Umpiring discrepancies

[OhMyDees 1,333]

Every time the ARC reverts to Umpire’s Call - the system has failed.

I’d be interested to know what the stats are with this.

Why have a result that shows the system has failed?

[Wodjathefirst 2,369]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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

Either way, in relative terms it is not a big expense for such a critical piece of required technology.  
In a multi million or billion dollar industry it pretty much would rate as petty cash.

It ain’t going to break the bank.
 

[FearTheBeard 904]

51 minutes ago, binman said:

Give me a spell.

We were not 'garbage' for the first quarter and half.

The blues were brilliant. Their intensity was off the charts. And we stood up amazingly well.

You've managed to insult both the Dees AND the blues (if we were garbage for a quarter and a half any decent team, let alone a tem of the Blues caliber, would have gone into half time with a 6 goal lead)

Such rot.

On the radio after the game, one of the analysts said the 'demons lost no admirers, they were awesome' (he also went on to say that ARC decision was clearly an error and questioned how they could have made the decision so quickly).

Without a word of a lie, i immediately thought to myself, yes they will - but not from any objective person, but rather it will be dees fans who can't see the woods for the trees. 

This was the pressure rating for the match (note 200 is consider elite, finals like pressure - we finished with an average across the game of 200. That is unbelievable).

Team pressure

Quarter	For	Against
1	196	224
2	185	201
3	207	197
4	214	202
Match	200	206

The fact that the blues had an average of 206 is credit to them. Amazing pressure - i would be very surprised if they have had a higher rating in any other game this season. 

No other team has come close to that sort of sustained pressure in a game against us this season. By way of comparison in our previous encounter both team averaged 170 for the game.

And IIRC the Pies Port game, which many have said is the best, most intense game of the season, was aprox the same as the blues dees game.

Most finals don't get to those levels. Our GF win didn't. And nor did the Pies Cats game on Friday night for that matter. 

And before you dismiss the stat, clubs put huge stock in it. It was designed by Champion Data for clubs, not TV.

If you don't believe me listen to McRae's post match presser - he promised they would lift their pressure rating ahead of the game and in the presser references their pressure being back to it's very best - 'at 2'  (note: the data the clubs get, which Brendan Sanderson has said is shown to players on the bench thru the match, is expressed as say 1.8 for 180 - fox and the herald sun just adds a zero to make it sexier and easier for fans to grasp).

I have no idea what your post has to do with mine. My point is that Melbourne did not lose the game because of umpiring decisions. The ARC followed the process correctly and made the only decision it could make. The problem is the Goal Umpire who for whatever reason called touched when they haven't been calling touched on those sort of plays all year.

After 5 minutes into the second quarter Melbourne controlled the game but for 5 minutes at the end of the second and 3 minutes at the start of the fourth. Yes, the pressure was outstanding from both sides except for tackles inside 50 where we found wanting (lost the count 21-8) from both sides but again what does that have to do with my point? I responded to a poster who said the umpires are the sole reason that we lost. Maybe read that post first.

Edited August 14, 2023 by FearTheBeard

[spirit of norm smith 13,186]

I’m still angry. It was a goal. Marchbank didn’t even protest (unlike Silly-Silvagni I’m the 93 GF).

How did the goal umpire categorically decide it was touched. Usually the call (99-1 ratio)  is “it’s a goal but it may have been touched “ but MFC got the one umpire that decides he categorically thinks it’s touched.  
 

Sure it wasn’t the sole reason we lost … but it was one of the reasons we didn’t win !!! 

[Bates Mate 3,931]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

Agree with all you say 'bin'...but here lies the problem.

I think the umpiring is at it's lowest ebb since I've been watching football, and that's a long time now.

I don't blame the umpires, although I did have a shot at Ray the other night for missing the JVR trip.

You can see the umps don't have any confidence in their own game and that's due to the AFL.

You've got a retired CEO, no football manager and 2 board vacancies.

Who is running the place?

It's a total shambles.

I'm sure all the fact finding junkets to study how they do things in the NFL, EPL etc are well on track.

[Webber 10,178]

If it were likely to provoke change, this entire thread should be sent to the AFL. Would that they listened! Brilliant stuff, terrific reading. 

For those who can’t accept that umpiring affects results, think about the illogic of that. ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that happens during a game is sanctioned, or not, by the umpires. Otherwise put, the game doesn’t even start, and no result is achievable without their action or inaction. If you think all W-L results are ‘perfect’, i.e. every W-L result is ‘right’, it’s saying that across their 120 minutes of decision-making, the balance of their decisions is also ‘perfect’. I hate to be conceptually pedantic, but this is nonsense. At its fundament. The fact of umpiring’s imperfection renders occasional ‘imperfect’ results. By definition. The problem with AFL umpiring (and as so many of you have rightly said it’s on THEM, not the umpires) is that it’s never been more imperfect. 
 

The question then to ask, and as you’ve all astutely outlined, there are obvious, simple solutions, is why aren’t the AFL improving what is a horrible shambles? 
 

 

[FearTheBeard 904]

6 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I’m still angry. It was a goal. Marchbank didn’t even protest (unlike Silly-Silvagni I’m the 93 GF).

How did the goal umpire categorically decide it was touched. Usually the call (99-1 ratio)  is “it’s a goal but it may have been touched “ but MFC got the one umpire that decides he categorically thinks it’s touched.  
 

Sure it wasn’t the sole reason we lost … but it was one of the reasons we didn’t win !!! 

Yes, this is the point nobody is talking about enough. The ARC's decision was correct based on the technology they have available (let's not go down that rabbit warren though).

Why did the goal umpire decide to call it touched?? don't reckon I have seen one called as touched like that all year. 

[In Harmes Way 7,594]

3 hours ago, Return to Glory said:

Cutting edge technology clearly being used by the AFL

I'm surprised you can't hear the beeping and whirring of the modem as they send the decision up to ARC for review.

[binman 38,797]

44 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

I have no idea what your post has to do with mine.

What the? 

I had to go back and make sure i didn't quote the wrong post. 

But i didn't.

You wrote the dees, and i quote, 'were garbage for the first quarter and a half'

I barely referenced the umpires. 

My post (that you have quoted) was all about rebutting your opinion the dees 'were garbage for the first quarter and a half'

In all seriousness, how on earth do you arrive at 'I have no idea what your post has to do with mine'?

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by binman

[ChaserJ 3,972]

34 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

Yes, this is the point nobody is talking about enough. The ARC's decision was correct based on the technology they have available (let's not go down that rabbit warren though).

Why did the goal umpire decide to call it touched?? don't reckon I have seen one called as touched like that all year. 

Apparently the goal umpire thought the ball hit Marchbank’s wrist, Marchbank opined that it hit his fingers but was hoping for anything.  Those discrepancies tell me everything I need to know.

Whately this morning considered whether we give the ARC the soft call, and if we do, should the goal umpire clarify where the ball was touched to give the ARC something more specific to test. I think either one of those tweaks instantly improves the process.

Edited August 14, 2023 by ChaserJ

[Earl Hood 5,804]

21 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

I'm surprised you can't hear the beeping and whirring of the modem as they send the decision up to ARC for review.

They then fax the result of the review through to the announcer I believe. The wonders of modern technology. 

[sue 8,463]

I posted this elsewhere, but it is so wise 😀 I can't resist posting here too:

Why do the ARC people get to hear the umpire's call in advance?  It must affect their thinking.

Surely they should be told the umpire is in doubt as to whether or not it was touched.  If the ARC can then clearly see it wasn't touched, then we never hear what the umpire thought and it's a goal.  If they say it was clearly touched,  it's a point.  If they say ARC can't tell, then reveal the umpire's call and implement it.

[FearTheBeard 904]

42 minutes ago, binman said:

What the? 

I had to go back and make sure i didn't quote the wrong post. 

But i didn't.

You wrote the dees, and i quote, 'were garbage for the first quarter and a half'

I barely referenced the umpires. 

My post (that you have quoted) was all about rebutting your opinion the dees 'were garbage for the first quarter and a half'

In all seriousness, how on earth do you arrive at 'I have no idea what your post has to do with mine'?

 

Do you seriously think your essay response actually addressed my point? My point was simply that the umpires were not the reason we lost. Melbourne was not good enough in the first quarter which you seem to disagree with but that is fine, you must not have watched the game. But as I said, my point was not addressed by your comment, if you think the umpires are the reason we lost then that would address what I said.

[FearTheBeard 904]

4 minutes ago, sue said:

I posted this elsewhere, but it is so wise 😀 I can't resist posting here too:

Why do the ARC people get to hear the umpire's call in advance?  It must affect their thinking.

Surely they should be told the umpire is in doubt as to whether or not it was touched.  If the ARC can then clearly see it wasn't touched, then we never hear what the umpire thought and it's a goal.  If they say it was clearly touched,  it's a point.  If they say ARC can't tell, then reveal the umpire's call and implement it.

Wise lol. There is a process in place and has been in place since the Score review was put into the game. Whether you like that process or not is separate, but that process was followed correctly by the ARC and the ARC made the correct decision. The incorrect decision (if you believe it was wrong) was made by the goal umpire. If we don't have a soft signal what is the ARC meant to do? Call it a goal or behind when there is no conclusive evidence? There is no way any person could definitively say whether that ball was touched or not.

[Gawndy the Great 7,643]

4 minutes ago, sue said:

I posted this elsewhere, but it is so wise 😀 I can't resist posting here too:

Why do the ARC people get to hear the umpire's call in advance?  It must affect their thinking.

Surely they should be told the umpire is in doubt as to whether or not it was touched.  If the ARC can then clearly see it wasn't touched, then we never hear what the umpire thought and it's a goal.  If they say it was clearly touched,  it's a point.  If they say ARC can't tell, then reveal the umpire's call and implement it.

 

33 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

Apparently the goal umpire thought the ball hit Marchbank’s wrist, Marchbank opined that it hit his fingers but was hoping for anything.  Those discrepancies tell me everything I need to know.

Whately this morning considered whether we give the ARC the soft call, and if we do, should the goal umpire clarify where the ball was touched to give the ARC something more specific to test. I think either one of those tweaks instantly improves the process.

Both of the suggest process improvements here would go a long way to providing more consistent outcomes.

Pity its too little too late and knowing our luck, will be in place when we find ourselves in Carltons position in a future grand final 5 points up with 10 seconds to go.... uggh anxiety meltdown.

[sue 8,463]

4 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

Wise lol. There is a process in place and has been in place since the Score review was put into the game. Whether you like that process or not is separate, but that process was followed correctly by the ARC and the ARC made the correct decision. The incorrect decision (if you believe it was wrong) was made by the goal umpire. If we don't have a soft signal what is the ARC meant to do? Call it a goal or behind when there is no conclusive evidence? There is no way any person could definitively say whether that ball was touched or not.

You are digging yourself into a hole. Try reading what I wrote.  I'm not arguing they didn't follow the current procedure. I'm arguing the procedure is wrong.  Why does the ARC need to know what the umpire's calll was? They just need to know the area of doubt and look into that with an open mind. 

[Sydee 3,644]

I find it quite remarkable that we haven't got access to technology that can give us 99% accuracy on these decisions.

In cricket they can detect the faintest of edges in the centre wicket area, or whether the ball will strike the stumps or not, and in tennis if the ball touches the line or misses by millimeters.

In our game we get blurred images which 9 times out of ten are inconclusive - does the AFL like it this way or are they just too tight to pay for something that actually is worth having.

[Jara 1,149]

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

I’m still angry. It was a goal. Marchbank didn’t even protest (unlike Silly-Silvagni I’m the 93 GF).

How did the goal umpire categorically decide it was touched. Usually the call (99-1 ratio)  is “it’s a goal but it may have been touched “ but MFC got the one umpire that decides he categorically thinks it’s touched.  
 

Sure it wasn’t the sole reason we lost … but it was one of the reasons we didn’t win !!! 

This sums it up for me. I'm still spitting chips. It just doesn't make sense. We know it went through the goals, so it's a goal unless the umpire sees that it was touched, in which case it's a point. If he isn't sure, it should just be called a goal, rather than referring the decision to a technology which is completely incapable of providing more accurate information. That idiotic process could well have just cost us a home final.

[sue 8,463]

11 minutes ago, FearTheBeard said:

Do you seriously think your essay response actually addressed my point? My point was simply that the umpires were not the reason we lost. Melbourne was not good enough in the first quarter which you seem to disagree with but that is fine, you must not have watched the game. But as I said, my point was not addressed by your comment, if you think the umpires are the reason we lost then that would address what I said.

If the umpire's call was 'goal' would you say we did not deserve the win?  On your logic in other posts I think you would have to say that.

What we did during the rest of the game to fall behind or not pull clear is irrelevant.  As is what Carlton did or didn't do earlier in the match to fail to put us away for playing as poorly as you emphasize.  The fact is that within a minute we were that close and so was Carlton.  When a game is that close an umpire's bad call can mean that one team or the other loses.   Just have to live with it until the AFL does something other than hope for controversey and clicks.  But your over-emphasising how the game got to that point is irrelevant to those who think an umpire's mistake affected the result. 

Carlton supporters would be just as mad if the ARC said it was a goal.  Their poster named FearTheCleanshaven would be arguing they lost because they didn't put us away earlier. 

BTW, I have no firm opinion on whether the ball was touched or not. Who can tell with the technology available.  I do have a firm opinion of JVR's legs being blatently taken out, but who knows, he may have missed a shot at goal even if he got the free.

[Redleg 37,907]

5 hours ago, sue said:

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. 

 

I recall a game some years ago, against the Eagles in Perth, where with a minute to go to half time the frees were 15 to Eagles and none to us. We were playing well and every time we looked like scoring, another Eagles free to stop us.

Just before the half time siren went, we got our only free for the half, in the back pocket.

It didn’t improve much after half time and we lost, but not heavily and Dees fans were filthy.

I think one commentator said oh Eagles are getting a good run and that was it.

Umpires do affect games occasionally and that, while difficult to stop, is a pity.

I have never seen a more one sided umpiring display since, thank heavens.

[Redleg 37,907]

1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

Apparently the goal umpire thought the ball hit Marchbank’s wrist, Marchbank opined that it hit his fingers but was hoping for anything.  Those discrepancies tell me everything I need to know.

Whately this morning considered whether we give the ARC the soft call, and if we do, should the goal umpire clarify where the ball was touched to give the ARC something more specific to test. I think either one of those tweaks instantly improves the process.

Good points.

[binman 38,797]

1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

Apparently the goal umpire thought the ball hit Marchbank’s wrist, Marchbank opined that it hit his fingers but was hoping for anything.  Those discrepancies tell me everything I need to know.

Whately this morning considered whether we give the ARC the soft call, and if we do, should the goal umpire clarify where the ball was touched to give the ARC something more specific to test. I think either one of those tweaks instantly improves the process.

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. 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by binman

[Young Angus 349]

Should have been a goal...but so should those two behinds JVR kicked and Joel Smith's set shot inside 50...any one of them would have made the difference.

Still think that system is either used to get a definite result, or don't use it at all, as if we can't get better tech in this day and age it's pretty silly.

[WalkingCivilWar 32,805]

Seems even the cops are weighing in…

 

[Demon Disciple 11,071]

4 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Sometimes it's the lack of calls that make up the many bad decisions. Our tackling was not rewarded like theirs. Not a dig at you but anyone who says bad umpiring doesn't cost clubs games has absolutely no clue. Umpires are human and often get swayed or intimidated by large parochial crowds. 

Totally agree. Umpires influence the outcomes of games, those that don’t think so are kidding themselves.

There was no conclusive evidence that the ball was or wasn’t touched on the line. How do we know that it wasn’t touched? Either way, with such poor technology being adopted and HQ’s refusal to resolve it, it is inevitable that it will cost a team a premiership in future.

As for being too nice a club, instead of focusing our attention on such an issue, I’d rather we concentrate on our lapses in pressure and our lack of taking the initiative in games. We are simply way too defensively minded.

We need to come out and put the game to bed early against the Hawks, as the longer they are in it the more their confidence will grow and our defensive mindset will suffocate us.