NON-MFC: Rd 23 2023

[sue 9,145]

Just now, hardtack said:

Agree with all of that, but, and I’m probably wrong, I thought all goals were reviewed before the centre bounce to restart play took place… in which case, how could that not have been picked up? It beggars belief!

Because they can't review points in the short time available before the kick in.  Lots of time if a goal is called to play ads, have some insincere spruiker gee up the crowd, play some random music, etc. and do a review.

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

I was reading on another forum that "edge" can be triggered by a player slapping the padding. If correct it makes the process susceptible to abuse.

On balance I'd like to retain the behind if touched but I'd be content to remove the hitting of the post rule. I'd also be willing to go so far as to require a clear touching adjudicated by the umpires.

The ARC has been a step backwards where a small problem has been addressed by a monster system

[hardtack 10,627]

48 minutes ago, sue said:

It's ironical that points aren't reviewed in the same way that goals are before play recommences.

This probably says more about where my head is at than anything else, and this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I’ve often thought about the fact that a touched ball going through the goals is awarded a behind, while a touched ball going between the goal and point posts is also awarded a behind. Shouldn’t the latter be either a ball up or a boundary throw in?

Edited August 20, 2023 by hardtack

[hardtack 10,627]

5 minutes ago, Hellaintabadplacetobe said:

Because it was called a behind, as a result it doesn't get reviewed.

Yeah, sorry, a bit of a brain phaart on my part.

[hardtack 10,627]

5 minutes ago, sue said:

Because they can't review points in the short time available before the kick in.  Lots of time if a goal is called to play ads, have some insincere spruiker gee up the crowd, play some random music, etc. and do a review.

Yeah, I’m not sure what I was thinking, but that was definitely a bit of a brain phaart on my part.

[Redleg 41,461]

45 minutes ago, sue said:

It's ironical that points aren't reviewed in the same way that goals are before play recommences. Understandable of course given the lack of time after a point is awarded before play resumes compared to a centre bounce.  But both goals reviewed into points and points into goals can decide a match.   Perhaps that's an argument to review nothing and go with umps' call. 

Maybe it would be cheaper to employ 4 goal umpires than get reliable technology.    4 goal umps, one at each gaol post would be in a good position except for deciding whether a ball is out of bounds or a point.  The boundary umps can help decide that as they do now.  Don't ask me what to do if the 2 goal umps disagree!

3 umpires were on the spot when Cameron got that handball over the boundary line and all just watched.

Mistakes happen.

Players make them all the time.

My 6 year old grandson wouldn’t miss from 10 metres out straight in front, but professional footballers do.

[sue 9,145]

3 minutes ago, hardtack said:

This probably says more about where my head is at than anything else, but I’ve often thought about the fact that a touched ball going through the goals is awarded a behind, while a touched ball going between the goal and point posts is also awarded a behind. Shouldn’t the latter be either a ball up or a boundary throw in?

The AFL couldn't afford enough cameras.

[YearOfTheDees 3,266]

The AFL have given the Goal Umpire the same penalty as the crow received. Both out for rest of season so alls fair now.

The goal umpire who made the incorrect decision has been stood down for the rest of the season, and the result of the game will stand.  

[hardtack 10,627]

2 minutes ago, sue said:

The AFL couldn't afford enough cameras.

They use cameras now?? I thought they had some guy on the sidelines with a mallet and chisel and a stone tablet.

[rpfc 28,779]

The tech isn’t good enough but also it was good enough to overturn last night. The frame rate is reprehensible for a pro league. News corp and Seven shell out the cash to keep others out of the game. They do not care about providing a good product. It’s stuff ups like this that take the air out of following the league, same with the fixture and with umpiring in general.

Edited August 20, 2023 by rpfc

[whatwhat say what 22,948]

3 minutes ago, sue said:

The AFL couldn't afford enough cameras.

and therein lies the rub - the afl have always said that use of cameras etc is a broadcaster's responsibility

[No. 31 1,316]

14 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

And that won’t happen again. GWS need to win to secure a finals spot. Carlton coming off two hard games. GWS coming off a bye playing Essendon. 

Carlton may well need a win to secure a home final and may have players like Walsh, Cerra, McGovern and Kennedy returning. Reckon only Cripps might be rested. Carlton still likely to push hard for the win in front of 50K under the roof at Marvel. Going with 10 wins on the trot into the finals is certainly something to play for ...

[Demonstone 22,820]

1 minute ago, hardtack said:

They use cameras now??

Not very good ones.  Me no Leica.

[hardtack 10,627]

1 minute ago, Demonstone said:

Not very good ones.  Me no Leica.

Yep, they couldn’t pick up a Nikon the post, nor if the ball Canons off a players finger.

[Redleg 41,461]

4 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

The AFL have given the Goal Umpire the same penalty as the crow received. Both out for rest of season so alls fair now.

The goal umpire who made the incorrect decision has been stood down for the rest of the season, and the result of the game will stand.  

That’s disgraceful. It’s no worse a decision than last week’s soft call. Why wasn’t he stood down?

Scapegoats for incompetence in administration of the game, by hugely paid know it alls, who stuff up most things.

[Watson11 2,243]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

But they did follow procedure.

Goal Umpire was certain it touched post and therefore he didn’t request review.

That is the current procedure.

It’s a mistake, not a breach of procedure.

I think you will find that’s incorrect if you read the afl score review procedures. It’s on any of the field umpires to blow the whistle to stop the clock if there is any doubt and start consultation. Really the field umps are the ones who should be stood down. 

[ElDiablo14 5,002]

23 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

I was reading on another forum that "edge" can be triggered by a player slapping the padding. If correct it makes the process susceptible to abuse.

On balance I'd like to retain the behind if touched but I'd be content to remove the hitting of the post rule. I'd also be willing to go so far as to require a clear touching adjudicated by the umpires.

The ARC has been a step backwards where a small problem has been addressed by a monster system

You can still review and,with a high degree of certainty, determine if the edge was triggered by the player. Also, you can have a rule that if a player touches the pad it voids the review and it's a goal.

[The heart beats true 18,145]

1 hour ago, Jjrogan said:

Game in Adelaide where the Crows got 4 free kicks in the last 2 minutes, including the winning kick and stole the game from the Roy boys. 

 

Memorable for Peter McKenna's commentary as much as anything else. This is Murder!  Absolute Murder!

This is why I love footy fans. Crows get absolutely robbed, and someone says ‘yeah, but remember that game 32 years ago against that club that doesn’t exist anymore?’

🤣

[layzie 34,013]

Stop the Carlton streak. Someone think of the children.

[mauriesy 7,357]

32 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

The AFL have given the Goal Umpire the same penalty as the crow received. Both out for rest of season so alls fair now.

The goal umpire who made the incorrect decision has been stood down for the rest of the season, and the result of the game will stand.  

"AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan has backed the League's score review system and said a goal umpire's failure to refer a game-defining decision to the ARC during Adelaide's one-point loss to Sydney was "a mistake" and would have been overturned if it was reviewed.

Really? I'd wager that if there'd been a review, the decision would have been "insufficient evidence" because of poor or insufficient video, and the point would stand.

[YearOfTheDees 3,266]

Not sure why McLachlan said the review would have overturned the decision. It was a goal but surely all he had to say was review should have been called. 

[Redleg 41,461]

27 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

I think you will find that’s incorrect if you read the afl score review procedures. It’s on any of the field umpires to blow the whistle to stop the clock if there is any doubt and start consultation. Really the field umps are the ones who should be stood down. 

But the goal umpire had no doubt.

[layzie 34,013]

44 minutes ago, rpfc said:

The tech isn’t good enough but also it was good enough to overturn last night. The frame rate is reprehensible for a pro league. News corp and Seven shell out the cash to keep others out of the game. They do not care about providing a good product. It’s stuff ups like this that take the air out of following the league, same with the fixture and with umpiring in general.

Not to mention this has been the case for over 10 years now. 

Our game is supposed to be about execution and skill of players on display, not score reviews and umpires taking centre stage.

[Watson11 2,243]

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

But the goal umpire had no doubt.

If you look at the process though, isn’t it on the field umps to call for the review if there is doubt.  
https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL-Score-Review.pdf 

[Redleg 41,461]

9 minutes ago, Watson11 said:

If you look at the process though, isn’t it on the field umps to call for the review if there is doubt.  
https://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL-Score-Review.pdf 

But he said he had no doubt and field umpires obviously didn’t know, being much further away.

If everyone is upset, then change the process.