I understand that if a ball is touched on the goal line and there is uncertainty the umpires might review.

I even understand that if the umpire DOESN'T call touched off the boot and the ball goes through the goal that they may want to review to see if it is touched. If there is NO call from the umpire you, as a defender or attacker, will not alter your decision as the ball comes towards you.

However, yesterday, the umpire clearly called a ball that was kicked at Collingwood's goal "touch play on" loudly and clearly. The ball just flew over the players heads in the goal square and went through and the umpire then asked for a review to see if his call touched call was right.  I'm not sure this is not taking a review too far. When the umpire called touched play on as the ball is coming towards the goal , that may change the way defenders/forwards actually go at the ball. I don't think a review in those circumstances should be allowed. A review should not be allowed where the original call of the umpire may impact the way the players attack a contest.

I thought that was one of the sillier things i've ever seen, totally disrespectful to the field umpire who clearly called touched. 

Just now, Peter Griffen said:

I thought that was one of the sillier things i've ever seen, totally disrespectful to the field umpire who clearly called touched. 

Was it a different umpire that called for the review ?

Yep it gone too far and needs to be fixed.

Nonsensical situation for a review on that one. Field umpire calls touched play on, then thats it. These idiots call play on any old time for no good reason to speed up the game then they turn around and review this incident Why ?? to waste 90 seconds of everyones lives?  Then they wipe the ball and their hands after every goal ?? for god's sake just get on with the bloody game .... and umpires, no one cares which way you are going to ponce out backwards after a ball up so dont tell us. You keep out of the players way. You are the problem not the players !!!!!

 

I feel better now, I'm going to have a Bex and a good lie down.

12 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

Nonsensical situation for a review on that one. Field umpire calls touched play on, then thats it. These idiots call play on any old time for no good reason to speed up the game then they turn around and review this incident Why ?? to waste 90 seconds of everyones lives?  Then they wipe the ball and their hands after every goal ?? for god's sake just get on with the bloody game .... and umpires, no one cares which way you are going to ponce out backwards after a ball up so dont tell us. You keep out of the players way. You are the problem not the players !!!!!

 

I feel better now, I'm going to have a Bex and a good lie down.

dangerous stuff that Bex - it was banned eventually.   Clearly an ump stepping back cannot keep out of the players' way.  It has to be the players responsibility.  The stupid thing about the umpires telling the players at every ball up that they are going straight back is that it is completely unnecessary since they always go straight back.   The players can easily work out where straight back is, and telling them doens't ad any extra information, so what is the point of telling them?

......... and a scotch

Good question.  As someone pointed out in the post-match thread, you'd be pretty upset if the umpire called "touched - play on" so your defenders shepherded it through, only for the review to reveal it wasn't touched.  Once the field umpire has yelled "touched - play on" then the "touched" part should not be in question because the players have already acted up on it.  The umpire should be informing the goal umpire that the kick was touched and that is the end of it.

The score reviews really should only be for reviewing elements inside the goal umpire's jurisdiction.

The bizaare thing was that the video replay was inconclusive.

It's like a no-ball call in cricket, once the umpire had called touched, that impacts on how the players upfield react.

The most ridiculous video referral I've seen, and that umpire should be taken to task.

21 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Good question.  As someone pointed out in the post-match thread, you'd be pretty upset if the umpire called "touched - play on" so your defenders shepherded it through, only for the review to reveal it wasn't touched.  Once the field umpire has yelled "touched - play on" then the "touched" part should not be in question because the players have already acted up on it.  The umpire should be informing the goal umpire that the kick was touched and that is the end of it.

The score reviews really should only be for reviewing elements inside the goal umpire's jurisdiction.

Spot on - the touched call the field umpire made may have affected the next play  - who is to say that our defenders didn't run the forwards under the incoming ball as they heard the touched call and didn't care if went through the goals because of the touched call.  

Edited April 18, 20168 yr by nutbean

Completely agree.  Where will it end?

Recall the C'wood goal where the C'wood player was paid a mark and picked up the ball and played on and scored a goal, should we have a review of whether he played on forward of the mark.  (I will certainly be reviewing that when I watch the replay!)

4 hours ago, nutbean said:

I understand that if a ball is touched on the goal line and there is uncertainty the umpires might review.

I even understand that if the umpire DOESN'T call touched off the boot and the ball goes through the goal that they may want to review to see if it is touched. If there is NO call from the umpire you, as a defender or attacker, will not alter your decision as the ball comes towards you.

However, yesterday, the umpire clearly called a ball that was kicked at Collingwood's goal "touch play on" loudly and clearly. The ball just flew over the players heads in the goal square and went through and the umpire then asked for a review to see if his call touched call was right.  I'm not sure this is not taking a review too far. When the umpire called touched play on as the ball is coming towards the goal , that may change the way defenders/forwards actually go at the ball. I don't think a review in those circumstances should be allowed. A review should not be allowed where the original call of the umpire may impact the way the players attack a contest.

I didn't realise that the umpire called touch play on. 

Knowing that there is absolutely no reason for the video review. 

Can we now get reviews of all umpiring decisions? Sheesh. 

Smart players never trust umpires. Plus you never know if someone's cheating and yelling out touched anyway. Spoil the ball through and worry about the call later.

If the goal umpire called the touch 30m away then review it, but if a field umpire thought it was touched then unless they were hallucinating then I agree, just get on with the game.

43 minutes ago, Nasher said:

The score reviews really should only be for reviewing elements inside the goal umpire's jurisdiction.

I understand your point but if say it was 5m out it would be within goal umpite's jurisdiction.. so how far out does it have to be when it is no longer? 

Im just happier to have them take a minute to double check and we get the right decision. Yeah its annoying at the time but it clearly hit Dom's fingers so if they had paid a goal and not reviewed I wouldn't be happy. The only problem i have is that they dont have cameras on every goal post in the country. But honestly this is the least of the AFL's problems atm.

Had the ball been marked it would have been play on without any review. Hard to see the difference and should not have been subjected to review. 

Yeah an in play decision review seemed pretty strange, particularly as the umpires rarely call touched off the boot unless they're sure. The point of defenders potentially acting differently is another issue as well. 

The AFL review system would probably be one of the most flawed in world sport. 

What if the voice call of touched was a player.... as a defender you should assume the voice was anyone's and play it through until a whistle has actually sounded. If our players Sheppard it through instead of punch it through then they are just dumb footballers

13 minutes ago, jako13 said:

What if the voice call of touched was a player.... as a defender you should assume the voice was anyone's and play it through until a whistle has actually sounded. If our players Sheppard it through instead of punch it through then they are just dumb footballers

good point(s)

26 minutes ago, Redlegs Too said:

Had the ball been marked it would have been play on without any review. Hard to see the difference and should not have been subjected to review. 

That is the simple answer.

4 hours ago, nutbean said:

I understand that if a ball is touched on the goal line and there is uncertainty the umpires might review.

I even understand that if the umpire DOESN'T call touched off the boot and the ball goes through the goal that they may want to review to see if it is touched. If there is NO call from the umpire you, as a defender or attacker, will not alter your decision as the ball comes towards you.

However, yesterday, the umpire clearly called a ball that was kicked at Collingwood's goal "touch play on" loudly and clearly. The ball just flew over the players heads in the goal square and went through and the umpire then asked for a review to see if his call touched call was right.  I'm not sure this is not taking a review too far. When the umpire called touched play on as the ball is coming towards the goal , that may change the way defenders/forwards actually go at the ball. I don't think a review in those circumstances should be allowed. A review should not be allowed where the original call of the umpire may impact the way the players attack a contest.

Great call nutbean. At the time I was wondering how the call could possibly be overturned by the 3rd umpire. Which it couldn't be. But you are spot on that it could affect the players decision making as well.

28 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Smart players never trust umpires. Plus you never know if someone's cheating and yelling out touched anyway. Spoil the ball through and worry about the call later.

 

Please....I have watched the replay and the call was so loud and clear that it could only be an umpire - the umpire actually yells out "touched play on" twice whilst the ball is in the air !. Does pose an interesting question - is there a rule regarding players mimicking umpiring calls. You do hear players yell at the  umpire "ball" or such like but if any player thought the touched call was anything but an umpires call I'll go he.

34 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I understand your point but if say it was 5m out it would be within goal umpite's jurisdiction.. so how far out does it have to be when it is no longer? 
 

Simple - if an umpires call can lead to a choice of action by players after the call then it should not be reviewed.

The idea that players do not respond to umpires calls is a nonsense. Umpires calls (such as "play on".. or "made an effort .. play on"  or "touched play on" are clear and precise   - and players absolutely respond to them. You also see players that do not heed umpires calls and get pinged  At the Swans game a player had a split second to respond to the umpires call of "not 15..play on" and didn't and got pinged for dropping the ball. 

37 minutes ago, jako13 said:

What if the voice call of touched was a player.... as a defender you should assume the voice was anyone's and play it through until a whistle has actually sounded. If our players Sheppard it through instead of punch it through then they are just dumb footballers

Umm... this argument is a nonsense. 

When an umpire calls a player to play on - an opposition player could have also made that call that out as well. Is there a whistle involved in a play on call ? Do you suggest that players ignore these calls ? Every player in the league responds to an umpires call of "play on" ( some better than others)

Umpires give frees and stop play by whistles but there are also many calls which are verbal without the whistle and players rightly respond to them.

Edit - sorry to be a tad aggressive but I cannot fathom any footballer watcher thinking that footballers do not respond to umpires verbal calls

Edited April 18, 20168 yr by nutbean

The league would deny it, but I seriously believe there is a minimum quota that umpires must meet over a round. It seems like that anyway. It sure would explain some of the needless score reviews we have seen recently.

55 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Smart players never trust umpires. Plus you never know if someone's cheating and yelling out touched anyway. 

 

I have heard of players being duped by opposition mimicking their team mates by yelling out "leave it" or calling out their opponents name to hopefully get a handpass by accident - I have yet to have heard of cheating by impersonating an umpire and I would suspect that if it not illegal that if it did happen it would viewed in a very poor light and action would be taken to rectify the practice.