To save money rather than improve the technology, the AFL could alway use 3 goal umpires and take the majority decision. 😃

Oh, a wise guy eh?

It's all well and good to have state of the art cameras, but the cost to have them at every ground around Australia would be more than people think. Then you have discrepancies from ground to ground where said cameras can be mounted, which changes the angles etc. 

I get the argument for better investment in the technology, but if it can't be equally applied across all grounds then it's going to create issues of its own. 

Is this another camera (circled in red)?

9 hours ago, pitmaster said:

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.

Yes, for those of us who watch many different team contests, not just those involving the MFC, the disparity between umpires and the anticipated excellence of umpire impartiality and rules applications is highly suspect, and has been for quite some time - at the point of obviating preference rather than the judicial application of sacrosanct, well-documented reason. No longer can umpires hide behind mere judgment variations; comparisons have become too noticeably different. Added to this is the clamour amongst the magistrates of the whistle to be seen as entertainers and popularity profiles - assisting key teams with the largest supporters or noise generation as a crowd in attendance, usually remaining instantly quite satisfied with the bang for the buck that they just received within and about the game from official sources. That happiness far outweighs any conceptualisation of reasonably fair play. Human error at this frequency does not contain permissible undersights or oversights. There are no checks and balances in operation - it is just allowed to happen. Thanks for coming!

Melbourne were not garbage in the first quarter - Carlton were on fire and pouring the ball into their forward line - and they ended up with !.3.  Either they were garbage, or our defending was off the chart superb.  And defence is equally part of the game. Wins premierships.

Momentum came our way eventually, due to our unfazed excellence despite extreme pressure and spending most of the game on the back foot, and despite a couple of very-much-debated umpiring gaffes (Van Royen's free kick is surely inarguable), our team held firm and eventually got on top and ought to have won. Yes, Salem let us down with an uncharacteristic poor kick, and van Royen's accuracy deserted him - but we  were the equal of Carlton.  A lot of talk about Carlton - well, let them talk. It was a pretty impressive effort from Melbourne.  We'll get better - Carlton aren't likely to play much better than that - it was pressure, not superstars, that got them the points.  I reckon we'd be up for a return match any time!

39 minutes ago, binman said:

Agree on giving the ARC the soft call, but not with asking the goal umpire any clarifying questions

The latter just adds another variable and process that would have to be followed.

Just one example - how would the ARC speak to the goal umpire? Do the goal umpires currently wear a mic?

If no, that is just more tech issues and costs - and the AFL are already woeful in that space.

If they do have mic, then how are they 'questioned? What's appropriate to ask? What if it the ARC reviewer asks a leading questions?

But most of all, for every second that passes from the incident the umpires memory of the incident morph and changes - it is human nature. The brain is constantly reinterpreting what has occurred in the past. 

Much easier - and more importantly much more black and white - would be for there to be blanket rule.

No soft call.

The goal umpire just tells the truth - i don't know if it was touched or not (which is no different to 'i think it was touched' or "i think it's a goal').

It is then up to the ARC reviewer to review the video and make the call.

If they cant tell if it has been touched or not becuase the video is not clear, than it is a variation on the old cricket umpiring rule - the batter gets the benefit of the doubt - the kicker get the benefit of the doubt and it is given a goal. 

It could also be given point but that makes less sense to me.

Either way it is a clear rule that everyone understands and is uniformly applied.

Simple.

The thing that does my head in is this scenario was just so utterly predictable and preventable. In fact there was a similar scenario last year with Lynch, with the lions being being the beneficiary.

Which is why i cant get away from the thought the AFL are deliberately not addressing obvious issues like this.

And why i could see them bringing in a ham fisted response that just created further dramas, and unintended consequences, like Whatley's idea re the ARC conferring with the goal umpire. 

They conflate controversy with it being good for the game becuase it dominates sport air time.

It's been their strategy for 20 years - crowd out every other sport for media attention.

Grow footy by starving other sports and codes of attention.

It's a joke - and so mid numbingly short sighted and harmful to the sport. 

 

Exactly. I think what you'll find is that the goal umpire must use some standard verbiage prepared by the AFL when making a soft call, which makes the goal umpire sound more convincing when they really don't know and are just guessing. 

17 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Is this another camera (circled in red)?

Yes, it appears to be pointing towards the fence 😁

22 minutes ago, robbiefrom13 said:

Melbourne were not garbage in the first quarter - Carlton were on fire and pouring the ball into their forward line - and they ended up with !.3.  Either they were garbage, or our defending was off the chart superb.  And defence is equally part of the game. Wins premierships.

Momentum came our way eventually, due to our unfazed excellence despite extreme pressure and spending most of the game on the back foot, and despite a couple of very-much-debated umpiring gaffes (Van Royen's free kick is surely inarguable), our team held firm and eventually got on top and ought to have won. Yes, Salem let us down with an uncharacteristic poor kick, and van Royen's accuracy deserted him - but we  were the equal of Carlton.  A lot of talk about Carlton - well, let them talk. It was a pretty impressive effort from Melbourne.  We'll get better - Carlton aren't likely to play much better than that - it was pressure, not superstars, that got them the points.  I reckon we'd be up for a return match any time!

Too sensible, try running around flayling your arms 

I think the debate about the use of the ARC to be somewhat irrelevant. If there was no review mechanism, the goal umpire's call would have meant that it was point with no debate.

I'm much more curious as to the explanation for van Rooyen not getting a free kick for having his legs taken out from under him on the boundary line. Does the rule suggest that if a defender is attempting a smother it's different from a player attempting to gather the ball (which is the usual reason for a "slide tackle")? If so, that makes no sense, given the reason for the rule is to protect the upright player's legs.

Final comment: As has been said previously in this thread, all these issues - the standard of umpiring, the quality of the review process, etc - all highlight how deficient the Chairman of the AFL Commission has been in leaving so many positions vacant within the Commission itself and the executive team of the AFL. There is no way a Chairman of a public company would survive if the same were to happen in a company. Put frankly, the clubs should be demanding the "retirement" of Richard Goyder. He's been asleep at the wheel. 

10 hours ago, Roost it far said:

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!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARC!

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by Grr-owl
All caps is better

5 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARC!

and the afl's continual meddling with the rules and failure to better define the rules

i've been playing and following footy for longer than you'd care to know and i still don't understand the basic holding the ball/incorrect disposal/illegal tackle rules, let alone the ruck infringement rules. and that's just some of the basic rules.

9 hours ago, hardtack said:

So you’re saying that those three quick goals at the beginning of the last quarter were all a result of poor umpiring?

The reason we lost was that we slept through much of the first half of the game, and then, when we had managed to get them on their knees by the end of the third, had a micro sleep allowing them to gain the ascendancy… if you’re going to blame anything else for the loss, then I’d be looking at the standard of the goal line technology, not the umpire. 

I’ll admit that I missed quite a bit of the game (first half) and am relying on my son’s first half assessment, but the only really dodgy umpiring decision I saw, was Roo having his legs taken out from under him on the boundary line in the dying minutes of the game.

Well, candidly, you should have watched all the game. 

9 hours ago, hardtack said:

So you’re saying that those three quick goals at the beginning of the last quarter were all a result of poor umpiring?

The reason we lost was that we slept through much of the first half of the game, and then, when we had managed to get them on their knees by the end of the third, had a micro sleep allowing them to gain the ascendancy… if you’re going to blame anything else for the loss, then I’d be looking at the standard of the goal line technology, not the umpire. 

I’ll admit that I missed quite a bit of the game (first half) and am relying on my son’s first half assessment, but the only really dodgy umpiring decision I saw, was Roo having his legs taken out from under him on the boundary line in the dying minutes of the game.

Had we slept through the first quarter Carlton would have kicked 10 goals. Our defence was water tight, wide awake. 
Rewatch the match, we were very very good. 

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by Roost it far

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

and the afl's continual meddling with the rules and failure to better define the rules

i've been playing and following footy for longer than you'd care to know and i still don't understand the basic holding the ball/incorrect disposal/illegal tackle rules, let alone the ruck infringement rules. and that's just some of the basic rules.

I think It goes a little somethin like this....

4 hours ago, Willmoy1947 said:

Well, candidly, you should have watched all the game. 

Well, equally candidly, I was in no position to… my band had just played in Canberra, what will be our final gig for an indefinite period of time while I go into chemotherapy for the next however many months, and I had been taken out to dinner. I managed to get back to where I was staying in time to catch most of the second half. 

4 hours ago, Roost it far said:

Had we slept through the first quarter Carlton would have kicked 10 goals. Our defence was water tight, wide awake. 
Rewatch the match, we were very very good. 

I will watch the full game when I get a chance to… my son is usually fairly accurate with his summations, so I wasn’t going to dismiss his comments.

A lot of people suggesting the 'soft call' should be scrapped (or muted), with the decision sent upstairs and then returned to the goal umpire if there is no conclusive evidence. Others have pointed out the occasional (highly infuriating) miscommunications between the goal and field umpires and what ARC ends up reviewing. 

Why not then just get rid of the faceless 'middle man' adjudicator, and leave ultimate responsibility for the decision up to the experienced goal umpire who was on the spot and knows exactly what he or she was in doubt about? If unsure, the goal umpire can call for a review, and then directly direct the technologists on what to play back. 

This could be done via a movie director-style playback 'tent' set up somewhere behind the goals (sounds cumbersome and potentially dangerous, but I have faith we can figure it out). Goal umpire, in this particular instance, can then ask for the best footage on whether it touched the back of so and so's hand from various angles and freezes. 

On the balance of the available evidence, the call would probably have gone our way; the goal umpire is absolved from making one poor, split-second decision, and is only hounded if it's an absolute post-review howler. Add a clearly defined 'benefit-of-the-doubt' rule, be it a goal or point, which the umpire can signal if they remain uncertain. 

 

 

I've heard goal umpires say they think it is a goal but want to check if it was touched and the field umpire go to the review that it is touched. What is going on there?

This thread is full of uninformed conjecture. The facts as described to me by an experience and mulit- AFL Grand Final goal umpire is that the goal umpire was WRONG in his thought process as umpires are trained. He did not adjuducate to his training for this example.

1. First, the umpire must decide if the gball went tthrough the goals, and if so was there a deviation?

2. In this case there was not.

3. The Umpire should then have called a goal , but if unsure of touch, call review for a touch.

4. No initai evidence of deviation, which was the case here, means his decsiosn must have been a goal, with a check.          That would have shown no deveiastion , thus a goal stands.

5. Gerard Whaelty talked about "..scoreboard integrity.." No such thing in the process and is a party-line approach.

Poor umpirring cost Tiges a final last year (that goal umpire had only 11 games AFL senior experinece) and Dees a possible top 2.

And the AFL calls itself professional.

The Umpire should be stood down, as his approach was that he clearly reacted to Caleb Marchbank's touch claim. Not the facts of the situation.

 

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by Demon17
spelling mistakes

6 hours ago, hardtack said:

Well, equally candidly, I was in no position to… my band had just played in Canberra, what will be our final gig for an indefinite period of time while I go into chemotherapy for the next however many months, and I had been taken out to dinner. I managed to get back to where I was staying in time to catch most of the second half. 

Good luck, brother.

22 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

This thread is full of uninformed conjecture. The facts as described to me by an experience and mulit- AFL Grand Final goal umpire is that the goal umpire was WRONG in his thought process as umpires are trained. He did not adjuducate to his training for this example.

1. First, the umpire must decide if the gball went tthrough the goals, and if so was there a deviation?

2. In this case there was not.

3. The Umpire should then have called a goal , but if unsure of touch, call review for a touch.

4. No initai evidence of deviation, which was the case here, means his decsiosn must have been a goal, with a check.          That would have shown no deveiastion , thus a goal stands.

5. Gerard Whaelty talked about "..scoreboard integrity.." No such thing in the process and is a party-line approach.

Poor umpirring cost Tiges a final last year (that goal umpire had only 11 games AFL senior experinece) and Dees a possible top 2.

And the AFL calls itself professional.

The Umpire should be stood down, as his approach was that he clearly reacted to Caleb Marchbank's touch claim. Not the facts of the situation.

 

And yet the AFL "reviewed the process" and cleared it.

Thanks for explaining the proper approach @Demon17

6 hours ago, hardtack said:

Well, equally candidly, I was in no position to… my band had just played in Canberra, what will be our final gig for an indefinite period of time while I go into chemotherapy for the next however many months, and I had been taken out to dinner. I managed to get back to where I was staying in time to catch most of the second half. 

Good luck @hardtack

5 minutes ago, Brownie said:

And yet the AFL "reviewed the process" and cleared it.

Thanks for explaining the proper approach @Demon17

My pleasure.

Its what it says about the AFL's appraoch and treating of fans contempuosly that annoys me.

We'll get the Blues next time, as we technically did last Saturday and last year.

My contact was inundated with calls like mine from others to understand the issue.

7 hours ago, hardtack said:

Well, equally candidly, I was in no position to… my band had just played in Canberra, what will be our final gig for an indefinite period of time while I go into chemotherapy for the next however many months, and I had been taken out to dinner. I managed to get back to where I was staying in time to catch most of the second half. 

Best wishes hardtack