Goal review review review review

[sue 9,183]

Now that we have the example of a goal review being reviewed and overturned after Hawthorn players shouted their disbelief loudly enough (as reasonable as that was), will be now be treated to endless bogus passionate calls to review the review?   The AFL must stamp that out if it occurs.  But how?

[daisycutter 29,892]

7 minutes ago, sue said:

Now that we have the example of a goal review being reviewed and overturned after Hawthorn players shouted their disbelief loudly enough (as reasonable as that was), will be now be treated to endless bogus passionate calls to review the review?   The AFL must stamp that out if it occurs.  But how?

by not declaring goal or behind

instead just inform umpiring that 'ball was touched by xxxx player' or 'kicked by player xxxx and not touched' or evidence was inconclusive as to whether ball was touched by player xxxx' etc etc

i.e. just give the umpire the clarification he requested (and leave the scoreboard pyrotechnics to cricket.

[tiers 2,875]

Goal reviews should be for one purpose only - to correct an egregious and obvious mistake by the umpires, for example the ball passing on the other side of the post, a deflection of the ball (not a deflection of the nail on the little finger), the ball clearing the line before being touched, who kicked the ball in a pack.

Goal reviews should not be used to ensure perfection in umpiring. If it is, then get rid of the goal umpires and let the field umpires signal clear goals and let the video review decide on the others.

Reviews should be automatic and immediate whenever the video umpire considers that an egregious mistake has been made. Otherwise, instruct the goal umpires (if they are to be retained because of their antics in signalling scores) to make decisions and stick with them.

[Diamond_Jim 12,687]

Spot on Tiers ... some of those goal reviews over the weekend were pure conjecture from what I could see.

To over rule the umpire there must be absolutely clear evidence. From what I saw that was lacking in at least a couple of reviews over the weekend.

They also take too long. The very fact that they take so long means the video is not conclusive and should therefore be umpires call.

We may as well do away with the goal umpire and have it called from a vault in AFL house the way it is going.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,012]

12 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Spot on Tiers ... some of those goal reviews over the weekend were pure conjecture from what I could see.

To over rule the umpire there must be absolutely clear evidence. From what I saw that was lacking in at least a couple of reviews over the weekend.

They also take too long. The very fact that they take so long means the video is not conclusive and should therefore be umpires call.

We may as well do away with the goal umpire and have it called from a vault in AFL house the way it is going.

This.

[Clintosaurus 7,926]

If the ball is touched on the mark but the field umpire does not rule this happened then it should not be looked at in a score review. There should also be a 60 second limit where if it cannot be decided then 'Umpires Call' is the decision.

[Dee Zephyr 19,269]

They should gaffer tape a couple of IPhones to the posts, much better clarity than the crap they use now.

[Clintosaurus 7,926]

1 minute ago, Demon77 said:

They should gaffer tape a couple of IPhones to the posts, much better clarity than the crap they use now.

Depends who is playing. Seems when the Pies are playing it looks badly pixellated but for others it is crystal clear.

[Engorged Onion 10,224]

my favourite theme music when the review happens

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,525]

3 hours ago, Demon77 said:

They should gaffer tape a couple of IPhones to the posts, much better clarity than the crap they use now.

Agreed.

When you see the technology available to the cricket umpires / telecasters, you shake your head at disbelief when you see the standard the AFL dishes up.

 

In response to the OP, the field umpires looked equally perplexed by the decision on Monday, i’d say that’s the real reason the review was reviewed.