Jump to content

Score review gone too far ?

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

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Haha
      • 91 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • 350 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Haha
        • Like
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All