The introduction of video technology in the sport of Aussie Rules has been discussed recently due to some errors by field and goal umpires. Given the importance of football to many in Australia ( even more important than who wins the Federal election ) fierce debate rages as to whether umpire performance and thus game results should rely on human skill or be assisted by technology.

Video technology is a must for goal umpires in the AFL. Game results are too important to rely on human expertise. With copious amounts of money now wagered on all sports, so much can ride on a single incorrect umpiring decision.

http://thebigtip.com.au/afl/afl-needs-third-umpire

We saw on the weekend another goal umpiring issue with Brian Lake. Similiar thing happened in the Western Bulldogs vs Melbourne game earlier in the year. Were Melbourne was robbed of the 4 points. Agree with the article? What are your views on video technology?

I am for bringing in video technology.

We saw on the weekend another goal umpiring issue with Brian Lake. Similiar thing happened in the Western Bulldogs vs Melbourne game earlier in the year. Were Melbourne was robbed of the 4 points. Agree with the article? What are your views on video technology?

I am for bringing in video technology.

problem here is what video technology and which particular goal scoring errors are you trying to eliminate and how it would work

its hard to vote on something without a little more definition

for example just more visual angles, hot spot technology etc

trying to determine if ball over line, off the boot, touched by opposition, hit post, correct side of post etc

how is it referred eg goal umpire, central umpire, captains appeal . . . any time limits for resolution, no of appeals . . .

also what happens if a blatant unseen free kick is identified when reviewing video? In NRL they also check for this sort of stuff too

worth discussing more before voting

Two goal umpires at each end, one on each post.

Enough change already! only thing to be fixed is the "scrums" that are developing, 1 player at ball - one tackler, none of this piling on top - easy to fix just pay for in back or head high

problem here is what video technology and which particular goal scoring errors are you trying to eliminate and how it would work

its hard to vote on something without a little more definition

for example just more visual angles, hot spot technology etc

trying to determine if ball over line, off the boot, touched by opposition, hit post, correct side of post etc

how is it referred eg goal umpire, central umpire, captains appeal . . . any time limits for resolution, no of appeals . . .

also what happens if a blatant unseen free kick is identified when reviewing video? In NRL they also check for this sort of stuff too

worth discussing more before voting

Not sure the AFL would spare enough to Incorporate something like the hot spot technology. Great idea though. Would obviously solve those goal umpire errors like Hawkins in the grand final or Green against the Swans.

The camera in the goalpost used in the St Kilda vs Dogs game was a failure. The resolution was too low, the frame rate was too low, and the camera's position was such that you couldn't even see Lake's fingers in the shot.

Total failure, and the perfect example as to why we don't need video technology.

The best way to ensure goal umpires don't make mistakes? Get a second one down there, and bloody well train them better. All these rule changes that have been proposed of late, most of them have been designed to make the game easier for umpires (field or goal). Why not make the umpires better at what they do?

Edited September 23, 201014 yr by titan_uranus

The camera in the goalpost used in the St Kilda vs Dogs game was a failure. The resolution was too low, the frame rate was too low, and the camera's position was such that you couldn't even see Lake's fingers in the shot.

Total failure, and the perfect example as to why we don't need video technology.

The best way to ensure goal umpires don't make mistakes? Get a second one down there, and bloody well train them better. All these rule changes that have been proposed of late, most of them have been designed to make the game easier for umpires (field or goal). Why not make the umpires better at what they do?

Personally, I'm dead against 2 goal umpires up each end. I think it would create greater confusion, especially when there is that questionable decision to be made and all umpires in the area get involved.

That said, video technology in my opinion is the only answer, but will it create a lot more issues? As posters have already said, will they rewind it to pick up on that free kick missed? Realistically, the use of technology should be used to answer the following questions;

1. Did the ball hit the post?

2. Did the ball go through the goal or behind areas?

3. Was the ball touched on the line?

4. Did the ball come off the attacking teams foot?

From what I can think of, the above questions would be the only ones that could effectively be decided through the use of technology. The question of being touched off the boot would be near impossible to be paid as thre can literally be a fingernail in it, and I don't think our technology could pick up on it. This will probably lead to people asking how can I say that when question 3 above can also be a fingernail decision, well, it would be a case of "Goal Umpires Decision", and that is what's paid.

I don't think you could introduce technology to decide free kicks = let's face it, as much as they are blind d!ckheads, the umpires look at an incident and in their view, make the right decision. A lot of the rules are open to interpretation, that's the joys of this great game.

With that said, how can technology be introduced to ensure it works. Obviously anytime a decision is referred to the "video ref", this will create a stoppage in play. So, do we implement the tennis/cricket system where each team have a certain amount of challenges per match? Wouldn't take long for sides to use this as a tactic to slow down play and set up zones, slow down opposition, etc. therefore, this method is a complete NO!

Probably the only way I can see it working is giving the responsibility to the central umpire. He confronts the Goal Umpire, a clear "was it a goal - yes or no?", and asks both boundary umpires the same thing. If there is 4 green lights (with the central ump included), then it's a goal. An answer of "I think so", it is automatically a red light. All it would take is 1 red light for the decision to be referred upstairs. I think this is the only system that would work - am happy to hear opinions or other suggestions though!

At the end of the day, the errors are growing in costly-ness (?). The Hawkins poster in last years GF could be argued that it cost St Kilda the flag. If it is possibly costing a team a premiership, then something HAS to be done about it.

Only other point for those who don't want it introduced - there are minimal decision each year that are questioned. The introduction of technology wont slow EVERY game down, heck, we can go for weeks where there would be no need for the video. So, if that is your main arguement, just have a think about how many times a scoring decision was brought up this year - would be less than 10, out of a total of 616 home and away quarters, which is approx 18,480 minutes!

Edited September 23, 201014 yr by billy2803

. . . .

Only other point for those who don't want it introduced - there are minimal decision each year that are questioned. The introduction of technology wont slow EVERY game down, heck, we can go for weeks where there would be no need for the video. So, if that is your main arguement, just have a think about how many times a scoring decision was brought up this year - would be less than 10, out of a total of 616 home and away quarters, which is approx 18,480 minutes!

the problem here is that when this option is given to the umpires, the number of questionable decisions increases. This has happened in other sports. Look at the number of run out decisions that get referred in cricket. Look at the number of tries in NRL that get referred. The umpires would increasingly take the "safe" option and refer decisions when there was only a tiny doubt.

Not saying that there will be five or more referrals per game, but the number of questionable incidents will definitely increase as the pressure on the umpire increases and an alternative exists.

Not to say it shouldn't be done, but your statement above is a bit optimistic

A long post Bill but a fair summation . it's a vexed question where the devil is in the detail . On first look you'd have to think technology must be able to help. A problem exists in the nature of our game, it rarely stops for long .. Other codes have easier opportunities for decisions and implementations within the flow/ stoping of game. I would have thought better cameras etc might provide for goal disputes . Lime much it comes down to will and preparedness to spend.

I think some bad decisions re goals have stemmed from strange interference and hierachy of power on the field. Maybe this can be bettered.

the problem here is that when this option is given to the umpires, the number of questionable decisions increases. This has happened in other sports. Look at the number of run out decisions that get referred in cricket. Look at the number of tries in NRL that get referred. The umpires would increasingly take the "safe" option and refer decisions when there was only a tiny doubt.

Not saying that there will be five or more referrals per game, but the number of questionable incidents will definitely increase as the pressure on the umpire increases and an alternative exists.

Not to say it shouldn't be done, but your statement above is a bit optimistic

This is a main point with video technology. But, is it such a bad thing that they will take the safe option? At least it will be correct and potentially stop a side from losing a Grand Final.

The other sports that use it take far too long, with the exception of tennis. The NRL rely on the Video Ref far too much, but i don't think that will be a factor in our game.

This is a main point with video technology. But, is it such a bad thing that they will take the safe option? At least it will be correct and potentially stop a side from losing a Grand Final.

The other sports that use it take far too long, with the exception of tennis. The NRL rely on the Video Ref far too much, but i don't think that will be a factor in our game.

I'm open-minded and uncommitted

Like I said in earlier post I'd want much more discussion first on whats available, how it would work, what are we looking for etc

Have no doubt that eventually we will use more technology, but too much of the hype in the press is just that, and knee-jerk reactions

Let's be realistic Nrl has little excitement without the long drawn out video ref decisions !!!

I'd suggest technology ought to augment not replace the human involvement and only come into play when no clear cut answer is coming from the umps .

The problem with it all is it has to be super quick

as quarters are getting dragged out already.

Let's be realistic Nrl has little excitement without the long drawn out video ref decisions !!!

I'd suggest technology ought to augment not replace the human involvement and only come into play when no clear cut answer is coming from the umps .

The problem with it all is it has to be super quick

as quarters are getting dragged out already.

agree with all that

problem is when something is eventually introduced it could become the thin end of the wedge

Only other point for those who don't want it introduced - there are minimal decision each year that are questioned. The introduction of technology wont slow EVERY game down, heck, we can go for weeks where there would be no need for the video. So, if that is your main arguement, just have a think about how many times a scoring decision was brought up this year - would be less than 10, out of a total of 616 home and away quarters, which is approx 18,480 minutes!

This is a salient point IMO: if it's there, it will be used. Teams will use it just to get a 2-3 minute break while the umps check the decision, especially if they're one down on the bench. It allows for messages to be relayed, changes to be made, drinks to be had etc., all while the game is paused.

There have been a few more incidents this year than the last few (e.g. Byrnes' non-goal, Dunn and Green in our Friday night match, Gardiner's last Friday) but again, I reckon some better umpiring will solve the problem.

This is a salient point IMO: if it's there, it will be used. Teams will use it just to get a 2-3 minute break while the umps check the decision, especially if they're one down on the bench. It allows for messages to be relayed, changes to be made, drinks to be had etc., all while the game is paused.

There have been a few more incidents this year than the last few (e.g. Byrnes' non-goal, Dunn and Green in our Friday night match, Gardiner's last Friday) but again, I reckon some better umpiring will solve the problem.

If it were to be introduced, there would be no way it would take 2-3 minutes for a decision to be made. NRL takes less than a minute (it just feels like it takes forever).

Your point about players using it to their advantage is the exact reason why it needs to stay in the central umpires control.

Better umpiring will obviously solve the problem, but where are they? The game is getting quicker and quicker, and the umpires are spending more and more time training, it's just never going to be 100%, never has and never will.

Edited September 23, 201014 yr by billy2803