58 minutes ago, Brownie said:

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

What a shock! 

I've earlier suggested the ARC should make its decision without knowing what call the umpire has made, just knowing what the ump is uncertain about.  Surely that is fundamental to proper process and I find it incredible (in the original meaning of the word) that the AFL does not to do that.

But there's a lot to be said for scrapping the whole ARC process until the cameras are sufficiently improved.  And just go with the umpire's call, however uncertain.  Or maybe make the default decision be either point or goal if the umpire declares themself uncertain.

13 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARC!

With a silent F

18 hours ago, binman said:

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

Agree. And it’s becoming near impossible not to conclude as such. We know they are media obsessed, of which the wildly uneven venue fixturing is just one example - Collingwood to play at the Cattery anyone? - but everything they do now seems designed to fuel the controversy fire. And during the quiet weeks, something always crops up to stoke it again - protecting the head, sling tackles, the ‘stand’ rule, 50m for dissent and so on, the adjudications of which all sink into the umpiring mud-pile as the season rolls forward. Meanwhile, despite the brilliant structural designs of the draft and salary cap, how they run the competition as a whole merely entrenches a ‘haves and have-nots’ mentality. The big clubs (we all know who they are) vs the minnows. It’s short-term dollar-driven, reflexive, and takes no account of the game’s long term future. The need for fixes across the game are now glaring, but the AFL couldn’t give a rats, as long as the punter is fixated on click-bait, media-fertilised, changes-every-week issues. What to do? A soft revolution is needed, but how? 

Edited August 14, 20232 yr by Webber

It’s the clear lying for me 🙄

1 hour 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 i think he also reacted to what was said to him by the Field Umpire which we do not know because the record of that interaction has and still is being withheld from the Media and the Public.

2 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

It’s the clear lying for me 🙄

Hmmmm…..you can’t re-write what’s already out there, Caleb. 

3 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

It’s the clear lying for me 🙄

Well this picture implicating the Coach says it all.....

Hey boys let's have a picture so as that it verifies what happened, right Caleb??

If they have cleared everything then RELEASE EVERYTHING including all the filming, all the time and all the conversations....

Not just for us but for all the Other Clubs..

The AFL thought they could get away with one of their Pin up sides on a drug program by brushing it under the carpet,

But when all of a sudden it became a cheating situation and a danger to players, it soon blew up, but did anyone from the AFL go, well of course not.

14 hours 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.

It's the constant flavor of the month that is just strange.

Hands in the back paid then not paid.

Dob. One week if you step over the line your gone then another week it's ball up.

Same with htb. Sometimes the umps blow the whistle on every occasion, then it's play on.

Dissent. Toss a coin.

Sling tackles the current favorite.

The umps have been all over the shop this year and sometimes in just one game.

28 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

It’s the clear lying for me 🙄

I thought they kicked a goal.

Yes you would when you didn't touch it.

Karma is a [censored]. It’ll come back around to bite them. 

21 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Karma is a [censored]. It’ll come back around to bite them. 

I do not know why but I have a new found disdain for Carlton. Can't wait to see them lose their final.

I'm giving props to Kozzie who tells the ump when it was touched. When he was the player who kicked it. Bravo.

6 hours ago, sue said:

I've earlier suggested the ARC should make its decision without knowing what call the umpire has made, just knowing what the ump is uncertain about.  Surely that is fundamental to proper process and I find it incredible (in the original meaning of the word) that the AFL does not to do that.

But there's a lot to be said for scrapping the whole ARC process until the cameras are sufficiently improved.  And just go with the umpire's call, however uncertain.  Or maybe make the default decision be either point or goal if the umpire declares themself uncertain.

The touch rule should be changed in the rulebook to be better aligned to the available technology. For example a touched behind is where there is an observable deviation in ball flight (by goal umpire or ARC) or observable movement of the player's fingers who is making contact with the ball. 

So that way a micro touch is still counted as a goal and we are not left here wondering how to better adjudicate. Ultimately you work within the available limitations of our game.  

6 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

The touch rule should be changed in the rulebook to be better aligned to the available technology. For example a touched behind is where there is an observable deviation in ball flight (by goal umpire or ARC) or observable movement of the player's fingers who is making contact with the ball. 

So that way a micro touch is still counted as a goal and we are not left here wondering how to better adjudicate. Ultimately you work within the available limitations of our game.  

Agree. Or the technology should be upgraded to allow the rules to be implemented.  The latter doesn't look like happening real soon.

21 hours 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.

Neither do Carlton fans that just yell out ball whenever one of their players gets somewhere near the opponent with the ball

Don’t know if covered elsewhere but Steven May sharing on radio that he has ‘instructed’ Melbourne defenders to always claim they’ve touched the ball, regardless of whether they believe that or not, is just stupid.

Refreshing that he is being honest, maybe,  but now every time a goal umpire sees a Melbourne player claiming the ball was touched, they will instantly be sceptical.  Could cost us a soft review in our favour one day that costs us a goal (or potentially a match). Was just an unnecessary thing to say.

 

Just now, The Jackson FIX said:

Don’t know if covered elsewhere but Steven May sharing on radio that he has ‘instructed’ Melbourne defenders to always claim they’ve touched the ball, regardless of whether they believe that or not, is just stupid.

Refreshing that he is being honest, maybe,  but now every time a goal umpire sees a Melbourne player claiming the ball was touched, they will instantly be sceptical.  Could cost us a soft review in our favour one day that costs us a goal (or potentially a match). Was just an unnecessary thing to say.

 

He said it in reference to Marchbank claiming he touched it. Basically “yeah I tell the defenders to do the same”. 
You really think other clubs don’t? Carlton are happy to lie and so is every other club. 

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

He said it in reference to Marchbank claiming he touched it. Basically “yeah I tell the defenders to do the same”. 
You really think other clubs don’t? Carlton are happy to lie and so is every other club. 

I agree they all probably would do the same, but he has unnecessarily confirmed we ACTUALLY do it.  If I’m a goal umpire, I’m definitely not listening to Melbourne players if they claim they ‘touched it’ anymore whereas previously the claim may have had some weight on the decision 

 

A made-up-conversation between 3 people:

“Which part of his body did you see touching the ball?”

“His right wrist.”

“Which part of your body touched the ball?”

“ My left fingertip.”

“Did you see his left fingertip touch the ball?”

“No, I didn’t”

“Did your right wrist touch the ball?”

“Hmmm, let me think …”

“Okay, make up your mind. 30 seconds …15 seconds left …”

...

I doubt very much that umpires are persuaded by any player claiming to have touched the ball. And in a related point, blaming Carlton for this outcome is misguided. It has nothing to do with the club or Marchbank at all. It's entirely the result of a goal umpire's decision. As it should be, right or wrong.

I have a solution. 

Get rid of the cameras and review system.

If it goes between the goal posts even if it touches post or player,  it is a goal. Even if rushed. If it hits the post and bounces back into play, it's play on.

No more review madness.

47 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I doubt very much that umpires are persuaded by any player claiming to have touched the ball. And in a related point, blaming Carlton for this outcome is misguided. It has nothing to do with the club or Marchbank at all. It's entirely the result of a goal umpire's decision. As it should be, right or wrong.

but he doesn't have to be "persuaded", just has to be thinking hmm it was close maybe it was touched, player is appealing.

says to ump "it might have been touched but i'm not totally sure, we need to check it."

ump says to arc "check to see if ball touched, goal umpire thinks it may have been"

i.e. soft decision is touched even though he is unsure