Mostly we worry about umpiring discrepancies within games but yesterday, briefly watching St Kilda - Richmond there was a decision so at odds with our game on Saturday night that it was scarcely believable. It resulted in a goal to the Saints, of course it did, because it was 12 metres out and directly in front that the umpire could have kicked it himself, and might as well have done so. I think it was King's sixth goal of the day.

The "infringement" was against Grimes. There were only the two of them in the contest. As the ball approached there was slight contact. From one angle there appeared no contact at all, but on replay Grimes arm connected slightly with King but not enough, in my view to prevent King pursuing the ball. It was so fleeting that I could not help think of the mailings Carlton were permitted on Saturday. 

Two different games and two utterly contrasting umpiring styles. Whoever runs umpiring ought to be made to explain this variation in standards, but I know they won't.

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by Grapeviney

Plenty of threads on the internet to bash umpires. They are humans, there will be different interpretations, and everyone is always going to be cross with them. 

Umpires are never the reason a team loses and they certainly were not the reason we lost on Saturday. 

Whilst I agree umpire bashing is pointless the standard of umpiring across the game is way below standard for the biggest game in town. Then there’s ARC!

6 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

Plenty of threads on the internet to bash umpires. They are humans, there will be different interpretations, and everyone is always going to be cross with them. 

Umpires are never the reason a team loses and they certainly were not the reason we lost on Saturday. 

Ummm, I think you’ll find that they actually were very much the reason we lost. 
 

 

If we haven't already, I hope the club grows some gonads and sends a please explain to the AFL about the number of times Gawn is manhandled. 

Just because your 208cms doesn't mean you don't deserve the same rules as everyone else.

13 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

Plenty of threads on the internet to bash umpires. They are humans, there will be different interpretations, and everyone is always going to be cross with them. 

Umpires are never the reason a team loses and they certainly were not the reason we lost on Saturday. 

Just because they are humans doesn't mean that the industry as a whole shouldn't expect some degree of professionalism and performance. If they are not good enough to adjudicate the game fairly and consistently then they shouldn't be awarded games.

The AFL should develop full time umpires.

Edited August 13, 20231 yr by ElDiablo14

I was annoyed with the decision in the last against the blues but if that was a GF I would have been ropable and started to tear the MCG apart and I’m sure I wouldn’t be on my own. 

These mistakes shouldn’t happen at anytime but ESPECIALLY in a GF 

10 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

I was annoyed with the decision in the last against the blues but if that was a GF I would have been ropable and started to tear the MCG apart and I’m sure I wouldn’t be on my own. 

These mistakes shouldn’t happen at anytime but ESPECIALLY in a GF 

Can't believe the AFL won't pay 100 grand to have some Phantom cameras! (1,000 fps at 4K).

25 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

Plenty of threads on the internet to bash umpires. They are humans, there will be different interpretations, and everyone is always going to be cross with them. 

Umpires are never the reason a team loses and they certainly were not the reason we lost on Saturday. 

Whatever you think of the standard of umpiring, the difficulty of umpiring, the humaness of umpires, the need for the AFL to improve the rules and professionalism of umpires, the over-the-top bias of one-eyed supporters, etc etc, your last bolded part of your statement is just silly.   Of course it happens.   How could it not given the difficulty of umpiring?   Of course every team could get 10 goals ahead so that one or two bad decisions wouldn't determine the outcome of the game. But close games happen and an error can affect the result.

Does <<insert your team here>> lose because of umpire errors more than do other teams? No, it just feels bad when it happens. 

 

32 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

If we haven't already, I hope the club grows some gonads and sends a please explain to the AFL about the number of times Gawn is manhandled. 

Just because your 208cms doesn't mean you don't deserve the same rules as everyone else.

Pretty sure Kate Roffey was in with the DA in the last quarter. Right near that touched / not touched goal. She's articulate and has the media presence to raise the umpiring debacle of Saturday. We weren't the better team for most of the night but we deserved to win if you watch the ridiculous umpiring throughout the last when we were charging at them.

And she doesn't need to grow anything. She's awesome as she is!

My mate just showed me the holding the ball on JVR in the last few minutes (I couldn't see it from my spot in the MCC).

That is the worst decision in history and an absolute disgrace. Was a text book taking the legs and should've been a JVR free.

15 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Can't believe the AFL won't pay 100 grand to have some Phantom cameras! (1,000 fps at 4K).

I haven't done any analysis on this, but I reckon the problem with cameras for goal review technology is that they have to cover the likelihood of a touched ball wherever that might be - it could theoretically be touched off the boot anywhere inside the forward 50 arc, not necessarily just on the goal line like Saturday's instance. Therefore it's probably a larger number of cameras involved, and at all grounds, and on Channel 7/Fox to cover the cost for; as the broadcaster? 

Just now, In Harmes Way said:

I haven't done any analysis on this, but I reckon the problem with cameras for goal review technology is that they have to cover the likelihood of a touched ball wherever that might be - it could theoretically be touched off the boot anywhere inside the forward 50 arc, not necessarily just on the goal line like Saturday's instance. Therefore it's probably a larger number of cameras involved, and at all grounds, and on Channel 7/Fox to cover the cost for; as the broadcaster? 

They should start at the G at the very least, that's where the most important game of the whole season is played (GF).

51 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

If we haven't already, I hope the club grows some gonads and sends a please explain to the AFL about the number of times Gawn is manhandled. 

Just because your 208cms doesn't mean you don't deserve the same rules as everyone else.

And Max does the same, one rule I would change is around the ground throw ups and boundary throw ins, no contact prior to the ball being thrown up or in there is to much manhandling these days.

19 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Pretty sure Kate Roffey was in with the DA in the last quarter. Right near that touched / not touched goal. She's articulate and has the media presence to raise the umpiring debacle of Saturday. We weren't the better team for most of the night but we deserved to win if you watch the ridiculous umpiring throughout the last when we were charging at them.

And she doesn't need to grow anything. She's awesome as she is!

I was definitely not having a go at Kate Roffey. She's fantastic. It was more the club as a whole... get your point though

The thing that [censored] me the most is how little coverage the poor umpiring got on news outlets. If the shoe was on the other foot and Carlton lost that game, it would have been on every news outlet.. we are a “nice” football club to deal with.. 

54 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

I haven't done any analysis on this, but I reckon the problem with cameras for goal review technology is that they have to cover the likelihood of a touched ball wherever that might be - it could theoretically be touched off the boot anywhere inside the forward 50 arc, not necessarily just on the goal line like Saturday's instance. Therefore it's probably a larger number of cameras involved, and at all grounds, and on Channel 7/Fox to cover the cost for; as the broadcaster? 

I think first things first, you need to get the goal line covered. You probably don't need even need 1000fps as ElDiablo14 has suggested, but 24 fps is grossly insufficient. Get multiple angles of the goal line and goal square, probably 4 camera's in total. 

For the nerdy folk out there, check out these clips that show you 200/400/800 FPS. You'll notice that with the higher frame rate, the footage gets darker, so there will be a limit to actually how much frame rate you can get depending on the light conditions (night / day / overcast) etc. Obviously more expensive cameras will handle low light conditions better, but if you are going for a minimum of 4 cameras on each end and 8 playing grounds that is 64 additional cameras minimum. 

Edit, you can adjust the playback settings from youtube. The video above is already playing at a slower speed (not sure how much), id probably guess at 1/2 the normal speed. So if you goto the youtube's slowest playback setting of 0.25, you are close to 1/10 of normal speed. At this playback speed, the ARC is getting roughly 2 frames for every second we see of the footage. Compare that to even 200FPS and its night and day. 

Even the camera's within the latest smartphones will give 240 FPS...

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by Gawndy the Great

5 hours ago, FearTheBeard said:

Plenty of threads on the internet to bash umpires. They are humans, there will be different interpretations, and everyone is always going to be cross with them. 

Umpires are never the reason a team loses and they certainly were not the reason we lost on Saturday. 

I posted this in another thread, but it is more relevant in this thread:

Look, I've calmed down now.

But that error cost us 4 points - in a game we won expected score (a stat the clubs put a lot of store in) by 2 points.

it's simply not good enough. And i would say the same if it was us that benefited.

If they use ARC they should invest in the technology. And then have a proper system.

The VAR in the world cup works brilliantly, one because they have the tech. But as importanty it takes the pressure of the referee and linesman. If a difficult , and potentially controversial decision has to be made, it's made by an anonymous person shielded from baying fans. And the on field ref doesn’t cop it.

We essentialy revert to the umpires call when in doubt ' and they have made the call in the moment, under huge pressure  with no option to take their time and calmly review the evidence.

If they don't want to invest in the tech to work and/or have a proper system then scrap the arc.

And make it simple. If the umpire is 100% certain it is touched, it's a point.

If not 100% certain its a goal.

Takes out the grey. A huge amount of stress is avoided - not to mention resources that could be instead poured into improving the decision making skills of theumpireds.

Think about it. The ARC was brought in after hawkins was awarded a goal in a gf when replays (and the naked eye) showed it hit the post to prevent similar 'howlers'

Fifteen years later we are still having howlers. But worse. Because everyone watching sees it over and over.

The law of unintended consequences. A law the AFL consistently, repeatedly fail to respect, let alone heed.

They could have saved a fortune, and a huge amount of angst, if they simply changed the rule and made it like rugby (and soccer, and Hockey and gridiron and ice hockey and Gaelic football) - it hits the inside of the post and goes thru, its a goal

If it hits the post and goes back into the field of play it's a point (or play on, which would be rare, but add an interesting variable).

Instead we now have ridiculous scenarios of amateur "snicko' (i mean please - its not even accurate and nor all grounds has it), points getting paid when it hits oversized, flapping padding and minutes wasted trying to zoom in using sub standard tech on the point of impact - only to end up going with whatever the "soft call"  was (which there is no fixed rule on what it should be ie  they could simply make the rule if its not clear its a goal).

To me it yet another example of the AFL making things ridiculously, and unnecessarily complicated and having grey areas they could take out of the game.

It is hard not think it is a conscious decision by the AFL not to fix all this  rubbish up.

Why might they not take as much grey as they can out of the game?

The AFL is addicted to controversy because controversy sucks up media air time. Creates clicks. Unlimited content.

A good example is a free for insufficient intent to keep the ball in play. What a ridiculous concept. The umpires have to determine the players mindset it in for petes sake. Not to mention factor in things like proximity of teamated, bounce of the ball eyc eyc.

Deliberate made more sense. But was still flawed.

Take out the grey, make it easier for the umpires, and just have the last touch rule between the arcs they have in AFLW. Not a single footy fan would be unhappy with that.

And critically it would reduce errors, take out a variable and most important of all give one less thing for fans to howl at the umpires for.

There are dozens of of rule changes they could make if they were serious about making the job of the umpire easier, reducing the criticism they receive and removing as much grey from how the game is officiated as possible.

Clearing up the holding the ball/insufficient attemp/not disposing schemozzle is just one.

It was a joke on Saturday night.

And that's on the AFL, not the umpires. I watched Casey yesterday. There is CLEARLY a directive not to pay htb. Just like Saturday night, a ridiculous number of clear frees not paid.

And the new one is blocking or holding in marling contests. I watched 10 mins of the saints game and King got the softest free for a hold in the goal square. Bowey gets pinged when he scraps and marks. Yet other clear blocks, scraps and holds get completely ignored - even when there is a 4th umpire right there. And they wonder why people get so upset at umpires. That's on the AFL.

The AFL talk a good game about the importance of not criticising the umpires. Which is fair enough.

But they are the problem, and offer no solutions- not even when the solutions are in their control and simple to implement.

Umpires deserves better.

Players deserve better.

Fans deserve better.

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by binman

And we as paying supporters deserve better too. Good post binny

Cutting edge technology clearly being used by the AFL

A billion dollar organization that wastes so much money on absolute nonsense, can’t find a few bucks to invest in better cameras? 
Give me a break, the AFL is an amateur organization. They don’t want full time umpires and they don’t want to better their technology to help assist umpires. 

Sort it out before Collingwood lose a final to ****ty ARC vision and all hell breaks loose 🙄

Goal reviews won’t get any better until improved technology is introduced and it is clear the 4 field umpire system needs tweaking. There appears no coordination between them. The 4th umpire needs to be an experienced full time master umpire who follows the action but does not make ordinary flow of play decisions. However he needs to have the authority over the other 3 and can overturn decisions, step in when a clear infringement is missed and directs the other umpires on interpretation as the game develops. Like an orchestra conductor to keep musicians synchronised and in lockstep.

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by John Crow Batty

1 hour ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Can't believe the AFL won't pay 100 grand to have some Phantom cameras! (1,000 fps at 4K).

Would that $100k be needed for the MCG or all grounds?

It's quite simple. The AFL is a multi-million dollar industry being run like an amateur organisation. Full time umpiring and the latest VAR goal line technology should be non-negotiable. I'm surprised they're not already using the time it takes to make a VAR decision to introduce spot betting on the outcome to help fund them both. 

42 minutes ago, binman said:

I posted this in another thread, but it is more relevant in this thread:

Look, I've calmed down now.

But that error caused us to not get 4 points - in a game we won expected score (a stat the clubs put a lot of store in) by 2 points.

it's simply not good enough. And i would say the same if it was us that benefited.

If they use ARC they should invest in the technology. And then have a proper system.

The VAR in the world cup works brilliantly, one because they have the tech. But as importanty it takes the pressure of the referee and linesman. If a difficult , and potentially controversial decision has to be made, it's made by an anonymous person shielded from baying fans. And the on field ref doesn’t cop it.

We essentialy revert to the umpires call when in doubt ' and they have made the call in the moment, under huge pressure  with no option to take their time and calmly review the evidence.

If they don't want to invest in the tech to work and/or have a proper system then scrap the arc.

And make it simple. If the umpire is 100% certain it is touched, it's a point.

If not 100% certain its a goal.

Takes out the grey. A huge amount of stress is avoided - not to mention resources that could be instead poured into improving the decision making skills of theumpireds.

Think about it. The ARC was brought in after hawkins was awarded a goal in a gf when replays (and the naked eye) showed it hit the post to prevent similar 'howlers'

Fifteen years later we are still having howlers. But worse. Because everyone watching sees it over and over.

The law of unintended consequences. A law the AFL consistently, repeatedly fail to respect, let alone heed.

They could have saved a fortune, and a huge amount of angst, if they simply changed the rule and made it like rugby (and soccer, and Hockey and gridiron and ice hockey and Gaelic football) - it hits the inside of the post and goes thru, its a goal

If it hits the post and goes back into the field of play it's a point (or play on, which would be rare, but add an interesting variable).

Instead we now have ridiculous scenarios of amateur "snicko' (i mean please - its not even accurate and nor all grounds has it), points getting paid when it hits oversized, flapping padding and minutes wasted trying to zoom in using sub standard tech on the point of impact - only to end up going with whatever the "soft call"  was (which there is no fixed rule on what it should be ie  they could simply make the rule if its not clear its a goal).

To me it yet another example of the AFL making things ridiculously, and unnecessarily complicated and having grey areas they could take out of the game.

It is hard not think it is a conscious decision by the AFL not to fix all this  rubbish up.

Why might they not take as much grey as they can out of the game?

The AFL is addicted to controversy because controversy sucks up media air time. Creates clicks. Unlimited content.

A good example is a free for insufficient intent to keep the ball in play. What a ridiculous concept. The umpires have to determine the players mindset it in for petes sake. Not to mention factor in things like proximity of teamated, bounce of the ball eyc eyc.

Deliberate made more sense. But was still flawed.

Take out the grey, make it easier for the umpires, and just have the last touch rule between the arcs they have in AFLW. Not a single footy fan would be unhappy with that.

And critically it would reduce errors, take out a variable and most important of all give one less thing for fans to howl at the umpires for.

There are dozens of of rule changes they could make if they were serious about making the job of the umpire easier, reducing the criticism they receive and removing as much grey from how the game is officiated as possible.

Clearing up the holding the ball/insufficient attemp/not disposing schemozzle is just one.

It was a joke on Saturday night.

And that's on the AFL, not the umpires. I watched Casey yesterday. There is CLEARLY a directive not to pay htb. Just like Saturday night, a ridiculous number of clear frees not paid.

And the new one is blocking or holding in marling contests. I watched 10 mins of the saints game and King got the softest free for a hold in the goal square. Bowey gets pinged when he scraps and marks. Yet other clear blocks, scraps and holds get completely ignored - even when there is a 4th umpire right there. And they wonder why people get so upset at umpires. That's on the AFL.

The AFL talk a good game about the importance of not criticising the umpires. Which is fair enough.

But they are the problem, and offer no solutions- not even when the solutions are in their control and simple to implement.

Umpires deserves better.

Players deserve better.

If the umpire believes it was touched than that should be the end of it. None of this I'll just double check. The problem with this is it leaves umps prone to making calls because they know they can go back and check them. And as saw on Saturday, this didn't work because the technology is a joke. Best if the ump doesn't know, he or she could just say so and if the technology doesn't help just assume nothing until proven otherwise. That means it remains a goal until an ump says definitely otherwise or technology proves it was touched. Simple.