Score review gone too far ?

[daisycutter 29,310]

18 minutes ago, nutbean said:

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. 

what if a player is deaf or partially deaf, nut?

[monoccular 17,314]

52 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

"Touched, play on, play on" certainly could alter a defender's actions eg not going for a mark and risking being tackled and penalised in front of goal.  

Absolutely W R O N G call by the maggots to then call for a review of their 'in play' call. 

Not that I expect that whoever runs the umpiring section to admit they got it wrong mind you. 

Edited April 18, 2016 by monoccular

[nutbean 8,838]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

what if a player is deaf or partially deaf, nut?

How often do you see players how are called to "play on" or if there is" touched play on call" who clearly do not hear the umpires call. Happens pretty regularly.

(FYI  - I am poster who is deaf or partially deaf to other peoples arguments)

 

[daisycutter 29,310]

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

How often do you see players how are called to "play on" or if there is" touched play on call" who clearly do not hear the umpires call. Happens pretty regularly.

(FYI  - I am poster who is deaf or partially deaf to other peoples arguments)

 

my wife calls that selective hearing, nut

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,748]

3 hours 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

The umpires have high-pitched, squeaky voices!

[Biffen 12,812]

4 hours 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.

This is exactly how they destroy the game.

They influence with useless whistling,calls of "not 15',OR "play on".

By becoming involved,they alter the outcome,then reverse or allow play to go on due their own guiltiness for the previous error.

Most of the frees we get impinge our ball movement or allow the opposition to get back.

They need to come to my underground re-education camp for a few months/years.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Biffen

[Je Roos Salem 661]

You should only be allowed to review whether it's over the line or not. Not only is it unfair on players, it's just impossible to see. Plus reviews are such a waste of time and I don't know why the AFL likes as many as possible

[nutbean 8,838]

30 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

The umpires have high-pitched, squeaky voices!

I think that's jockeys

[ManDee 7,124]

Rule change suggestion.

Ignore if the ball hits the post, if it goes through goal side it = a goal. Point side it is a Point. Out of bounds side = out of bounds. Hits goal post and bounces back = Point. Hits Point post and bounces in = out of bounds.

Touched through goals = a goal. 

Did it cross the line = umpires call.

No need for score review.

Edited May 8, 2023 by ManDee
Typo

[daisycutter 29,310]

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

 

Touched through goals = a goal. 

 

don't understand this point, can you clarify, more details?

otherwise, i don't mind the idea .... but i doubt it would even be considered.

[ManDee 7,124]

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

don't understand this point, can you clarify, more details?

otherwise, i don't mind the idea .... but i doubt it would even be considered.

If a kicked ball goes through the goal posts it does not matter if it touches a defender on the way it is still a goal. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by ManDee
I'd also get rid of touched play on. If a kick travels the required distance it should be able to be marked.

[Diamond_Jim 12,351]

agree with the touch post= goal etc .. if it goes through

Too much time wasted on review...

If snicko uses an immediate light alarm I would re-consider

Touched by players should be umpires call and favour the scoring team if in doubt

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,344]

Went to the Pies V Swans game and there must have been at least 6 reviews. Some of them were so obvious you could tell from sitting on level 4 of the southern stand.

It's as if the goal umpires aren't even trying anymore to make a decision when there's a close call, which completely defeats the purpose of selecting the best goal umpires in the country. 

 

[58er 5,925]

27 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Rule change suggestion.

Ignore if the ball hits the post, if it goes through goal side it = a goal. Point side it is a Point. Out of bounds side = out of bounds. Hits goal post and bounces back = Point. Hits Point post and bounces in = out of bounds.

Touched through goals = a goal. 

Did it cross the line = umpires call.

No need for score review.

You don't understand why and when there is a need  for the reviews. That's why the DRS is available to sort out the hard decisions and ensure accuracy. If you want umpires call then you will be whinging the first time it costs us a goal. 

[58er 5,925]

10 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Went to the Pies V Swans game and there must have been at least 6 reviews. Some of them were so obvious you could tell from sitting on level 4 of the southern stand.

It's as if the goal umpires aren't even trying anymore to make a decision when there's a close call, which completely defeats the purpose of selecting the best goal umpires in the country. 

 

Agree some of the umps are using the review and they should be able to see if it's correct or not.  They are not earning their money properly. 

Send these users up country for a long drive and little reward and they will reform their ways or as a last resort possibly be struck off the list if incompetent. 

 

[ManDee 7,124]

6 minutes ago, 58er said:

You don't understand why and when there is a need  for the reviews. That's why the DRS is available to sort out the hard decisions and ensure accuracy. If you want umpires call then you will be whinging the first time it costs us a goal. 

I don't understand!

Did you read what I said?

The review system is flawed and delays play. 

If it cannot be made fast and accurate get rid of it.

We accept boundary umpires decisions, we tolerate central umpires decisions, I am suggesting a rule change to make the goal umpires job easier and more accurate. Do you understand?

[The heart beats true 17,752]

The problem is that the umpires are too scared to make the call. We are told each goal gets checked anyway - so call it as you see it, and then let the reviewer go to work. I’d love to know the stats on how many reviews get overturned. I doubt it’s a high enough percentage to warrant the current overuse.

Tin hat time again - it’s all about making sure the TV audience on free to air don’t miss anything. I’d say the system was designed to work as I’ve outlined above - but doesn’t because of concerns advertising would be playing on the overturn, and the TV audience would feel like they’ve missed crucial game play.

[sue 9,004]

Wrong decisions by field umpires (and to a very small extent boundary umpires) affect  the outcome of more games than mistakes by goal umpires.  Maybe just stick with whatever the goal umpire thinks, right or wrong.  And maybe do no replays, just as we don't do replays of every free kick paid 10 metres out just in front.

[58er 5,925]

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

I don't understand!

Did you read what I said?

The review system is flawed and delays play. 

If it cannot be made fast and accurate get rid of it.

We accept boundary umpires decisions, we tolerate central umpires decisions, I am suggesting a rule change to make the goal umpires job easier and more accurate. Do you understand?

Well that's your opinion there is a need as all you want is going back to the flawed previous system. Technology gets about 85% right and is applicable about 95%. Umpires call is not frequent so let's go with the modern system. Human error is too great and that's why should  be maintained and if it can be improved at a reasonable cost then lets do it. 

Have to agree to disagree and I like the modern method ( and I am in my 70's) 

[ManDee 7,124]

Just now, 58er said:

Well that's your opinion there is a need as all you want is going back to the flawed previous system. Technology gets about 85% right and is applicable about 95%. Umpires call is not frequent so let's go with the modern system. Human error is too great and that's why should  be maintained and if it can be improved at a reasonable cost then lets do it. 

Have to agree to disagree and I like the modern method ( and I am in my 70's) 

You didn't read what I said. 

It starts with "Rule change suggestion".

So that does not mean going back to the flawed previous system.

Please read first then attempt to comprehend before shooting off ill considered views.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,644]

9 minutes ago, 58er said:

Well that's your opinion there is a need as all you want is going back to the flawed previous system. Technology gets about 85% right and is applicable about 95%. Umpires call is not frequent so let's go with the modern system. Human error is too great and that's why should  be maintained and if it can be improved at a reasonable cost then lets do it. 

Have to agree to disagree and I like the modern method ( and I am in my 70's) 

I, too, think we should stick with the modern method. I don't think the time "lost" is hugely problematic. If we're worrying about time wasting, we'd be better off abolishing the rule about nominated ruckmen and the delays that causes while the umpires wait for two lumbering ruckmen to get to the throw-in or throw-up.   

Edited May 8, 2023 by La Dee-vina Comedia

[Diamond_Jim 12,351]

25 minutes ago, sue said:

Wrong decisions by field umpires (and to a very small extent boundary umpires) affect  the outcome of more games than mistakes by goal umpires.  Maybe just stick with whatever the goal umpire thinks, right or wrong.  And maybe do no replays, just as we don't do replays of every free kick paid 10 metres out just in front.

Like the DRS in cricket the review in AFL was originally introduced to protect from the "howling errors" occasionally made by umpires.

Now we've taken it to the n'th degree with lousy technology

Using a review to determine if it has hit the padding on the behind post when a boundary umpire is standing next to the behind post as occurred on one game over the weekend has to be the most ridiculous thing ever.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Diamond_Jim

[58er 5,925]

9 minutes ago, ManDee said:

You didn't read what I said. 

It starts with "Rule change suggestion".

So that does not mean going back to the flawed previous system.

Please read first then attempt to comprehend before shooting off ill considered views.

I don't agree with what your suggestion overall. It's just a cop out and relieves the responsibility of a decision when it gets too difficult! 

If it's touched it's a goal that's going to be controversial it is open for debate about 20%. Also is the compulsory check to be maintained? 

That's the base of the new system really. 

Far to much open to debate and decisions removed to just move game on as extra time on for delay used as an excuse. 

Also who is deciding in your "system" Goal snd field or boundary when necessary or just Goal. 

Far too much left for chance of about 70% correct decisions without technology. 

Happy now I have virtually exposed your suggestion as majorly a cop out and nonsensical response to the current reliable technology. 

 

[ManDee 7,124]

2 hours ago, 58er said:

I don't agree with what your suggestion overall. It's just a cop out and relieves the responsibility of a decision when it gets too difficult! 

If it's touched it's a goal that's going to be controversial it is open for debate about 20%. Also is the compulsory check to be maintained? 

That's the base of the new system really. 

Far to much open to debate and decisions removed to just move game on as extra time on for delay used as an excuse. 

Also who is deciding in your "system" Goal snd field or boundary when necessary or just Goal. 

Far too much left for chance of about 70% correct decisions without technology. 

Happy now I have virtually exposed your suggestion as majorly a cop out and nonsensical response to the current reliable technology. 

 

I will not respond further it is pointless if you can't comprehend my suggestion. Your made up statistics appear to be created to support some misguided interpretation of the situation. I don't think you have exposed anything of real interest and your assertion that the current technology is reliable is frankly laughable.

Let's leave it there, neither of us seems to have gained from this interaction.

 

[58er 5,925]

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

I will not respond further it is pointless if you can't comprehend my suggestion. Your made up statistics appear to be created to support some misguided interpretation of the situation. I don't think you have exposed anything of real interest and your assertion that the current technology is reliable is frankly laughable.

Let's leave it there, neither of us seems to have gained from this interaction.

 

Phew as I said agree to disagree ManDee.