Amid all the controversy from the Boxing Day test surrounding the dismissals of Mike Hussey and Ed Cowan and the fact that the Indians refuse to accept any technology available to assist in adjudicating on umpire's decisions, I was wondering how long will it take for the AFL to introduce technology to decide on goals and behinds scored and other decisions.

I'm sure it will happen one day but why do I have this feeling that the first team to get dudded one way or the other will be us.

The Indian control board is run by sleazebags. The AFL is run by sleazebags. Do you think these organizations would allow noble concepts such as seeking the truth and promotion of fairness and justice to infiltrate into their agendas?

Can't see video technology having a role in AFL anywhere else but in goal line technology. It just doesn't seem practical anywhere else.

So the question is how much is it worth it? I'd say in a couple of years time we could get some kind of system similar to what channel 10 trialled this year where the cameras on the goal line are reasonably accurate. Then I'd go with the goal umpire having the power to refer close decisions. It would probably be better than those mini umpire conferences they convene when they have no idea what is going on.

I'm not sure we have the technology to determine the difference between goals and points yet, they can be tough, but maybe once again the umpire could refer up if he has quite a bit of doubt. But then we might cause more harm than good.

All in all soccer is the big one where they should get moving on technology. But FIFA makes the I(ndian)CC look like angels.

The difference is one poor decision in cricket is much more likely to have a major impact on a match and/or career than a single poor decision in footy.

The same value is not added for the interruption to the event in footy for that reason.

Not sure we really need to turn too technology to adjudicate on those rare occasions when a goal is in doubt. I would prefer a simpler solution whereby we follow soccers lead and pay a goal regardless of whether it touches the post or not. If it goes through the goals untouched by a player it's a goal. This would clean up a large part of the conjecture. Likewise I have always advocated play on if the ball bounces off the post and goes back into the field of play. I would also have grave doubts placing the responsibility of such technology in the grubby hands of the AFL hierarchy. They have of late demonstrated a very flexible attitude to their own code of conduct when their own business expansion plans are threatened. Every decision on and off the field these days seems to be based on a business plan. The sad thing is that the simple notion of right and wrong doesn't appear to be in the plan. Unfortunately I have a gut feeling that the AFL look lovingly at the way FIFA and the Indian Cricket Board conduct their affairs and find inspiration in their approach.

The AFL is run by sleazebags. Do you think these organizations would allow noble concepts such as seeking the truth and promotion of fairness and justice to infiltrate into their agendas?

I would also have grave doubts placing the responsibility of such technology in the grubby hands of the AFL hierarchy. They have of late demonstrated a very flexible attitude to their own code of conduct when their own business expansion plans are threatened. Every decision on and off the field these days seems to be based on a business plan. The sad thing is that the simple notion of right and wrong doesn't appear to be in the plan.

I would love to see John Clark and collaborators do a comedy series based around the AFL & its administration, like they did with the Sydney Olympic Games. There's plenty of material to work with.

Amid all the controversy from the Boxing Day test surrounding the dismissals of Mike Hussey and Ed Cowan and the fact that the Indians refuse to accept any technology available to assist in adjudicating on umpire's decisions, I was wondering how long will it take for the AFL to introduce technology to decide on goals and behinds scored and other decisions.

I'm sure it will happen one day but why do I have this feeling that the first team to get dudded one way or the other will be us.

A few lie detectors in 2011 would have been a hoot!

The difference is one poor decision in cricket is much more likely to have a major impact on a match and/or career than a single poor decision in footy.

The same value is not added for the interruption to the event in footy for that reason.

I think that this is exactly the case. It's why the calls for goal mouth technology are so much stronger in soccer than they are in AFL.

I'm sure it will happen one day but why do I have this feeling that the first team to get dudded one way or the other will be us.

I'm still surprised there has been no movement on this by the AFL. Imagine the repercussions of an erroneously won grand final. If it were Melbourne on the receiving end I would be leading the siege of AFL HQ. We may not like the idea of it but adjudicating must keep up with the technology available to the broadcasters or the game will suffer.

I would prefer a simpler solution whereby we follow soccers lead and pay a goal regardless of whether it touches the post or not. If it goes through the goals untouched by a player it's a goal. This would clean up a large part of the conjecture. Likewise I have always advocated play on if the ball bounces off the post and goes back into the field of play.

Was going to post something similar. I'm not sure on the play on if it comes back into play as this represents quite a change to how the the game is played, though it would add some interest. But a ball shaving the post and going through the goals being given the 6 points would not represent a change to how the game is played, either in the spirit of the game or just in the practical mechanics of the game. It would also have the benefit of being free and would elimate errors like the Hawkins one a couple of years back. A very sensible solution