Typical of the AFL. The goal umpires 'frustrated' by being mocked for the tsunami of reviews, had to lean on the AFL to admit it was an AFL policy.  Why couldn't they announce that upfront.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/goal-umpires-following-afl-directive-in-requesting-more-score-reviews-20240409-p5fihb.html

Do Goal Umpires have the power to say to the FU's that there is no review?

Just a moment folks before I finish this post I'm going now to make a cup of tea...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, sue said:

Typical of the AFL. The goal umpires 'frustrated' by being mocked for the tsunami of reviews, had to lean on the AFL to admit it was an AFL policy.  Why couldn't they announce that upfront.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/goal-umpires-following-afl-directive-in-requesting-more-score-reviews-20240409-p5fihb.html

Spot on. 

And if goal umpires have to call for a review if the ball goes near the posts or over the line, then why have goal umpires at all?

Edited April 9, 20241 yr by george_on_the_outer

I believe the kettles boiling.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Spot on. 

And if goal umpires have to call for a review if the ball goes near the posts or over the line, then why have goal umpires at all?

Didn't Binners call for the rule that even if the ball brushes the post on the way through it's still a goal.

It would save a lot of time.

honestly id back the goal umpires in. 

id do it like cricket. each team gets 1 and 1 ONLY (unless correct) to do a score review. 

anyone can call it. but youre not going to call it unless youre absolutely sure.

get it wrong and waste it? you dont get any more. 

 

Edited April 9, 20241 yr by biggestred

Just now, leave it to deever said:

Didn't Binners call for the rule that even if the ball brushes the post on the way through it's still a goal.

It would save a lot of time.

Yes...one has to think common sense, but no this is the AFL.  And since every goal is reviewed before the next bounce, why do a review on the spot and waste time?

you forgot the 'crypto.com' at the start of the thread title

If they review every goal, then do they review goals that go through the high-diddle-diddle at the height of the top of the posts? Maybe a seagull touched it.

And, by the way, how did the more senior goal umpires from earlier times in their white coats and hats manage to get is so right without the benefit of modern technology. It must have been good eyesight and good positioning as well as cooperation with the field umpires.

Who would have guessed?

I said it at the time and history is bearing it out: the introduction of video technology for umpiring decisions is antithetical to the human nature of sport and does nothing but open a can of worms that need not have been opened.  We’d never use technology to replace a kick for goal, so why would we do it to replace a decision on the accuracy of the goal?

Edited April 10, 20241 yr by Chook

well what would you expect when the afl monetized the score review

the score review has an official sponsor.   more reviews, more ads, more money, happy broadcaster

George said something in the pod I hadn't considered: The score reviews mean that the goal umpires have altered the position that they stand behind the goal when judging. No longer are they directly behind and that makes no sense. 

 

23 hours ago, biggestred said:

honestly id back the goal umpires in. 

id do it like cricket. each team gets 1 and 1 ONLY (unless correct) to do a score review. 

anyone can call it. but youre not going to call it unless youre absolutely sure.

get it wrong and waste it? you dont get any more. 

 

If it were up to me I'd do the same. Back goal umpires in footy, umpires in cricket, refs and linesmen in soccer. I don't care if it's a 10% improvement on correct calls whatever it is currently is not enough for the sake of stopping a game that long and sucking out the joy for fans. 

On 10/04/2024 at 10:16, Chook said:

I said it at the time and history is bearing it out: the introduction of video technology for umpiring decisions is antithetical to the human nature of sport and does nothing but open a can of worms that need not have been opened.  We’d never use technology to replace a kick for goal, so why would we do it to replace a decision on the accuracy of the goal?

I've opened a can of worms. They just sit there, the worms. Hardly the chaos that's been advertised.