Umps got it wrong - need a please explain

[Thehardtackler 785]

Don’t know if you guys remember but a Chelsea Roffey goal line decision cost us a top 4 position and we finished fifth. It was around 2005. Guess who the match was against? Adelaide. We ended up getting a draw instead of a win, because she gave a point for a goal. It had cleared the line. The extra 2 points would have seen us finish fourth. I think we ended up at Fremantle away, in the semi finals, which we lost!

[dpositive 1,547]

We should definitely refer to the AFL. We are a club that should alert the AFL, other clubs, umpires and supporters that we will not be treated lightly. We will not roll over and continue to accept poor decision making. We will not accept it lightly from our players and will not accept it from others.

We will respect and accept rules and practices but always strive for the right and best actions to be taken.

We need to be consistent and send this attitude to our players.

[sue 8,447]

I'm intrigued by the number of posters who will spend hours looking at slow motion videos and splitting hairs to justify an umpire's ignoring an deliberate out of bounds when almost everyone who saw it in real time has no doubt, especially when compared to some of the dubious DoB calls we see all the time these days.  

I suspect many of them are motivated by wishing to to put heat on the club for not closing the game down earlier, but that is not the issue. Bad inconsistent umpiring that may lose you the GF is.

[loges 6,097]

7 minutes ago, sue said:

I'm intrigued by the number of posters who will spend hours looking at slow motion videos and splitting hairs to justify an umpire's ignoring an deliberate out of bounds when almost everyone who saw it in real time has no doubt, especially when compared to some of the dubious DoB calls we see all the time these days.  

I suspect many of them are motivated by wishing to to put heat on the club for not closing the game down earlier, but that is not the issue. Bad inconsistent umpiring that may lose you the GF is.

Spot on. Have we actually received an "apology"

[Demons3031 361]

10 minutes ago, sue said:

I'm intrigued by the number of posters who will spend hours looking at slow motion videos and splitting hairs to justify an umpire's ignoring an deliberate out of bounds when almost everyone who saw it in real time has no doubt, especially when compared to some of the dubious DoB calls we see all the time these days.  

I suspect many of them are motivated by wishing to to put heat on the club for not closing the game down earlier, but that is not the issue. Bad inconsistent umpiring that may lose you the GF is.

Sorry Sue, but the slow mo videos may cast light on whether it was deliberate or not. And I feel they definitely do-others may disagree but my view and opinion was  t hat the ball started t omove sideays and slightly upward then took a sudden dive south toward the ground. Thats a deflection off Spargo to me. Thats my view anyway. 

What evidence do you have that almost everyone who saw it in real time had no doubt?

Are you referring to Melbourne supporters? Adelaide supporters? those who were at the match on the other side of the ground;? those who were behind the goals or viewing from the pocket or half forward flank? the players? supporters who watched it on tv? Who exactly are these "almost everyone who saw it live?

Edited May 24, 2021 by Demons3031

[Webber 10,115]

3 hours ago, binman said:

As you note Webber, that an egregious error like the one made in at least three games his season has had direct bearing on the result of a gem at the very elite level of a fully professional sport - Australia's biggest sport by some magnitude.

It is important Ii think to differentiate between a basic error, that might be open to interpretation, of the sort that happened 20 times game and an egregious error like the one that cost the MFC a minimum of 2, and potentially 4 premiership points.

Those points could be, say the difference between the MFC playing the Lions at the MCG in the qualifying final or playing that game at the Gabba (which would be ironic, as the Lions may miss top four, or a home QF, becuase of egregious error at Kardinia Park). So the implications for such an error are huge.

I don't blame the umpires for these sort egregious errors. The blame lies with the AFL

Of course the umpires don't cheat. And deliberate home town bias is baloney. But the umpires have to have the ability to make the correct calls under the most extreme pressure, like a manic finish with 50, 000 home fans going ballistic. And it is up to the AFL to ensure they have that ability.

And to so the only meaningful option is to have professional umpires. Failure to do so basically is an admission the game will accept x number of such season shaping errors every year. And on sheer probability, one such egregious error will happen in the Grand Final at some point and result in an underserving winner.

Is that what the AFL want? Is that what the fans want?

History is clear on this question. And the answer is no.

On the back of the goals that was awarded to hawkins after the ball hit the post in the 2009 Grand Final, and arguably changed the result of the game (though wasn't in the last minute) the score review system was brought in.

Leaving aside that 12 years later it is still a mess, no one really argues we should not continue using the technology to prevent howlers. Because as they said at the time - do we really want a grand final decided by an error from a goal umpire? 

Why is the scenario in the dees and cat v lions games any different. Blatant errors determined the result. 

Which actually suggests a short term fix. In the last say 60 or 90 seconds of the game (becuase ieven though all really bad errors might impact a result, we can only be certain they will in the last 60 or 90 seconds of a game - and it would take too long if applied throughout a match,) , where possible, any such gregarious errors should be reversed by the video umpire. We have the system in place already.

Realistically it could only happen when there is there is stoppage immediately or soon after the contentious decision - or non decision. (as when the ball is motion it would not be fair to stop the play).  So wouldn't happen that often. Bu in the two examples this season there has been a stoppage.

The video umpire tells the field umpires to stop play and that a piece of play will be reviewed.  They review the play and if they believe an obvious error has been made, reverse, or apply the free. As would have occurred in the dees game. 

Such an approach is wholly consistent wit the use of technology to review goals to make sure the game is as fair as possible. 

In an ideal world we would have a panel of full time professional umpiring our game, who receive the under the right training (eg making correct decision under extreme pressure - training that no doubt exists) supported by judicious use of video technology. 

 

I suspect that’s almost too sensible, binman.

[sue 8,447]

6 minutes ago, Demons3031 said:

Sorry Sue, but the slow mo videos may cast light on whether it was deliberate or not. And I feel they definitely do-others may disagree but my view and opinion was  t hat the ball started t omove sideays and slightly upward then took a sudden dive south toward the ground. Thats a deflection off Spargo to me. Thats my view anyway. 

What evidence do you have that almost everyone who saw it in real time had no doubt?

Are you referring to Melbourne supporters? Adelaide supporters? those who were at the match on the other side of the ground;? those who were behind the goals or viewing from the pocket or half forward flank? the players? supporters who watched it on tv? Who exactly are these "almost everyone who saw it live?

I just read the Fox reports and report in the Age. I guess all those commentators are MFC supporters.   By live, I meant wihtout slo-mo. I expect  many at the ground breathed a huge sigh of relief when the panealty was not applied.

In any case, the umpire did not see it in slo-mo. And since a deflection is not relevant to the player's intent unless he intended an entirely different direction and the ball suffered a major deflection, even if the umpire thought it was touched, it shouldn't change the call.  Even if it goes out 1 metre from where he intended, it is still deliberate if OOB  was his intent. 

The one I am waiting for is a deliberate within the goal square under pressure intended for a behind which hits the point post on the full but may have shaved Gawn's beard. Enjoy slo-mo-ing that.

[DeeSpencer 23,189]

3 hours ago, Scoop Junior said:

He wasn't. He was in the right position, well inside 50, not too far from the action.

He saw it but didn't pay it.

Look again, he’s a fair way behind the players and Fritsch and his opponents are directly in his path to the ball. The umpire at the front of the screen is a boundary umpire. The field umpire does as well as he can but he couldn’t see what the Crows player and Spargo were doing 

[Webber 10,115]

2 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

Our mistakes / poor performance during the game put us in the position where umpires' mistakes could have affected the outcome of the game. We should not have been in that position in the first place, and we only have ourselves to blame - that was the point I made. 

I'm sure the coaches and playing group accept that as fact. They are smart enough to know that we can directly control and (hopefully) fix mistakes our playing group made, so that we are a better side next week. 

How umpires umpire is not under our control. Like it or not, umpires will make mistakes - although we can demand better of them, no question or argument there.  

I haven’t discussed our performance last night, so I’m not sure who you’re talking to. I have been discussing the performance of the umpires, and that ‘control’ of their performance must be improved by the central body, the AFL, simply because the individual clubs who by volume of their support - us - are both the reason the game exists and its primary stakeholders. Of course we coulda shoulda woulda been better to have put ourselves beyond the umpires. I said precisely that in the gameday thread. Let the homecrowd influence in, and its worth 1-2 goals a quarter. Once again, this is about bad umpiring adversely our game, the one that all 18 clubs play. I want to let the players play, and make themselves better. I do NOT want bad umpiring to continue to diminish our game. These are separate issues. 

[Webber 10,115]

7 minutes ago, sue said:

I just read the Fox reports and report in the Age. I guess all those commentators are MFC supporters.   By live, I meant wihtout slo-mo. I expect  many at the ground breathed a huge sigh of relief when the panealty was not applied.

In any case, the umpire did not see it in slo-mo. And since a deflection is not relevant to the player's intent unless he intended an entirely different direction and the ball suffered a major deflection, even if the umpire thought it was touched, it shouldn't change the call.  Even if it goes out 1 metre from where he intended, it is still deliberate if OOB  was his intent. 

The one I am waiting for is a deliberate within the goal square under pressure intended for a behind which hits the point post on the full but may have shaved Gawn's beard. Enjoy slo-mo-ing that.

Perfectly put sue.

[Gawndy the Great 7,476]

Just heard on SEN that the AFL has confirmed the blunder. Not seen an official report yet though.

[Mr Steve 3,820]

Just now, CYB said:

Just heard on SEN that the AFL has confirmed the blunder. Not seen an official report yet though.

Also on Channel Ten. 

[Dee Zephyr 17,666]

27 minutes ago, loges said:

Spot on. Have we actually received an "apology"

Mate just text me saying AFL admitted it was the wrong call. Was reported on Channel 10 news according to mate.

[Satan 2,745]

1 minute ago, CYB said:

Just heard on SEN that the AFL has confirmed the blunder. Not seen an official report yet though.

So it misses the news? Surely not

[Winners at last 4,742]

1 minute ago, CYB said:

Just heard on SEN that the AFL has confirmed the blunder. Not seen an official report yet though.

No surprise there.

Visually bereft Frederick could have seen that.

 

[ucanchoose 1,803]

30 minutes ago, loges said:

Spot on. Have we actually received an "apology"

We have! Just now!!

[Demons11 6,404]

[Demonland 65,486]

 

[Demons11 6,404]

4 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

????????????????????????????????????

[Demons3031 361]

18 minutes ago, sue said:

I just read the Fox reports and report in the Age. I guess all those commentators are MFC supporters.   By live, I meant wihtout slo-mo. I expect  many at the ground breathed a huge sigh of relief when the panealty was not applied.

In any case, the umpire did not see it in slo-mo. And since a deflection is not relevant to the player's intent unless he intended an entirely different direction and the ball suffered a major deflection, even if the umpire thought it was touched, it shouldn't change the call.  Even if it goes out 1 metre from where he intended, it is still deliberate if OOB  was his intent. 

The one I am waiting for is a deliberate within the goal square under pressure intended for a behind which hits the point post on the full but may have shaved Gawn's beard. Enjoy slo-mo-ing that.

Hi Sue I guess my view was that he was handballing sideways and not in the straight ahead direction in which it ended up going from the deflection He was much further from the boundary on the side  and the slight upward direction too giving players a chance to touch it would  also have cast doubt - he could well have been vaguely aware of the Crows player on his l right ,though we will probably never know. To me the deflection(which could easily have not been noticed it all happened so quickly) and the subsequent bounce of the ball in such a split second could easily have been seen as deliberate.

Thats why I felt the video helped clarify things-for me at least. Bet we each can see the same thing and see it differently. Cheers Sue  :)  P>S I am still aggrieved by the decisions in the final against the Hawks-against VIney and Brayshaw I think? I'm glad we won that despite those ones :)

[John Crow Batty 8,258]

This one is the most blatant of the three match changing non decisions this season with zero ambiguity to argue. That umpire needs to be demoted for the rest of the season.

Edited May 24, 2021 by John Crow Batty

[Dee Zephyr 17,666]

The umpire thought there was a Crows teammate in the vicinity of the handball. How do you explain Lever’s deliberate then? The inconsistencies drive fans mad. Not sure if I feel better or worse to be honest after the admission.

[Demons3031 361]

2 minutes ago, Demons3031 said:

Hi Sue I guess my view was that he was handballing sideways and not in the straight ahead direction in which it ended up going from the deflection He was much further from the boundary on the side  and the slight upward direction too giving players a chance to touch it would  also have cast doubt - he could well have been vaguely aware of the Crows player on his l right ,though we will probably never know. To me the deflection(which could easily have not been noticed it all happened so quickly) and the subsequent bounce of the ball in such a split second could easily have been seen as deliberate.

Thats why I felt the video helped clarify things-for me at least. Bet we each can see the same thing and see it differently. Cheers Sue  :)  P>S I am still aggrieved by the decisions in the final against the Hawks-against VIney and Brayshaw I think? I'm glad we won that despite those ones :)

Good to see the AFL making a call on this. It doesnt change my mind but I'm Ok with their action.  I guess my view is that players  have to have an option- the problem for me is that any action he took could have been deemed wrong. To me he took a reasonable action to go sideways  where it could have stayed in play(when he could have handballed it straight forward) So I disagree with the AFL that the deflection was  unimportant. To me it changed the whole situation. But thats just my view.

 

[WalkingCivilWar 32,083]

I was hoping that they actually had got it right and we could be convinced by them and we could move on. But this is infinitely worse. 

[Rossmillan 482]

Except if just like the lions in Rd 3 we win with a kick after the siren this week and footy Karma prevails!