Play Nice Goal Umpire costs Adelaide a shot at finals, how do you stop it from happening again?

[bzparkes]

Just review everything. What else are they doing up there if they don't?

 

[NeutralFan]

Honestly it's when not if goal umpires are removed at AFL level.

Their decisions are clear cut 95% of the time and for these moments when we're unsure we go to technology anyway.

 

[Del165198]

Yes. Every goal. That's the flaw here.

Behinds immediately called aren't reviewed since play begins right away.

Look at it anyway and if it's close send a message to the central umpire to stop play while it's reviewed. Isn't very hard to do at all.

But the AFL would rather roll with a system that just destroyed a clubs season lol

 

[RandB]

I have no problem with the goal umpire making the wrong call.

The issue is not calling for a review, when it’s clearly a close call and such a critical time of the game.

The decision not to review was negligent and unnecessary.

I agree completely but it's (currently) at the call of the goal ump - who, in this case, made a false positive. One error leads to two bad outcomes: behind given and no review.

It will happen again unless an over-rule mechanism is introduced. How that works I don't know but I'm not on the big bucks..

 

[Del165198]

Honestly it's when not if goal umpires are removed at AFL level.

Their decisions are clear cut 95% of the time and for these moments when we're unsure we go to technology anyway.

It's all been downhill for goal umpires ever since they got rid of the butchers coat and wide brim hat

 

[_Mike_]

He says that but the camera footage is so crap it may have been insufficient evidence to overturn it

I think it’s more the point that Gil says yeah we made a mistake and sorry. That won’t go any further

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

So the only ramifications to come out of this entire debacle is that the goal umpire has been stood down. I can’t believe how easily the AFC has folded on this incredulous set of events. Not only should you demand more if I were a supporter or sponsor, but the competition itself deserves a more meaningful response & action.

If this happened to PAFC, there is no way your admin would roll like the timid puppy the AFC has.

 

[Roosurgence]

I agree completely but it's (currently) at the call of the goal ump - who, in this case, made a false positive. One error leads to two bad outcomes: behind given and no review.

It will happen again unless an over-rule mechanism is introduced. How that works I don't know but I'm not on the big bucks..

It shouldn’t. The umpire should be calling for a review for any close decision.

The ARC should have the ability to call central umpire and overrule for bowlers like that. It would have been so easy to correct the decision and take the ball back to the centre and add the time back onto the clock.

If the goal umpire is not a total potato and does his job, we aren’t talking about it this morning. Just call for the review, the closeness warranted it at a minimum.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

I feel sorry for Keays, what a great "goal"

So can Keays be nominated for goal of the year and goal of the round give. The AFLs admission it should have been a goal?

 

[Rockford]

Should be a financial penalty for the league that goes to the aggrieved team. What a total shitshow.

 

[ibd77]

100%. ARC should be able to call the central umpire and inform them of the error, award the goal and take the ball back to the centre and add the time back to the clock.

Is there scope in the rules for this?

 

[RandB]

It shouldn’t. The umpire should be calling for a review for any close decision.

In the umpires mind it wasn't close.

That's the problem.

 

[NoisyMinor]

Anyone been able to find a codified law regarding the video review system process?

All I can find that addresses it is a flow chart referencing a 'provisional call'. Nothing that says the goal umpire's decision is absolute and can't be brought into doubt by another umpire.

The actual rules .pdf doesn't even seem to mention the video review system at all.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Adelaide had their chances in the last qtr it is never about the one decision. You lose because you weren't good enough always believe that. Always will. Adelaide have had their lucky breaks during the season against Hawthorn for instance. Hawthorn were just not good enough Adelaide took their chances

But the point here is that Adelaide did take their chances. And yet we’re still denied

 

[ibd77]

I think we need to drop the post rule and just call the goal if the ball passes between the posts including hitting them. Gets rid of this pointless grey area.

 

[Roosurgence]

Is there scope in the rules for this?

No, but there should be.

 

[Fabab]

dogs given a goal when it looked like a deflection of wc players shin .

 

[SellarStardom]

This is pretty easy to fix. We stop play all the time now for a player injury or blood rule. So stopping play for those goals or behinds where there is doubt makes absolute sense.

Upstairs third umpire can call a stop and notify one of the plethora of inspires on the field. We should also have a system where the captain has up to 1 or 2 challenges per game.

The latter is less important, the first option is best and would have been trigger in the Crows/Swans game

 

[Roosurgence]

In the umpires mind it wasn't close.

That's the problem.

Then the bloke is a turnip and should never umpire at the level again.

Fine make a genuine mistake, but don’t double down on it by not having it checked when it was clearly a close call.

 

[Noidnadroj]

They are meant to review any close goal or point that may have been a goal.

I don’t believe that’s correct. They are meant to review if they are not certain of their decision. In this instance the umpire obviously was certain. He was wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[NoisyMinor]

I think we need to drop the post rule and just call the goal if the ball passes between the posts including hitting them. Gets rid of this pointless grey area.

That means that umpires have to differentiate between 'touched the post' and 'touched by player'.

Not gonna happen.

 

[yeee_haaaa!!!!!]

Poor umpiring enabled the swans to survive in the prelim last year and make the GF. This year, poor umpiring gets them into the finals.

 

[HarryBeef]

Mistakes happen, sucks but you can't design the system to prevent all of them without impacting the quality of the game.

 

[RandB]

Then the bloke is a turnip and should never umpire at the level again.

Fine make a genuine mistake, but don’t double down on it by not having it checked when it was clearly a close call.

We can only hope he doesn't umpire again but it doesn't fix the problem.

If a GU is adamant the ball hits the post they are going to call it that way. That is their job.

By definition, every instance of the ball being near the post is 'close'. Do they (the GU) just review every one? I don't think so.

Only an ove-rule option can feasibly work.

 

[Rich01]

If I was a Crows supporter I’d be livid.
It’s cost them a finals spot no doubt. Sydney had no chance of regaining the lead after that, the momentum was just too strong the other way.

Not often the AFL admit they got it wrong either.
Normally they are adamant all their decisions are right.