I cannot work out why Melbourne was penalised 100+ metres for not breaking a rule. Three goals, momentum, Salem about to deliver into our forward line and ......hang on the ball goes right back to the square. Oscar had marked the ball and been allowed to play on down the field and we were in a very advantageous position. No laws broken.

There has to been a time frame for reviews. Certainly is when a score occurs. No problem if Oscars mark was called a point. Brisbane got a 100 m+ advantage and we lost momentum. Surely once the Central Umpire allows the play to continue, it continues. At the very least the ball should have been returned to Salem in the position he had been in.

 

This is one more reason to dump the score reviews. Leave it to the umpires. Sure, they will get it wrong occasionally and even a GF may depend on such an error, but umpires make mistakes all the time which can effect the outcome of a game, including in the last 30 seconds. 

Why focus on this just because we have (sort of) the technology to do so if it introduces significant effects on the subsequent play.  Should they put multiple cameras on almost every decision umpires make within 40 metres of goal and stop the play?

As I posted elsewhere, what would have happened if a forward marked it like Lever, played on (like he did) and kicked a goal. Would they have made him kick it again after the review confirmed it was marked and not a point?   Consistency would say he should have to kick it again, but I wouldn't bet on that happening.  Or if he missed when he played on - would he get a second try?

But they won't drop the cameras - gives idiot comemntators something else to talk about.

Further to the confusion for me was, there was a goal umpire and a boundary umpire who were in exactly the right spot to judge whether the ball had been marked legitimately, however the field umpire who is at 90 degrees to the play dismisses the GU and BU judgement and calls for a review. The field Umpire was in the worst position ever to ask for that to be reviewed.