review ump.

Personally I'd go by the goal ump. The goal ump would have been closer to the action with a better view. If the blurry footage is inconclusive then the goal ump decision is the next best thing and would have been the call anyway without the review.

Did the goal umpire think Vlastuin had touched the ball or because Vlastuin told him he touched the ball the goal umpire just said he thought he had touched it?

I've got a feeling it was the latter which would be pretty poor form to base your decision on what a player tells you, you can't rely on them always being honest.

 

[G String]

Did the goal umpire think Vlastuin had touched the ball or because Vlastuin told him he touched the ball the goal umpire just said he thought he had touched it?

I've got a feeling it was the latter which would be pretty poor form to base your decision on what a player tells you, you can't rely on them always being honest.

If the umpire thought it was a goal initially but was influenced by the player to review it - the soft call would've been a goal. So I suspect he initially thought it was touched

 

[Rickee]

Just to clarify - are you saying that anyone that thinks it was touched (or is not sure) is a moron, blind or a cheat? And that because of this decision you think the AFL has a conspiracy to influence umpiring decisions to make sure the bigger clubs win?

No, I said anyone who can't decide whether it was touched or not is one or all of those things. Do you disagree?

And I didn't say the other thing, but I wouldn't entirely disagree with anyone who did.

 

[Boston tiger]

Did the goal umpire think Vlastuin had touched the ball or because Vlastuin told him he touched the ball the goal umpire just said he thought he had touched it?

I've got a feeling it was the latter which would be pretty poor form to base your decision on what a player tells you, you can't rely on them always being honest.

Well then you just send it up as “ I believe it was a goal “. He’s an AFL umpire not a 12 year old kid. He was half a metre away. Those saying he didn’t touch it were in the commentary box.

 

[HTT]

Anyone who looked at the footage and not come to a decision it was touched or not is either a complete and total moron, blind, an out and out cheat or a combination of the three.

It didn't affect the result of the game, but it makes me feel even stronger that clubs like ours have to cop shitty decisions on the chin and just be happy to be allowed to compete with the big guys.

Conclusive evidence a ball was touched: deflection on fingers or (though rarely noticeable if it’s getting reviewed) ball.
Conclusive evidence a ball was not touched: there is a camera angle that shows a clear gap between a hand and the ball at all times.
The yellow fuzz is not a clear gap. Yellow fuzz indicates the ball was there at some point during the time it took that shot to be taken. If the hand overlaps/is in contact with it, that hand might have touched the ball. There was also no apparent deflection - so the ball might not have been touched.
Ball might or might not have been touched - umpires call.

The process did its job just fine here. The only way you get a different result is if a better camera finds a clear gap at all times. Given it was on the goal line it is terrible form for the AFL to not have a better camera than that, it’s not like the ones off the boot that are sometimes impossible to get.

 

[Rickee]

Conclusive evidence a ball was touched: deflection on fingers or (though rarely noticeable if it’s getting reviewed) ball.
Conclusive evidence a ball was not touched: there is a camera angle that shows a clear gap between a hand and the ball at all times.
The yellow fuzz is not a clear gap. Yellow fuzz indicates the ball was there at some point during the time it took that shot to be taken. If the hand overlaps/is in contact with it, that hand might have touched the ball. There was also no apparent deflection - so the ball might not have been touched.
Ball might or might not have been touched - umpires call.

The process did its job just fine here. The only way you get a different result is if a better camera finds a clear gap at all times. Given it was on the goal line it is terrible form for the AFL to not have a better camera than that, it’s not like the ones off the boot that are sometimes impossible to get.

I disagree. Unless Vaslaughtin had 14 inch nails, there was absolute clear daylight between the ball and his hand.

The only people I see disagreeing are one eyed Tigers supporters.

 

[Maylandsman]

Did the goal umpire think Vlastuin had touched the ball or because Vlastuin told him he touched the ball the goal umpire just said he thought he had touched it?

I've got a feeling it was the latter which would be pretty poor form to base your decision on what a player tells you, you can't rely on them always being honest.

You think the umpires are influenced by the players? That’s just wilful ignorance.

Steven doesn’t quite understand what you are saying either...

 

[G String]

No, I said anyone who can't decide whether it was touched or not is one or all of those things. Do you disagree?

And I didn't say the other thing, but I wouldn't entirely disagree with anyone who did.

Yeah I do disagree - there is no conclusive evidence either way to prove it was touched or not - so for someone to say they're sure either way is kidding themselves.

My guess is that it was touched but that is all it is - a guess. I'm basing that purely on the umpires call and the players reaction - not the video evidence which is useless.

If there is no conclusive evidence to over-rule the soft call - I'm happy to leave it up to the umpire to make his best guess based on what he saw. Which is exactly what happened.

 

[Frank Grimes]

Did the goal umpire think Vlastuin had touched the ball or because Vlastuin told him he touched the ball the goal umpire just said he thought he had touched it?

I've got a feeling it was the latter which would be pretty poor form to base your decision on what a player tells you, you can't rely on them always being honest.

I was talking about in general rather than a specific incident.

I really can't say what was going through the umpires head. Vlustuin would have claimed that he touched it because he saw the goal ump consulting with the field ump indicating indecision/doubt. He would have done rhat with or without the review.

 

[HTT]

I disagree. Unless Vaslaughtin had 14 inch nails, there was absolute clear daylight between the ball and his hand.

The only people I see disagreeing are one eyed Tigers supporters.

Again. The ball was where the yellow fuzz was at some point in the shot. Don’t need long finger nails to touch it if it was there.

 

[Boston tiger]

I disagree. Unless Vaslaughtin had 14 inch nails, there was absolute clear daylight between the ball and his hand.

The only people I see disagreeing are one eyed Tigers supporters.

And the umpire that was half a metre away.

 

[Tassie27]

Daylight? I don't think so. Inconclusive as it is so fuzzy.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I am all for removing the umpires call, if the umpire is not sure then that means he doesn’t know.
The ARC should be there to get the right decision according to the evidence they have.
So in the St Kilda Tigers match the goal umpire should say I don’t know.
It is referred to the ARC which almost certainly would have returned with an answer that it is a goal.
But because the umpire who did not know chose a side the ARC had no choice but to back the umpire in and provide a decision different to what they would of come up with on their own.
So either remove the umpires call and let the ARC decide or just let the goal umpire decide with no reviews.