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.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.
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.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
Isn't the umpire guessing that the ball was touched?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.
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.So bomb it to the square where a 7 foot guy punches a goal through ? Not really footy then is it.
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 ?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.
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.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.
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.Inconclusively touched = not touched
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).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 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 IMOOne 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.
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.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.
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...)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.
No score is confirmed prior to calling for a review so that rule is pretty much void as it pertains to the review system.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.
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.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.
I don't agree but anyway, its beside the point.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.