What's with Chelsea and the video reviews?

[Suzanna 72]

Does anyone else think that three in one game is too much? If a goal umpire can't make a decision, what are they being paid for?

Maybe I am being too harsh, maybe just shirty because all three decisions went against us, but honestly - three in one game?

Is Chelsea perhaps enjoying the publicity of being the only female umpire too much and hamming it up?

What do other posters think?

[bananas 428]

Another possible element: the other umpires (subconsciously) don't respect her decisions as much because of her gender, and feel more free to butt in.

[Suzanna 72]

You could have a point there - there was WAY too much interference with the game yesterday, and some really puzzling decisions. But then, while we are playing badly, we will get the crummy umpires. The good ones will be used in the 'games that matter'. Once we consistently play better, we will get better umpires! (Don't hold your breath though).

[mauriesy 7,153]

Then again, maybe the incidents needed review, the right decisions were made, and all the arguments about gender and the hard-done-by Demons are crap.

[Young Dee 1,303]

Don't be sexist - It would be tough being the only female ump and she probably did not want to make the wrong decision

However I did find that her positioning in front of the post when Byrnes slide in was questionable. I know they need to have a good view of the line but couldn't she get behind the post or on the other side of the post - we have already had one injured umpire recently and fans would have been very angry if she got in the way of a goal. She might have just been caught of guard though it was unexpected.

[george_on_the_outer 7,428]

Chelsea made the right call each time...it was the field umpires who called for the reviews....

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Wasn't she the umpire that gave us a point instead of a goal when we played the Crows on the Gold Coast, costing us the game?

[Bonkers 987]

Then again, maybe the incidents needed review, the right decisions were made, and all the arguments about gender and the hard-done-by Demons are crap.

The Shannon Byrnes goal that was paid as a point was incorrect. The ball didn't hit the post, Byrnes protected the ball from the post using his hand. Apologies if someone has already mentioned this.

[rjay 24,579]

The Shannon Byrnes goal that was paid as a point was incorrect. The ball didn't hit the post, Byrnes protected the ball from the post using his hand. Apologies if someone has already mentioned this.

She called it a goal and it was over-ruled. They must have different vision because there was nothing on the Fox vision to over-rule her first decision.

[DeeSpencer 24,697]

The Cameron goal that was reviewed was a joke.

Whatever the original decision was should of stood. Which I think was a goal.

The review doesn't help at all because you can't actually tell when the foot hits the ball because Cameron's foot sweeps in from the left.

I've only seen the Byrnes one live at the ground but it was mighty close.

Really they should invest in better cameras and also show a graphic like cricket lbws. Ie original decision, conclusive evidence to overrule, final decision

[DEE fence 4,923]

She did the right thing, the boundary ump stuffed it up. Some days there will be three reviews, some days none, it was literally between her legs, just caught out nothing wrong with that doesn't happen often .

[The heart beats true 17,765]

I'll look at it and ignore the fact that it was Chelsea (who I actually think is magnificent for the game).

My issue is that she was in the best position for at least 2 of the 3 decisions. There's no way a camera could see more than she did from her vantage point. It's making a joke of them even needing to be there if this is what happens. The field ump can call it 9 times out of 10, with the 10th going to review regardless.

I don't like the system. I think it makes the umpires look less in control, kills the flow of the game, and very rarely gives a definitive decision.

[rjay 24,579]

There was one in the Richmond Collingwood game that the review definitely got wrong. For some decisions like touched or hitting the post it is impossible to tell unless there has been a big deflection. The system is not working to well at all.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,748]

Wasn't she the umpire that gave us a point instead of a goal when we played the Crows on the Gold Coast, costing us the game?

Exactly right ,Robbie. And in the same game she over-ruled a goal by Cam Bruce saying it was over the line before he gathered the ball,which replays later showed was wrong.

I'm not for a moment suggesting she has a vendetta against Melbourne, but it's been amazing how frequently we have been on the unlucky end of her decisions.

I'll never forget that game up at Carrara v. Adelaide. It was our third loss in the third game of the season. The next week we had a heroic victory on the SCG ,despite a grossly unfair 50m to Schneider against Rivers resulting in a vital goal to Sydney.

Yesterday,If she'd stuck to her opinion with Byrnes' goal,it would have been paid. No one had a better view of that than her....it all happened between her legs!

[praha 11,110]

Another possible element: the other umpires (subconsciously) don't respect her decisions as much because of her gender, and feel more free to butt in.

IMO generalising that men are going to treat women lesser because of their sex is akin to the sexism you suggest might be occurring. Even saying it's "possible" relies on misconstructed social theory that sexism is rife in society, which I don't accept. That's an unfair assumption to place on the umpire just because they're male and the goal umpire is female. You're basically saying, "Well, she is female, so maybe she's a victim of sexism?" That in itself is sexist.

If the goal umpire says, "It appeared to be a goal, but I can't be sure", then they go to the replay. If they are 100% sure, there won't be a replay. She wasn't sure, so there was a replay.

[daisycutter 29,315]

if the goal umpire says, "It appeared to be a goal, but I can't be sure", then they go to the replay. If they are 100% sure, there won't be a replay. She wasn't sure, so there was a replay.

Its not as simple as that. Any of the other umpires can also say there is an element of doubt and then the central umpire can decide to go the video

[old dee 23,486]

Wasn't she the umpire that gave us a point instead of a goal when we played the Crows on the Gold Coast, costing us the game?

As someone else said Robbie YES.

I have disliked her ever since so I best not say any more.

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

Until the AFL invests in having set camera's on the goal line and on posts etc. instead of using the TV camera's, the whole Video Review System will continue to be the insipid unpredictable circus it currently is.

[low flying Robbo 979]

She called it a goal and it was over-ruled. They must have different vision because there was nothing on the Fox vision to over-rule her first decision.

Yeah she moved to the centre of the goals to signal a goal, and i think it was the on-field umpire who didn't give the all clear and called for the review

[H_T 3,032]

Then again, maybe the incidents needed review, the right decisions were made, and all the arguments about gender and the hard-done-by Demons are crap.

One wasn't the right decision. Byrnes' goal should have been just that. A goal.

[Weedster 174]

Yeah she moved to the centre of the goals to signal a goal, and i think it was the on-field umpire who didn't give the all clear and called for the review

This is true. Chelsea's great for the game.

[Little Goffy 13,981]

Yep, in two of the cases Goal Umpire Roffey was ready to make the call but a review was called for by another umpire. In both of those her original call was upheld.

In the third review, the 'did it touch the post' call, she was set to call it a goal but acknowledged uncertainty and the review gave a correct answer.

So, Goal Umpire Roffey's performance on the day was actually right on the money.

All that, and a uterus too!

[H_T 3,032]

Yep, in two of the cases Goal Umpire Roffey was ready to make the call but a review was called for by another umpire. In both of those her original call was upheld.

In the third review, the 'did it touch the post' call, she was set to call it a goal but acknowledged uncertainty and the review gave a correct answer.

So, Goal Umpire Roffey's performance on the day was actually right on the money.

All that, and a uterus too!

The review on the 3rd one, gave an incorrect answer. Replay showed Byrnes having tapped the ball back before hitting the post, gathered it and kicked the goal. She was going to signal a goal (and she was in the best position), and it would have been the correct decision. The review was incorrect.

[DeeSpencer 24,697]

Our 13 goal quarter was ruined by the goal line review!

I like Chelsea and I hope she learns to be more assertive. I don't think its a sex issue but a personality issue. She lets the pesky blokes give her too much grief.

[titan_uranus 24,580]

In the first two instances, she made the correct call, in calling both of them goals when they both were. Boundary umpires in each case weren't sure, and have been told in those instances to notify the field umpire of their uncertainty over the score. The review was called because Chelsea, correctly, didn't want to be stubborn in her views, and the replays are there to make sure howlers aren't missed.

The Byrnes one was again the correct move from Chelsea. This time, she couldn't tell whether the ball had hit the post or Byrnes' hand (or whatever) due to her position on the goal-line, so her inclination was to call it a behind (benefit of the doubt, I'd say). The review was called for due to her doubt, but it wasn't her fault that the wrong decision was made (I've seen the vision, and to me it's clear that it comes off Byrnes' hand, not the post).

In all three instances, then, she was right to call for a review.