1 hour ago, Brownie said:

I'd actually be in favour of each captain being able to call one or two goal line decisions per game. A bit like cricket.

I'd fix the system first ... 2 goal umpires at each end of the ground backed up by a sophisticated goal line camera system (with a chip in the footy to make sure whether the footy has been touched or not)

See how that goes and then maybe have 1 or 2 captains call's

I'm actually surprised we haven't seen a lot more goal umpiring errors ... but what we have seen are a lot of referrals.  Which should tell us something about the lack of surity of the adjudications

In other words, if the goal umpires are unsure of the obvious, there lies the problem (system issue)

Edited August 21, 20231 yr by Macca

So tennis linespeople no longer get abused.  Why?  Because by and large, they no longer exist because of the tracking technology (apart from clay court tournaments)

Cricket umpires are now more like orderly's (effectively)

VAR in soccer day by day is now being accepted by even the strongest opponents of said technology.  Sooner or later, 98% of soccer fans will live with it and most will embrace

Numerous other sports have gone ahead in leaps and bounds embracing technology

So what do we do in the AFL? ... we hang on to a 19th century style of thinking and sack goal umpires to satisfy our bloodlust

Warning: Incoming Rant:
It's not just goal umpring!
4 umps hasn't made umpiring better, it's just made them less fatigued. Decision making hasn't improved with 4 umpires. In fact I think decision making has gotten worse.

Boundary umpiring isn't any better, along with the two howlers made with Jeremy Cameron last week, Viney was clearly over the line, in clear sight of the umps, and they didn't blow the whistle and the ground ump called him for holding the ball.  But it feels like this is another area where standards are not good at the moment.

There are very few AFL umpires that can bounce the ball, and throwing the ball up at stoppages. Seriously why are they throwing the ball out 3-5m out in front of them rather than throwing it directly up in the air and exiting out the back of the contest. Why?  

Holding the ball is a subjective assessment that varies wildly not just from game to game but within a game... it's terrible.

Bite the bullet and make umpiring a full-time profession, pay for ARC technology at all AFL grounds and get a Football operations boss!!!.

Only positive umpiring thing I can say at the moment is that David Rodan is still smiling!, and since the dissent rule has all but disappeared so I can't be given a 50m penalty for this rant.

20 hours ago, Monbon said:

The Adelaide Fiasco is a bloody disgrace to the game called AFL. That two weeks in a row, teams can lose because of serious mistakes by either the goal umpire, or the so-called 'Replay' system, in Adelaide's case costing it engagement in a Finals Series is a catastrophic blight - as though there ain't enough already - on everything the AFL stands for. 

And then, for the CEO of this Fantasyland called AFL, to admit a serious mistake had been made and offer no redress to the victim of what can only be called an atrocity, makes me shake my head and ask myself, Why bother following a game which is so loaded with injustice.

Think about it: 

A. How often do the E Colli Wobblers play interstate?

B. Ditto Geelong.

C. The irrationality of the Fixtures, rational only from economic points of view.

D. The fact that Fixtures are NOT based on fairness in that the Draw is staggered; in other words, in each season, each team should either play the same team twice, and if that extends the number of games, the gaps between matches, so bloody well be it. 

E. The irrationality and inconsistency of the outcome of Match Reviews regarding 'Reportable' offences.

D. The changing of the rules, almost as regular as The Changing of The Guard.

E. The fact that 4 umpires is like having 4 Pontuis Pilates, all with different backgrounds, affiliations, viewpoints and whistle capacity.

D. How a boundary umpire can stand next to a ball blatantly  out of bounds, visible to a whole effing arena apart from the umpire's myopia, and for play to be allowed to continue?

E. How certain teams are allowed to throw the ball instead of 'handpassing' when there are so-called Laws forbidding the practice?

F. How come there is a set of rules which an umpire can either overlook or ignore if and when it suits them? All bloody 4 of them!

I could go on...

 

 

While I see your point, if these matters were addressed then what would the AFL media talk about during the Monday to Thursday media cycle and for the 5 months there is no footy?

9 minutes ago, chookrat said:

While I see your point, if these matters were addressed then what would the AFL media talk about during the Monday to Thursday media cycle and for the 5 months there is no footy?

You're not suggesting that the AFL likes to remain in the news 24/7 by keeping the punters yabbering on about issues that could be resolved?  haha

There are conspiracy theories and then there are factual occurances (repeated ad nauseum)

19 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?

 

No. The issue last week was not the umpire's call, it was the [censored] poor vision that was 'inconclusive'.

Better technology would have allowed for a definite ruling of whether the ball was indeed touched.

FWIW I sat behind the goals and it was clearly not touched. 

The technology around the goal line could be so sophisticated that we'd have no need for goal umpires at all (so instead of sacking them, they'd become surplus to needs - at the highest level) 

Cricket is heading that way and we've seen certain types of adjudicators become obsolete because of technology (tennis linespeople etc)

Soccer linespeople only flag the obvious off-sides I believe?  Otherwise they let the play go and let VAR decide

But as someone else here mentioned, the cost might be the reason that the AFL are using such a shabby system currently

You get what you pay for

There are so many issues about the AFL and umpiring (not the poor buggers stuck with the job) that I don't think you need a tinfoil hat to think the AFL likes it that way to keep the clicks ticking over.

The inconsistency during the heat of a game is perhaps unavoidable, but what in blaze justifies the disappearance of the dissent rule which was introduced to help recruitment of  junior umpires etc etc?

There were a few people on here who blasted anyone who dared criticise its "zero tolerance" nature as just a step too far.  I don't recall them castigating the AFL for going soft on the rule later in the season.  Perhaps like the rest of us they realise there is little point in grumbling about the AFL's policies.

14 minutes ago, Macca said:

But as someone else here mentioned, the cost might be the reason that the AFL are using such a shabby system currently

You get what you pay for

Isn't cost the reason why the AFL hasn't changed the notion of the sub in 2023?  In that your sub is effectively dropped each week?  They don't want to pay for the development, or something to do with Champion data means that it would need to be 'patched' and the AFL won't pay.  

3 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

Obviously obstructed view of the ball. Oh, and I think the pair of white shoes behind might have been another ump... so perhaps one got in the way of the other....  fair enough play on.

1 minute ago, Ouch! said:

Isn't cost the reason why the AFL hasn't changed the notion of the sub in 2023?  In that your sub is effectively dropped each week?  They don't want to pay for the development, or something to do with Champion data means that it would need to be 'patched' and the AFL won't pay.  

How on earth can the AFL justify not having their own GM of football?  And how long has it been now? 

36 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Obviously obstructed view of the ball. Oh, and I think the pair of white shoes behind might have been another ump... so perhaps one got in the way of the other....  fair enough play on.

Mind you, players should play to the whistle. The boundary umpires clearly erred, but Viney was assuming they wouldn't make such a mistake. He's got more confidence in the umpires than the rest of us.

Edited August 21, 20231 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia
typo

13 minutes ago, sue said:

There are so many issues about the AFL and umpiring (not the poor buggers stuck with the job) that I don't think you need a tinfoil hat to think the AFL likes it that way to keep the clicks ticking over.

The inconsistency during the heat of a game is perhaps unavoidable, but what in blaze justifies the disappearance of the dissent rule which was introduced to help recruitment of  junior umpires etc etc?

There were a few people on here who blasted anyone who dared criticise its "zero tolerance" nature as just a step too far.  I don't recall them castigating the AFL for going soft on the rule later in the season.  Perhaps like the rest of us they realise there is little point in grumbling about the AFL's policies.

I'm not totally in agreeance Sue. Inconsistency in a game IS avoidable, it shows that the umpires aren't communicating with each other on the ground, and they can't decide how they intend to interpret the rules. Then you get started on the week to week inconsistencies, and the 'rule of the week' which seems to change each week based on the media bleating.

But, the lack of a football boss for this whole season, contributes to thing that could be addressed like the fact that the AFL is basically the only major football code that I can think of in the world that doesn't have professional full time umpires. It contributes to the fact that the ARC system is feels hardly any better than webcam technology, and that it's ridiculous how the field umpire engages WITH ARC, but isn't seemingly able to ask for a review himself, it's only the goal umpires that can request the review, but then the field umpire gives the 'all clear' 

... I don't think I was finished with my rant was I  :D

1 hour ago, Ouch! said:

Warning: Incoming Rant:
It's not just goal umpring!
4 umps hasn't made umpiring better, it's just made them less fatigued. Decision making hasn't improved with 4 umpires. In fact I think decision making has gotten worse.

Boundary umpiring isn't any better, along with the two howlers made with Jeremy Cameron last week, Viney was clearly over the line, in clear sight of the umps, and they didn't blow the whistle and the ground ump called him for holding the ball.  But it feels like this is another area where standards are not good at the moment.

There are very few AFL umpires that can bounce the ball, and throwing the ball up at stoppages. Seriously why are they throwing the ball out 3-5m out in front of them rather than throwing it directly up in the air and exiting out the back of the contest. Why?  

Holding the ball is a subjective assessment that varies wildly not just from game to game but within a game... it's terrible.

Bite the bullet and make umpiring a full-time profession, pay for ARC technology at all AFL grounds and get a Football operations boss!!!.

Only positive umpiring thing I can say at the moment is that David Rodan is still smiling!, and since the dissent rule has all but disappeared so I can't be given a 50m penalty for this rant.

I have said it elsewhere imo having 4 umps has made consistence worse. Yesterday hawks got 2 holding the ball frees one of which resulted in a goal. Demons zero for identical tackles. Go back to 3 umps. 

Another side affect can be end of season team ladder positions. As a consequence effecting draft pick selections. 

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. 

Edited August 21, 20231 yr by Ethan Tremblay

15 minutes ago, old dee said:

I have said it elsewhere imo having 4 umps has made consistence worse. Yesterday hawks got 2 holding the ball frees one of which resulted in a goal. Demons zero for identical tackles. Go back to 3 umps. 

The problem might be with the rule, not the umpires. In summary, incorrect disposal is only payable (1) if the player has had no prior opportunity and does not make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball or (2) if the player has had prior opportunity and does not dispose of it correctly. The problem is generally with part (1) - if the player has not had prior opportunity, it doesn't matter how they dispose of the ball. They can drop it, throw it, etc.

 

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I disagree with your last sentence. Part of the problem is the AFL's obsession about speeding up the game. If defenders have to wait for the goal umpire's decision for a behind to be confirmed every time (and most will take a millisecond to confirm) before kicking in, what's the problem? 

There is also a big difference between the Adelaide decision and the Petracca decision last week. The Adelaide decision was a "howler" - the reason that the review system was introduced in the first place. The Petracca decision was debatable and not the reason why the system was introduced.

Fair call LDVC. I do think they tend to get obsessed about speeding the game up and this shouldn't be favoured over scoreboard integrity but I also think with more reviews and more waiting we're going to add much more unnecessary time onto an already long game of football. The stop-start nature of this is pretty annoying to watch and I don't feel teams that gain momentum in a game deserve to have it killed just because there's a contentious score review. 

Also if touched balls like Petracca's aren't why they brought the system in then they shouldn't be reviewable plays. It should have been simply goal line and gaps between post and then when technology and cameras ever get better, then introduce touched balls.

1 hour ago, Stiff Arm said:

Ump obviously was frozen stiff, petrified, unable to speak, move, for the fear the Sherman Tank might come crashing into him.

1 hour ago, Stiff Arm said:

I can see with my own 4 eyes, he's definitely HOLDING THE BALL': SEE....

44 minutes ago, layzie said:

Fair call LDVC. I do think they tend to get obsessed about speeding the game up and this shouldn't be favoured over scoreboard integrity but I also think with more reviews and more waiting we're going to add much more unnecessary time onto an already long game of football. The stop-start nature of this is pretty annoying to watch and I don't feel teams that gain momentum in a game deserve to have it killed just because there's a contentious score review. 

Also if touched balls like Petracca's aren't why they brought the system in then they shouldn't be reviewable plays. It should have been simply goal line and gaps between post and then when technology and cameras ever get better, then introduce touched balls.

I think after last Saturday Night, Fans at the game and at home will be prepared to wait 2-3 minutes for a CORRECT decision, rather than the disgraceful pile of [censored] the AFL served up to The Crows and The Demons 

Nobody barracks for The AFL, we follow Clubs

This Clown School has gone far enough 

26 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I think after last Saturday Night, Fans at the game and at home will be prepared to wait 2-3 minutes for a CORRECT decision, rather than the disgraceful pile of [censored] the AFL served up to The Crows and The Demons 

Nobody barracks for The AFL, we follow Clubs

This Clown School has gone far enough 

Wholly agree. People forget about long reviews a couple minutes after they're over. The thing about the review for us was how short it seemed.

I'm now expecting an over correction on this stuff and for more reviews. I don't really care, as long as the right call is made, I can deal with an extra few minutes of a game. It's better than the frustration of wrong decisions impacting the integrity of the game.

1 minute ago, BoBo said:

Wholly agree. People forget about long reviews a couple minutes after they're over. The thing about the review for us was how short it seemed.

I'm now expecting an over correction on this stuff and for more reviews. I don't really care, as long as the right call is made, I can deal with an extra few minutes of a game. It's better than the frustration of wrong decisions impacting the integrity of the game.

But the review process is farcical with shoddy technology.  So we'll be waiting around for skewed results

There will be no consistency and confusion will reign supreme

At a guess, I reckon I've seen about 50 reviews and nearly every time I'm none the wiser on what the correct outcome should be

9 minutes ago, Macca said:

But the review process is farcical with shoddy technology.  So we'll be waiting around for skewed results

There will be no consistency and confusion will reign supreme

At a guess, I reckon I've seen about 50 reviews and nearly every time I'm none the wiser on what the correct outcome should be

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.