Remove this Banner Ad

Unfathomable

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Rocky_78 said:
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
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have thought being a video review umpire would be that taxing...he had to make one decision and managed to botch it.
 
koshari said:
there was obviously other footage, the view from the grassy knoll clearly shows it hitting the post. FOXs vision from the book repository indicated otherwise.
Click to expand...
LOL. Yeah what a ****ed up decision. :stern look
 
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.
 
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.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

hcd199 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah that would solve it more rules, Why not a review of how long the review took?
 
LETSGOKANGAS said:
Loved Finey's thrashing of the that review.
Click to expand...

He said the VR umpire must have been watching stick movies.

Can anyone explain exactly what it was that Drew was trying to do there???? I was there so haven't seen the slow mo or anything.
 
Dugdale2Dwyer said:
Yeah that would solve it more rules, Why not a review of how long the review took?
Click to expand...

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.
 
hcd199 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree. Maybe 60 seconds. Would've put money on you bringing up Goldstein.
 
TwentyNine said:
Agree. Maybe 60 seconds. Would've put money on you bringing up Goldstein.
Click to expand...

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...
 
A premiership could be decided by these idiots.
 
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 **** 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.
 
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.
 
Hearts to hearts said:
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.
Click to expand...
Said the same in GR's video thread. It was a complete wtf moment, one Kingggy agreed with.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I couldn't wait to get home and see what was said on the coverage, and on Eddie and Derm's show.
Mind blowing decision. Mr Magoo the video review umpire FFS!
 
All that mattered was that the one guy who could make the decision was the only one to actually see the ball hit a damned post. If he believes it then it must be real.

mime-artist.gif
 
Hearts to hearts said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Arthur Cloke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sig worthy.
 
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.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

kangafruity said:
How fired up was he? He calls it like it is , the AFL must hate him
Click to expand...

As discussed on the HTB about how he handles the * issue, he calls it like the AFL don't call it on principle.
 
I'm a bit out of the loop today. Has the AFL come up with a bullshit explanation of this stuff up yet?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom