Jump to content

Score review gone too far ?

nutbean
nutbean
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

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?

  • Quote
    •  
    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 by monoccular

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Author
    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)

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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!

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    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 by Biffen

  • Quote

    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

  • Quote
    • Author
    30 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

    The umpires have high-pitched, squeaky voices!

    I think that's jockeys

  • Quote
    • 7 years later...
     

    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 by ManDee
    Typo

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote

    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 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.

  • Quote

    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

  • Quote

    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. 

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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. 

     

  • Quote

    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?

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    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) 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    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.

  • Quote

    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 by La Dee-vina Comedia

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    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 by Diamond_Jim

  • Quote
    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. 


     

  • Quote
    •  
    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.

     

  • Quote
    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. 

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • PREVIEW: Essendon

      As the focus of the AFL moves exclusively to South Australia for Gather Round, the question is raised as to what are we going to get from the  Melbourne Football Club this weekend? Will it be a repeat of the slop fest of the last three weeks that have seen the team score a measly 174 points and concede 310 or will a return to the City of Churches and the scene where they performed at their best in 2024 act as a wakeup call and bring them out of their early season reverie?  Or will the sleepy Dees treat their fans to a reenactment of their lazy effort from the first Gather Round of two years ago when they allowed the Bombers to trample all over them on a soggy and wet Adelaide Oval? The two examples from above tell us how fickle form can be in football. Last year, a committed group of players turned up in Adelaide with a businesslike mindset. They had a plan, went in confidently and hard for the football and kicked winning scores against both home teams in a difficult environment for visitors. And they repeated that sort of effort later in the season when they played Essendon at the MCG.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Essendon

      Facing the very real and daunting prospect of starting the season with five straight losses, the Demons head to South Australia for the annual Gather Round, where they’ll take on the Bombers in search of their first win of the year. Who comes in, and who comes out?

        • Like
      • 442 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 05

      Gather Round is here, kicking off with a Thursday night blockbuster as Adelaide faces Geelong. The Crows will be out for redemption after a controversial loss last week. Saturday starts with the Magpies taking on the Swans. Collingwood will be eager to cement their spot in the top eight, while Sydney is hot on their heels. In the Barossa Valley, two rising sides go head-to-head in a fascinating battle to prove they're the real deal. Later, Carlton and West Coast face off at Adelaide Oval, both desperate to notch their first win of the season. The action then shifts to Norwood, where the undefeated Lions will aim to keep their streak alive against the Bulldogs. Sunday’s games begin in the Barossa with Richmond up against Fremantle. In Norwood, the Saints will be looking to take a scalp when they come up against the Giants. The round concludes with a fiery rematch of last year's semi-final, as the Hawks seek revenge for their narrow loss to Port Adelaide. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons besides us winning?

      • 117 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Geelong

      There was a time in the second quarter of the game at the Cattery on Friday afternoon when the Casey Demons threatened to take the game apart against the Cats. The Demons had been well on top early but were struggling to convert their ascendancy over the ground until Tom Fullarton’s burst of three goals in the space of eight minutes on the way to a five goal haul and his best game for the club since arriving from Brisbane at the end of 2023. He was leading, marking and otherwise giving his opponents a merry dance as Casey grabbed a three goal lead in the blink of an eye. Fullarton has now kicked ten goals in Casey’s three matches and, with Melbourne’s forward conversion woes, he is definitely in with a chance to get his first game with the club in next week’s Gather Round in Adelaide. Despite the tall forward’s efforts - he finished with 19 disposals and eight marks and had four hit outs as back up to Will Verrall in the second half - it wasn’t enough as Geelong reigned in the lead through persistent attacks and eventually clawed their way to the lead early in the last and held it till they achieved the end aim of victory.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Geelong

      I was disappointed to hear Goody say at his post match presser after the team’s 39 point defeat against Geelong that "we're getting high quality entry, just poor execution" because Melbourne’s problems extend far beyond that after its 0 - 4 start to the 2025 football season. There are clearly problems with poor execution, some of which were evident well before the current season and were in play when the Demons met the Cats in early May last year and beat them in a near top-of-the-table clash that saw both sides sitting comfortably in the top four after round eight. Since that game, the Demons’ performances have been positively Third World with only five wins in 19 games with a no longer majestic midfield and a dysfunctional forward line that has become too easy for opposing coaches to counter. This is an area of their game that is currently being played out as if they were all completely panic-stricken.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 04

      Round 4 kicks off with a blockbuster on Thursday night as traditional rivals Collingwood and Carlton clash at the MCG, with the Magpies looking to assert themselves as early-season contenders and the Blues seeking their first win of the season. Saturday opens with Gold Coast hosting Adelaide, a key test for the Suns as they aim to back up their big win last week, while the Crows will be looking to keep their perfect record intact. Reigning wooden spooners Richmond have the daunting task of facing reigning premiers Brisbane at the ‘G and the Lions will be eager to reaffirm their premiership credentials after a patchy start. Saturday night sees North Melbourne take on Sydney at Marvel Stadium, with the Swans looking to build on their first win of the season last week against a rebuilding Roos outfit. Sunday’s action begins with GWS hosting West Coast at ENGIE Stadium, a game that could get ugly very early for the visitors. Port Adelaide vs St Kilda at Adelaide Oval looms as a interesting clash, with both clubs form being very hard to read. The round wraps up with Fremantle taking on the Western Bulldogs at Optus Stadium in what could be a fierce contest between two sides with top-eight ambitions. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons besides us winning?

        • Shocked
        • Like
      • 273 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All