"Umpires Call"

Remove this Banner Ad

Greggy

Premiership Player
Aug 15, 2006
4,796
5,328
Earth
AFL Club
Richmond
An iPhone could capture this perfectly... an iPhone. 240 frames per second. Stick one on a goal post with a remote switch, I could do it now.
 

daniel_4tw

Club Legend
Aug 25, 2009
2,062
2,966
Brisbane
AFL Club
Adelaide
Should automatically be a point if inconclusive.

Umpire isn’t 100%. Video doesn’t show anything conclusive. Should go to a point as it’s the lesser result.

Imagine losing a game because the umpire guessed.

I don’t see how it’s the same with any other free kick. A umpire only calls it if they see it. They don’t/shouldn’t call a free kick because they THINK someone threw the ball etc.
 

Coach_Required

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 19, 2008
5,117
12,945
Perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Sydney Roosters,Liverpool & Celtics
So do that then. Why are we using technology that they don't want to rely on?
As I said in my first post, you have to live by that.
If you're not going to go by the footage that you have then don't do a review at all.
Passing the decision back to the guy that asked for the review to begin with is completely pointless.
if that's the case then last week Shai Bolton's point would have been a goal. Thats why we use the score review to try and get some calls correctly that would have in the past been called wrong.

It isnt fool prove and never will be but better than not having it.

On SM-G980F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Rusty Brookes

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 9, 2001
5,446
6,003
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
I’m thinkin the umpire calls what he believes he saw and then gets the review and pretty much says “I believe it was touched,unless you’ve got conclusive evidence that it wasn’t touched then my call is touched”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The problem I have with that is the umpire isn't sure the ball was touched - otherwise they wouldn't ask for the review in the first place.

Essentially they are asking for evidence of something not happening. When it's conclusive that it wasn't touched then it's fine.

But when the evidence comes back as inconclusive, I struggle with the logic that it should be paid a behind. Essentially, the goal umpire is saying the ball was touched but neither the goal umpire themselves or the review has evidence that it happened. A behind is paid when the ball is touched - if the evidence is inconclusive then surely it hasn't been established that the ball was touched.
 

Rusty Brookes

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 9, 2001
5,446
6,003
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
Should automatically be a point if inconclusive.

Umpire isn’t 100%. Video doesn’t show anything conclusive. Should go to a point as it’s the lesser result.

Imagine losing a game because the umpire guessed.

I don’t see how it’s the same with any other free kick. A umpire only calls it if they see it. They don’t/shouldn’t call a free kick because they THINK someone threw the ball etc.
Isn't the umpire guessing that the ball was touched?
 

winty

Moderator
Jun 8, 2006
35,662
46,684
Geelong
AFL Club
Geelong
One way to eliminate all this crud - remove the touched behind rule. If the ball goes over the line it's a goal, regardless of whether a defender touches the ball or not.
 

Furn2

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 27, 2012
9,457
15,465
AFL Club
Hawthorn
What should happen when the footage is inconclusive ? (which it usually is )

toss a coin ?
 

winty

Moderator
Jun 8, 2006
35,662
46,684
Geelong
AFL Club
Geelong
So bomb it to the square where a 7 foot guy punches a goal through ? Not really footy then is it.
Would be better than waiting around for a couple of minutes while some guys watch grainy footage taken from the Hubble telescope trying to determine if the ball connected with someone's fingernail or not.
 

Furn2

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 27, 2012
9,457
15,465
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Would be better than waiting around for a couple of minutes while some guys watch grainy footage taken from the Hubble telescope trying to determine if the ball connected with someone's fingernail or not.
It would increase scoring that's for sure but it would fundamentally change the game to stop something that happens a few times a week. The majority of goals would be punched through wouldn't they ?
 

hcd199

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2009
2,156
1,448
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
See I disagree.

You pay what you can confirm. So in the game last night, the ball had gone through the goals, it didn't hit the post - that's a goal. The goal umpire wasn't sure whether it was touched and neither was the score review. A behind was paid on an assumption that something might have happened - not on confirmation that it did.

The Dangerfield one tonight actually highlights the point. The umpire should have called a goal (what he did know was the ball went through) but can he get confirmation that the ball didn't hit the post. The review indicated that there's no evidence the ball touched the post. So the goal was correctly paid. But if the evidence was inconclusive, it would have been paid a behind.
I disagree with your definitions here. A goal is defined not merely by passing between the two goalposts, but by the last touch having been a kick by the attacking team (i.e., not touched) and not hitting the post - if you're unsure whether one of those things did or didn't take place, then you can't "confirm" that the score is a goal.

So with the Sinclair/Vlastuin example, yes the umpire knows that the ball has passed between the sticks but what he doesn't know, which is crucial to whether it is or isn't a goal, is whether the last touch was from an attacking boot or not - to call it a goal would be as much of an assumption as to call it a behind. Likewise with the Dangerfield example: Geelong boot check, ultimately passed between the big sticks check, but did it touch the padding on the way through? If that can't be confirmed, the outcome is rightly dubious; to bias towards a goal on the basis of only one defining requirement being incontrovertibly met would be like a cricket umpire giving an LBW because he's 100% certain the batsman was hit on the pad whereas he's a little unsure whether it was a front-foot no-ball or not, a little unsure whether it struck him in line with the wicket, and a little unsure whether it actually would've hit the wicket or not...

Instead, the process we have makes sense - it recognises that everything the goal umpire does is based on making assumptions, asks what he/she assumes in this instance, and proceeds to either prove them wrong or uphold their judgement. I'd far rather that to any system that was biased to paying goals merely because they went between the goalposts - having to be kicked cleanly between them is a defining feature of the sport that shouldn't be diminished by treating those features of the rule as secondary, which I think your perspective does.
 

lewdogs

Premium Platinum
Jun 4, 2008
5,553
15,986
WA
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Arsenal, Portland Trailblazers
It was just umpiring incompetence. The goal umpire went off Vlaustin saying it was touched and guessed. Then the reviewer didn't have the guts to overturn it when it clearly wasn't touched.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

John Who

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 16, 2017
7,013
4,944
AFL Club
Adelaide
How to keep your sanity during a goal review:
- don’t expect the video review system to be 100% perfect
- don’t expect goal umpires to always be right
- expect the unexpected

And just to reiterate a few of the comments, the video reviews are to help eliminate the OBVIOUS bad goal umpire decisions. They aren’t supposed to eradicate “bad” 50/50 calls. Because when there is a 1mm fingernail nick on the ball, no amount of technology is going to likely find any ball deviation.
 

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods

Sir Cripps of Carlton House
Mar 26, 2015
7,058
12,072
Bendigo
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Tigers Philadelphia 76ers
Inconclusively touched = not touched
It's pretty simple. The reason we hear the umpire's call when the field umpire requests a review is so there's a starting point. The ARC then sets about deciding whether there's enough evidence to overturn that first call.
So the umpire's call is now the default position. There needs to be enough evidence to alter that default position. If there isn't enough to say it WAS touched or that it WASN'T, the default position stands.
 

Rusty Brookes

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 9, 2001
5,446
6,003
Preston
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawthorn, Manningham Cobras
I disagree with your definitions here. A goal is defined not merely by passing between the two goalposts, but by the last touch having been a kick by the attacking team (i.e., not touched) and not hitting the post - if you're unsure whether one of those things did or didn't take place, then you can't "confirm" that the score is a goal.

So with the Sinclair/Vlastuin example, yes the umpire knows that the ball has passed between the sticks but what he doesn't know, which is crucial to whether it is or isn't a goal, is whether the last touch was from an attacking boot or not - to call it a goal would be as much of an assumption as to call it a behind. Likewise with the Dangerfield example: Geelong boot check, ultimately passed between the big sticks check, but did it touch the padding on the way through? If that can't be confirmed, the outcome is rightly dubious; to bias towards a goal on the basis of only one defining requirement being incontrovertibly met would be like a cricket umpire giving an LBW because he's 100% certain the batsman was hit on the pad whereas he's a little unsure whether it was a front-foot no-ball or not, a little unsure whether it struck him in line with the wicket, and a little unsure whether it actually would've hit the wicket or not...

Instead, the process we have makes sense - it recognises that everything the goal umpire does is based on making assumptions, asks what he/she assumes in this instance, and proceeds to either prove them wrong or uphold their judgement. I'd far rather that to any system that was biased to paying goals merely because they went between the goalposts - having to be kicked cleanly between them is a defining feature of the sport that shouldn't be diminished by treating those features of the rule as secondary, which I think your perspective does.
I fully get your argument but what happens when the umpire thinks its a goal and calls for the review (which I reckon is the most common use of the score review system).

Surely that's exactly the same scenario - the goal umpire isn't sure the score they've called should stand. But when the evidence comes back as inconclusive a goal is quite rightly paid. Following your logic, the ball hasn't been kicked cleanly and therefore a behind should be paid.

There's nothing in the rules that say the ball has to be kicked cleanly - it just has to be off the boot of the player without anyone else touching it. If the evidence isn't conclusive that the ball has been touched, then the argument has to be the ball wasn't touched.
 

G String

Team Captain
Jan 3, 2008
396
790
Brighton
AFL Club
Richmond
One way to eliminate all this crud - remove the touched behind rule. If the ball goes over the line it's a goal, regardless of whether a defender touches the ball or not.
I agree with this but its not a popular opinion - AFL has so many grey areas for umpires to try and adjudicate to the detriment of the game. DOB is another one like this. The more grey areas we can take out the game and the less the umpire is involved the better IMO
 

G String

Team Captain
Jan 3, 2008
396
790
Brighton
AFL Club
Richmond
It was just umpiring incompetence. The goal umpire went off Vlaustin saying it was touched and guessed. Then the reviewer didn't have the guts to overturn it when it clearly wasn't touched.
Not sure why a lot of people are saying it was 'clearly' not touched. The whole point is that it was not clear and so it could not be overturned.

I think the process worked as well as it can with the limits of the technology. At the moment this process can only overturn if there has been an obvious howler which is not the case here.
 

hcd199

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2009
2,156
1,448
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
I fully get your argument but what happens when the umpire thinks its a goal and calls for the review (which I reckon is the most common use of the score review system).

Surely that's exactly the same scenario - the goal umpire isn't sure the score they've called should stand. But when the evidence comes back as inconclusive a goal is quite rightly paid. Following your logic, the ball hasn't been kicked cleanly and therefore a behind should be paid.

There's nothing in the rules that say the ball has to be kicked cleanly - it just has to be off the boot of the player without anyone else touching it. If the evidence isn't conclusive that the ball has been touched, then the argument has to be the ball wasn't touched.
I don't think that's what I've been saying. My emphasis has been on each of the core elements of the definition of a goal being important, such that it's unreasonable to favour calling a goal solely because the only certain detail is which sticks it passed between - that doesn't mean we need certainty with regard to the other elements (being touched/hitting the post), we just need reason to think that, on balance, those elements weigh in favour of it being a goal (in other words, it's less likely than not that it was touched, or that it hit the post). If the goal umpire "believes it's a goal", and there isn't good reason to think otherwise, I agree that it's right to pay the goal. (To be clear, by "cleanly" I was referring to exactly what you've noted, that the ball has to not be touched; I was just trying to express that more succinctly...)

"Pay the lesser" was the right principle for when the goal umpire was sufficiently unsure to convene the other umpires and they too were unsure - it's status-quo-preserving, much like the parliamentary conventions around the Speaker's casting vote. With video review available, though, it's better to take note of the goal umpire's basic assumptions and either show them to be wrong or uphold them, because doing so gets us closer to the true state of affairs as best as we can ascertain them, which is obviously desirable. I don't think having a bias towards whatever details we can "confirm" has either of these valuable features - by weighing easier-to-ascertain details more heavily, the basic definition of what a goal is gets distorted and we diverge from focusing on what's likely to be the true state of affairs, whilst it's also likely to favour awarding goals that aren't there when, in the absence of more information, any bias should really be towards the lesser change.
 

kozi

Varsity athlete
Oct 14, 2011
41,973
49,977
living rent free
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Dubs, United
Why does the field umpire even need to rush over, demand for the ball to be in his hands before proceeding, tell other players to go away, have a conversation with the goal umpire, then turn around and ask for the review. The whole process is an amateur hour circus from A to Z. If the AFL had half a clue it would have worked as simply as this from the beginning:

- No field umpire involvement
- Goal umpire makes an instant sign asking for the review
- No goal umpire call
- Inconclusive evidence = goal
- Conclusive evidence = point

Goal umpire has precisely and only 3 calls to make. Goal, point or review. That’s it.
 

kozi

Varsity athlete
Oct 14, 2011
41,973
49,977
living rent free
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Dubs, United
Because as per the rules of the game, the field umpire confirms the score before the goal umpire signals it.

Next year when you're at the ground watch and you'll see them do it for every score.
No score is confirmed prior to calling for a review so that rule is pretty much void as it pertains to the review system.

The actual issue boils down to umpires call being a thing. As it stands currently the only real function of the field ump rushing over and going through the whole unnecessary and at times farcical routine is to get the goal umpire’s call and relay it. I’m proposing the same as the OP, scrap the umpire’s call which is a blight on the review system anyway. Therefore there wouldn’t even be the need for the whole goal line routine between field ump and goal ump.

Goal ump calls for review in the same time it would take to signal a goal/point on a normal play. No umpire’s call. ARC makes the final decision. Clean, simple and efficient.
 

Boston tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
May 10, 2010
6,147
4,499
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
Here's the thing,

Last night a goal was overturned because the goal umpire originally said touched. The score review showed that it wasn't.

The decision is then passed back to the guy who was incorrect.

He might have actually watched the footage and deemed that it was a clear goal but has to live and die by his own mistake.

Its farcical.
It was obviously touched. The umpire was half a meter away. A blurry image isn’t going to change any thing. The rule is touched .. not deflected.
 

Doashuey

Club Legend
Sep 13, 2017
2,686
5,461
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad