2 weeks in a row sides get done by the Goal Umps

[Jaded No More 58,671]

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

It’s completely the goal umpires fault. The umpire:

- called it a point; and

- didn’t request a score review.

under the laws of the game, points aren’t reviewed. I fail to see how this is anyone’s fault except the goal umpire’s. 

It’s the fault of the AFL for not putting in place clear rules that means goal umpires cannot make these types of mistakes. 
Every score with x minutes left on the game is reviewed. Or every score when the margin is under x is reviewed. 
 

Humans make mistakes. By putting in rules in place and the proper technology, we can avoid mistakes as much as possible. 

[Macca 16,173]

9 minutes ago, BoBo said:

I’m not defending the current system, more advocating for using what we have, whilst we have it in its current form, to correctly adjudicate a decision, despite if it take 2-3 minutes.

In our game the review felt rushed (I thought they were definitely calling it a goal when they did as it felt so short)and they only reviewed the side on view once (to my memory) and in the Adelaide game it wasn’t used at all but if it were, conclusively it would have shown it was a goal.

Moving forward, the AFL absolutely has to upgrade the system in the myriad of ways already listed in this thread. 
 

I also wouldn’t say I’ve seen as many as 50 reviews that were inconclusive to be fair. Definitely there’s probably been 4-5 I’ve heard about/seen where the decision didn’t seem to be correct. But this falls down on the inadequacy of the technology. 
 

My only contention is really: you can try and rush decisions to save time (and fan patience) or you can spend more time (with current tech) arriving at the correct decision. We can’t expect the current set up to be both fast and correct as it’s inadequate.

That's right and I wasn't having a go at you anyway

The point is that the review system is farcical so we can't expect correct results... it's in the lap of the gods

So with the Petracca kick (and other numerous examples) the review process was inclusive either way

And the review process (if used) in the Crows/Swans game could easily have been inconclusive as well and they might have stayed with the soft call

The system we have in place is garbage and because of that, it can't be relied it

We don't know what we're going to get.  Grainy video, how many angles? It's a joke of a system

And the goal umpire is out of position because he has to get out of the way of the milling players (or risk getting crushed)

In the Crows game and with regards to the shot at goal, the umpire isn't even in the picture because he can't be.  He can't stand next to the post as that's the players domain

By contrast, the players have to get out of the way of the field umpires (or risk getting reported)

Edited August 21, 2023 by Macca

[GBDee 349]

To further compound matters, we now have players routinely ‘claiming’ to have touched the ball from shots to put doubt in the goal umpire’s mind and get the soft call. They know the ARC will be inconclusive. Marchbank succeeded last week. Worpel tried it on Sunday (Clarrie’s goal) but failed. We even had North’s McKay claiming to have touched one that didn’t appear to be within a metre of him yesterday. This needs to be stamped out. It’s cheating.

[BoBo 2,176]

10 minutes ago, Macca said:

That's right and I wasn't having a go at you anyway

The point is that the review system is farcical so we can't expect correct results... it's in the lap of the gods

So with the Petracca kick (and other numerous examples) the review process was inclusive either way

And the review process (if used) in the Crows/Swans game could easily have been inconclusive as well and they might have stayed with the soft call

The system we have in place is garbage and because of that, it can't be relied it

We don't know what we're going to get.  Grainy video, how many angles? It's a joke of a system

Oh absolutely. There shouldn’t be inconclusive decisions. Well, maybe 1 in 100, but I’d say it’s probably 10-15 in 100 currently. 

Genuine question - What do you reckon the AFL would have done if it were 1st week of finals, at the G and instead of Adelaide… it was Carlton? 
 

I wouldn’t put it past Gil to be making a frantic phone call to the fourth umpire demanding they change the result. It would be absolute carnage. The AFL is bloody lucky both these results didn’t happen in finals. 

[Macca 16,173]

28 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Oh absolutely. There shouldn’t be inconclusive decisions. Well, maybe 1 in 100, but I’d say it’s probably 10-15 in 100 currently. 

Genuine question - What do you reckon the AFL would have done if it were 1st week of finals, at the G and instead of Adelaide… it was Carlton? 
 

I wouldn’t put it past Gil to be making a frantic phone call to the fourth umpire demanding they change the result. It would be absolute carnage. The AFL is bloody lucky both these results didn’t happen in finals. 

Cutting to the chase, the game needs 4 goal umpires for starters and state of the art technology to help the goal umpires

If the AFL do that, the angst will subside

As things stand, we can almost bank on another controversial goal line moment and that could decide a final

Edited August 21, 2023 by Macca

[Willmoy1947 3,808]

23 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The Adelaide decision was obviously a blunder.

Is there categoric and undeniable proof that the umpire made an incorrect decision in relation to the Petracca goal decision last week?

 

We have no idea who is telling lies, or if there is any other angles, if that is what you mean.

[Ouch! 2,041]

Just watching AFL360

NHL has a system where the review system can step in after a call that was incorrect, and they can reset the time and the score. That could have worked

NFL has a system in place where no decision in the last 2 minutes of a game is made on the field without referring or direct communications with the review system

Cricket has the captains call.

I also didn't realise there were two other reviews on the weekend that were dubious at best, and yet the 'umpires' call is upheld. It's terrible, and it shouldn't be a scenario where we put the blame on the officials on the ground. That ump made a horrible decision, I feel sorry for the guy, but the rules and the processes should be better around him. If his decision COULD have been overturned he wouldn't be basically out of a job for the remainder of the year.

[Ethan Tremblay 28,470]

1 hour ago, Jaded No More said:

It’s the fault of the AFL for not putting in place clear rules that means goal umpires cannot make these types of mistakes. 
Every score with x minutes left on the game is reviewed. Or every score when the margin is under x is reviewed. 
 

Humans make mistakes. By putting in rules in place and the proper technology, we can avoid mistakes as much as possible. 

I do agree with what you’re saying, as a broader issue type. But in the given circumstances and with the rules the way they’re currently written, the goal umpire himself is the one at fault. He should have called for a review. If he did, it would have been overturned and called a goal. 

[YearOfTheDees 3,106]

Just watching AFL360 and I forgot the Matthew Nicks made that comment about being happy with the goal review "goal Ump making the call" but adding hope it never happens to us. long time seven days Matthew.

[Macca 16,173]

10 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

I do agree with what you’re saying, as a broader issue type. But in the given circumstances and with the rules the way they’re currently written, the goal umpire himself is the one at fault. He should have called for a review. If he did, it would have been overturned and called a goal. 

Not necessarily

The video available at the time might have been inconclusive just like it was in the Petracca incident

And if the initial call was that the ball shaved the post, the soft call might have stood

We've seen various angles since but what was available at the time? We can't be sure of anything

And the umpire was miles out of position to make a call anyway ... again, not his fault because we tell the goal umpires to get out of the way of the players.  Which is farcical in itself

The goal umpire should sue the AFL for wrongful dismissal

It's classic scapegoating to appease supporter bloodlust

[Superunknown 3,370]

2 hours ago, GBDee said:

To further compound matters, we now have players routinely ‘claiming’ to have touched the ball from shots to put doubt in the goal umpire’s mind and get the soft call. They know the ARC will be inconclusive. Marchbank succeeded last week. Worpel tried it on Sunday (Clarrie’s goal) but failed. We even had North’s McKay claiming to have touched one that didn’t appear to be within a metre of him yesterday. This needs to be stamped out. It’s cheating.

I think our players should spend a bit of time getting into oppo cheats 

all game

Every game they play 

[Macca 16,173]

3 hours ago, GBDee said:

To further compound matters, we now have players routinely ‘claiming’ to have touched the ball from shots to put doubt in the goal umpire’s mind and get the soft call. They know the ARC will be inconclusive. Marchbank succeeded last week. Worpel tried it on Sunday (Clarrie’s goal) but failed. We even had North’s McKay claiming to have touched one that didn’t appear to be within a metre of him yesterday. This needs to be stamped out. It’s cheating.

And Steven May came out not long ago and declared that he'd instructed his fellow backmen to always claim they'd touched the footy when near the goal line (even if they hadn't touched it)

It's quite a toxic environment isn't it?  We set up the umpires to fail and then scream blue murder when they make mistakes

The sport needs an overhaul with regards to all the grey areas.  Flopping & staging needs to be stamped out as well.  Retrospectively rub the cheats out ... weeks on the sidelines like the Italian league (Serie A) dealt with the divers

And as previously stated, the area around the goal line needs a complete overhaul

Edited August 21, 2023 by Macca

[Willmoy1947 3,808]

All sporting codes seem to be aware of some failures within the protocols that they participate under and they are not happy. The year of AI2023.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,501]

There are two different issues at play when the AFL talks about speeding up the game. The first is the style of game. The AFL seems obsessed with having a non-stop game. The second is keeping the length of the game shorter, partly to fit within TV schedules but also because of the perception that today's generation hasn't got the attention span for longer products. I'm not sure I agree that either concern is warranted.

Nevertheless, we all have suggestions which can speed up play to meet both. The obvious one which has been commented on over and over is to get rid of the ruck nomination rule. Combined with that, the boundary umpires should stop waiting for ruckmen to get into position. Just throw the ball back in as soon as the umpires are ready. 

If we "saved" some time this way, we could then go back to the eminently sensible way the game restarted years ago after a behind was scored. That is, after the goal umpires had signalled and more importantly, after the ARC has also given the all clear for every score.

[Macca 16,173]

The plot thickens

Turns out that goal umpires might get marked down if they go to the Arc too often

So in order to keep your position you could easily take the (perceived) safer option .. maybe more so if you're out of position

But again, being caught out of position is not the fault of the goal umpire

So the footy public got their pound of flesh & their sacrificial lamb but the overall shoddy problem still exists

Edited August 22, 2023 by Macca

[loges 6,146]

15 hours ago, BoBo said:

Oh absolutely. There shouldn’t be inconclusive decisions. Well, maybe 1 in 100, but I’d say it’s probably 10-15 in 100 currently. 

Genuine question - What do you reckon the AFL would have done if it were 1st week of finals, at the G and instead of Adelaide… it was Carlton? 
 

I wouldn’t put it past Gil to be making a frantic phone call to the fourth umpire demanding they change the result. It would be absolute carnage. The AFL is bloody lucky both these results didn’t happen in finals. 

10 - 15 very generous 

[Macca 16,173]

So should we sack every umpire who makes an error that leads to a score?

How about that free kick against Clarrie against the Blues? Did he handpass the ball?

Within a short space of time we'd have no umpires left

Edited August 22, 2023 by Macca

[YearOfTheDees 3,106]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

So should we sack every umpire who makes an error that leads to a score?

How about that free kick against Clarrie against the Blues? Did he handpass the ball?

Within a short space of time we'd have no umpires left

We have to stop blaming the Umps. The rules are confusing and players are smart enough to know how to exploit them. I would go as far as having a "spirt of the game law" where players can be fined or even miss games if found guilty of faking frees. Was so good to see Kossie put his hand up last year about the ball being touched after he kicked a goal. 

[Macca 16,173]

54 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

We have to stop blaming the Umps. The rules are confusing and players are smart enough to know how to exploit them. I would go as far as having a "spirt of the game law" where players can be fined or even miss games if found guilty of faking frees. Was so good to see Kossie put his hand up last year about the ball being touched after he kicked a goal. 

To get rid of diving the Serie A soccer league started retrospectively ousting the divers (3 match bans) ... cleaned things up straight away

Edited August 22, 2023 by Macca

[mauriesy 6,827]

17 hours ago, GBDee said:

This needs to be stamped out. It’s cheating.

When the video review shows it clearly wasn't touched, give them a week for staging, the same as diving or flopping for a free kick.

[Demonland 65,965]

This is certainly an interesting angle.

 

[whatwhat say what 19,310]

3 minutes ago, Demonland said:

This is certainly an interesting angle.

 

it totally does!

this #faketweet has got all the crom a-flutter

[Demonland 65,965]

1 minute ago, whatwhat say what said:

it totally does!

this #faketweet has got all the crom a-flutter

Channel 7 would love that. They would start 2 hours before and hype it up with lots of betting ads.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,501]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

To get rid of diving the Serie A soccer league started retrospectively ousting the divers (3 match bans) ... cleaned things up straight away

Retrospectively? How far back did they go? 30 years?

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,347]

20 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

it totally does!

this #faketweet has got all the crom a-flutter

Would be the fairest option to replay the final minute.

Be interesting to see how many thousands would rock up for a 71 second event.