Opinion 2018 Non-Crows Discussion - Part 2: Tom Doedee, Rising Star Nominee & Port's New Major Sponsor

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

I was just thinking about the goal review system. Clearly that goal by North should have been overturned. But, in general these reviews really affect the flow of the game and massively disadvantages the team kicking in when a goal review is called for.

For those types of touched off the boot calls, I reckon a cricket type system should be put into place. Each team gets 1 or 2 reviews a game that they can call. The field umpires should not be able to ask for a review for touched off the boot. If a player knows he touched it, he can call for a review. If he is proved correct, or even if its an umpires call, the team keeps their review. If its called a goal, the team loses their review.

Goal umpires can continue to call for reviews as per the current system.
 
If they aren't willing to introduce more technology akin to what is seen in cricket, they should scrap it entirely.
I still think it's as simple as two goal umpires, one in each post. No replays, pay it as your see it.

The advantage being it can be replicated at lower levels, and players will get used to it.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
I actually think Freo have been the better team today, they just don't have the polish yet to capitalise. Richmond aren't playing that well, they just have a seriously cushy draw to start the season and the teams they're playing aren't good enough to punish their mistakes.
 
For those types of touched off the boot calls, I reckon a cricket type system should be put into place. Each team gets 1 or 2 reviews a game that they can call. The field umpires should not be able to ask for a review for touched off the boot. If a player knows he touched it, he can call for a review.
Jake Levers new nickname would become Shane Watson
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

With the goal review, I don't know how far we are off having tennis like tracking of the ball as its a bigger field, odd shaped ball, and it seems like it's the touched thing is the major issue, and who knows how hard that would be to track.

Until we are there I would do the following...

Keep the goal review, put emphasis on the word "conclusive", meaning the evidence must actually be clear footage of a hand/finger on the ball, not the ball was here, then it was here, and in between we have a handful of blurry frames and a bent finger.

Spend the money to get super slow motion cameras in an arc from point post to point post, we should be able to get that right in 2018.

If something happens outside of that area review it, but if you cant show us a frame with the ball touching a hand it's inconclusive.
 
I still think it's as simple as two goal umpires, one in each post. No replays, pay it as your see it.

The advantage being it can be replicated at lower levels, and players will get used to it.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
That doesn’t solve the issue of touched balls potentially 50m from the goal umpire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top