sue

Only goals are reviewed. Not points.

The AFL couldn't afford enough cameras.

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.

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!

The poster who mistyped ARC as ARK is accidentally correct as to the era of the technology.

When in blazes does a "player elect to incorrectly dispose of the football"? It's bad enough umpires have to guess 'insufficient intent to keep in' or 'deliberate', but it seems they have to guess if a player intended to throw it. Next they will be asked to guess if they intended to throw it when they punched it - players are up to all sorts of tricks you know. The sad thing about these self-contradictory rules is that some poor bastard has to enforce them and 44 others have to play to them and umpteen thousand of us have to tear our hair out understanding why decisions are made or not made. The rules need a clean out by some people who have passed logic 101.

Agree. Or the technology should be upgraded to allow the rules to be implemented. The latter doesn't look like happening real soon.

Sorry Jimmy - how can you say we were outplayed when the result was so close. If Tracc's kick was declared a goal I suppose you wouldn't have said we outplayed Carlton. They outplayed us for some of the match, we outplayed them for another part of the match. Let's see a glimpse of positivity.

I've earlier suggested the ARC should make its decision without knowing what call the umpire has made, just knowing what the ump is uncertain about. Surely that is fundamental to proper process and I find it incredible (in the original meaning of the word) that the AFL does not to do that. But there's a lot to be said for scrapping the whole ARC process until the cameras are sufficiently improved. And just go with the umpire's call, however uncertain. Or maybe make the default decision be either point or goal if the umpire declares themself uncertain.

To save money rather than improve the technology, the AFL could alway use 3 goal umpires and take the majority decision. 😃

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.

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.

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.

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.

This makes no sense. Of course any team can put itself in a position where even if the umpire made 10 mistakes in a row they would still win. But footy (and most games) are not like that. You can play badly or worse than your opponent but then still get back and the game may end up close. At which point the outcome can depend on umpiring mistakes. The fact that you could have done better earlier is irrelevant. Regrettable, but irrelevant to the discussion.

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.

Some people might come to MCG who otherwise would have stayed home to watch the soccer. Doubt it's a big factor though.

I'd be happy for the club to keep things under wrap as far as possible if there is any chance of him playing this year. Our competitors would have more to think about if they don't know who may be in the team in the finals.

I've noticed that too. I expect it makes it easier for the umpire to get clear of the ruckmen, but it must make some difference to the players as the ball isn't coming vertically down now. As for the failed bounces, my beef is the inconsistency of recalling it. Of all the things the umpires can reasonably be excused for not being consistent (due the difficult nature of the game), this would be the easiest to get consistent. Since the AFL hasn't explained why the ball is not bounced after a 666 infringement, I think we can expect the bounce to disappear within a few years unless there is a strong protest.

At the risk of being misrepresented and personally abused by a certain poster I'll dare to make a comment on this. I agree with IRW in every respect, umpires are not biased (though unfortunately influenced on occasion by crowds) and the game is exceptionally difficult to play and umpire. I differ with some in thinking the AFL's policies/rules/interpreations/rules-of-the-week exacerbate the difficulty. I think the word 'usually' in IRW's statement that "over a match bad or missed decisions usually even themselves out" needs consideration. While statistically it may seem to even out, there is no doubt that bad or missed decisions can change the momentum of a game or affect the result in a close game. This naturally frustrates supporters. There is no obvious solution expect to fix the AFL's policies which currently make a difficult job even harder.

But keeps saying “head clash” but only focuses on the tigers player. Presumably it was a head shoulder clash.

I want Geelong and Carlton out of the finals. Who to barrack for tonight to increase the odds of that happening? Arrrghhh, it's all too complicated- advise please. I leave aside the Geelong Port game - as Jaded said, too damaging to the soul to even think about it.

Ah, media management. The AFL says 'massive fine' and the ABC radio news just parrots the phrase. At least the ABC websites simply state the penalty without commenting on whether it is 'massive' or 'pissweak'

That $50,000 won't be much help to the AFL in the court cases to come. It won't help establish how concerned the AFL was about concussion back in 2023. Maybe they think the $50K if wisely invested with Sportsbet will help pay the AFL legal fees. Short-termism - may get them past this week but destroy the AFL in 10 years time.

Who cares! We should do what is best for us and stuff the media.