"Umpires Call"

Remove this Banner Ad

Rickee

Team Captain
May 23, 2016
512
580
Ballarat
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Port Melbourne; Redan
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

Team Captain
Jan 3, 2008
402
818
Brighton
AFL Club
Richmond
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?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Tugga27

Premiership Player
Jun 19, 2017
4,181
5,574
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.
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.
 

Frank Grimes

Premiership Player
May 8, 2007
3,696
6,534
between two bowling alley
AFL Club
Richmond
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.
 

Plugger35

The umpires are always right!
Sep 27, 2008
103,191
116,136
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chelsea, Black Caps, Subiaco
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

Team Captain
Jan 3, 2008
402
818
Brighton
AFL Club
Richmond
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

Team Captain
May 23, 2016
512
580
Ballarat
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Port Melbourne; Redan
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

Norm Smith Medallist
May 10, 2010
6,155
4,506
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
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.
 

harrythetiger

Jack Graham That Is 🏆🏆🏆
Sep 13, 2015
15,580
42,322
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
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.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rickee

Team Captain
May 23, 2016
512
580
Ballarat
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Port Melbourne; Redan
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

🏆🏆🐯EAT ‘EM ALIVE🐯🏆🏆
Oct 22, 2017
2,364
3,109
By the Seaside
AFL Club
Richmond
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

Team Captain
Jan 3, 2008
402
818
Brighton
AFL Club
Richmond
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

Premiership Player
May 8, 2007
3,696
6,534
between two bowling alley
AFL Club
Richmond
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.
 

harrythetiger

Jack Graham That Is 🏆🏆🏆
Sep 13, 2015
15,580
42,322
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
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.
 

greatwhiteshark

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
11,928
11,842
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad