Unfathomable

scottywiper

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 8, 2003
Posts
15,949
Likes
13,085
Location
Hamish Paradise
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Fugu Gurus
Thread starter #26
totally agree..
100 PCT

But It wouldn't be an easy job being a umpire

Perspective .... we didn't lose the game by 5 points..

I'm over it
Wouldn't have thought being a video review umpire would be that taxing...he had to make one decision and managed to botch it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Posts
1,782
Likes
6,360
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Doutta "Porn" Stars
#28
I was actually sitting right under that post at the Ponsford Stand end and I still cant tell whether it was a goal or not. Like I said to you at half time SW, even blind Steady Eddie could tell that was a goal. Why we cant implement technology where the ball explodes once it crosses the goal line is beyond me. Ive spent a bit of time in Kabul and the technology is there. It aint rocket surgery.
 

hcd199

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Posts
2,006
Likes
1,088
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
#29
The entire purpose of the goal umpire stating their decision before moving to the review is so that there's a decision to revert to if footage doesn't provide a definitive, conclusive result. There is no way known that it could be conclusively stated that the ball hit the post; if anything, it was fairly conclusive that it didn't. Stinker of a decision.

Also, they should introduce some sort of time limit on the review; this one took far too long to conclude. Should revert to umpires' call if no conclusion can be reached in, say, 30 seconds.
 

Dugdale2Dwyer

Premiership Player
Joined
May 31, 2014
Posts
4,121
Likes
3,605
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#30
The entire purpose of the goal umpire stating their decision before moving to the review is so that there's a decision to revert to if footage doesn't provide a definitive, conclusive result. There is no way known that it could be conclusively stated that the ball hit the post; if anything, it was fairly conclusive that it didn't. Stinker of a decision.

Also, they should introduce some sort of time limit on the review; this one took far too long to conclude. Should revert to umpires' call if no conclusion can be reached in, say, 30 seconds.
Yeah that would solve it more rules, Why not a review of how long the review took?
 

hcd199

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Posts
2,006
Likes
1,088
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
#32
Yeah that would solve it more rules, Why not a review of how long the review took?
Clarifying the review process so that the umpire was asked his opinion first improved the rule for the better; don't forget Goldstein being denied a goal at the SCG in Round 4 of 2012 because the field umpire wanted to check for a touch and it came back inconclusive, so they paid the lesser. What video review exists to do is to correct overtly wrong decisions: it should take no longer than 30 seconds at most to establish the correct decision for any given instance. If the outcome is unclear after 30 seconds, the on-field call should stand, because there is no clear evidence available as to what is correct. Hardly a detrimental change.
 

TwentyNine

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 16, 2013
Posts
5,144
Likes
7,062
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#33
Clarifying the review process so that the umpire was asked his opinion first improved the rule for the better; don't forget Goldstein being denied a goal at the SCG in Round 4 of 2012 because the field umpire wanted to check for a touch and it came back inconclusive, so they paid the lesser. What video review exists to do is to correct overtly wrong decisions: it should take no longer than 30 seconds at most to establish the correct decision for any given instance. If the outcome is unclear after 30 seconds, the on-field call should stand, because there is no clear evidence available as to what is correct. Hardly a detrimental change.
Agree. Maybe 60 seconds. Would've put money on you bringing up Goldstein.
 

hcd199

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Posts
2,006
Likes
1,088
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
#34
Agree. Maybe 60 seconds. Would've put money on you bringing up Goldstein.
60 seconds seems too long for mine; if it's unclear after a brief check of a few angles, it's probably not clearly wrong enough to overturn. Might've been ANZAC Day this year where they used an odd angle and found conclusive evidence of a touch about 45-50 seconds in but that seems to me an exceptional circumstance. And yes, I am fond of the Goldstein Round 4 SCG example...
 

archereleven

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Posts
9,123
Likes
12,456
Location
Broome
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Atlanta Falcons
#36
Pretty hard to get the system right when you have Mr Myopia at the controls.

Its fair enough the umpires on the field cant get shit right all the time, but the cock smoker in the box with 8000 tv's and unlimited slow mo replays?

**** off umpire!

JZ will be in front of the MRP this week for bringing the game into disrepute.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hearts to hearts

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 16, 2001
Posts
18,897
Likes
27,034
Location
Melbourne VIC
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
#37
Thread title could also refer to Gerard Healy's contention - when North were a few goals and plenty of scoring shots in front - that "the game is on Melbourne's racquet - they can tidy up a few mistakes and go out to a big win, or keep giving North Melbourne opportunities". What. A. Flog.
 

B Tron

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Posts
25,840
Likes
47,982
Location
The ENCOM mainframe
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#38
Thread title could also refer to Gerard Healy's contention - when North were a few goals and plenty of scoring shots in front - that "the game is on Melbourne's racquet - they can tidy up a few mistakes and go out to a big win, or keep giving North Melbourne opportunities". What. A. Flog.
Said the same in GR's video thread. It was a complete wtf moment, one Kingggy agreed with.
 

Kimbo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
18,040
Likes
24,858
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Sturt, Liverpool
#42
Thread title could also refer to Gerard Healy's contention - when North were a few goals and plenty of scoring shots in front - that "the game is on Melbourne's racquet - they can tidy up a few mistakes and go out to a big win, or keep giving North Melbourne opportunities". What. A. Flog.
Reminiscent of the '99 GF call, focused on opp'n (mistakes) early, then when our lead blew out, and only then, did he note our work off the ball in contributing. What. a. flog.
 

Mr. Blonde

Premiership Player
Joined
Dec 16, 2001
Posts
4,549
Likes
10,504
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Kangaroos
#44
The whole idea of a video review system is a joke. The technology isn't there.

Cricket has it for run outs and lbw, it is simple and effective as the cameras are in place and the correct technology is used.

Tennis and Soccer both use it to see if the ball is over the line or not. Again, simple and effective.

NRL use it for some tries and it works perfectly.

AFL use it terribly. Checking if a fast moving ball has been touched off the boot is almost impossible. Goal line decisions from a camera located somewhere on the 50 metre line in absurd. Checking if the ball has hit the post from inconclusive angles in terrible.

AFL is a sport where video reviews just don't work. Go with the umpires call like we have done for the previous 100 years and put up with the odd wrong decision and just get on with it.
 
Top Bottom