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

[SC_Power]

Petracca made a very good point on 360 tonight.

Why don't we just simplify the process?

• If it goes through the goals, it's a goal. Regardless of whether it is touched or it hits the post. Like in soccer.
• Same with a behind.
• If it hits any post and remains in play, it's play on.

Then the only decision that needs to be made is whether the ball fully crosses the line, which can be addressed by technology.

- Do we ignore the bit about his good point that a shot that hits the goal post and comes back into play, and is more accurate than kicking a behind, is less score than kicking a behind.

- How do shots that go over the goalpost work? aka Richmond last year

- And what if it is touched by an attacking player before going through for a goal? Is that still a goal?

- What if the ball is heading for a marking contest near the behind post, the defender punches the ball and it goes off at right angles and through for a goal? Is that still a goal?

- What if a long shot for goal over the top is skidding along the ground, and the defender and attacker are racing for the ball, they both dive and the attacker touches it through the goals. Is that still a goal?

I applaud the idea to simplify the process absolutely, and have considered the ideas proposed before, many people have, but it has to work in all circumstances.

 

[SC_Power]

The club has just got to get over it, we are looking like fools now

Not fools for debating it, the AFL has to fix it, but some of the rhetoric coming out esp via Adelaide media is not doing the club any favours.
You have the moral high ground, you don’t need to hype it or sensationalise it as it gives others a target to deflect and ridicule.

 

[Fadge]

- Do we ignore the bit about his good point that a shot that hits the goal post and comes back into play, and is more accurate than kicking a behind, is less score than kicking a behind.

- How do shots that go over the goalpost work? aka Richmond last year

- And what if it is touched by an attacking player before going through for a goal? Is that still a goal?

- What if the ball is heading for a marking contest near the behind post, the defender punches the ball and it goes off at right angles and through for a goal? Is that still a goal?

- What if a long shot for goal over the top is skidding along the ground, and the defender and attacker are racing for the ball, they both dive and the attacker touches it through the goals. Is that still a goal?

I applaud the idea to simplify the process absolutely, and have considered the ideas proposed before, many people have, but it has to work in all circumstances.

I had responded to the OP in the other thread... maybe it needs to be kicked by the attacking team (and not come off another body part)? The defender punching it through for a goal is the same situation as a defending soccer player putting it through their goals.

Worth some though though - the game needs the number of grey areas significantly reduced.

 

[Fadge]

Not fools for debating it, the AFL has to fix it, but some of the rhetoric coming out esp via Adelaide media is not doing the club any favours.
You have the moral high ground, you don’t need to hype it or sensationalise it as it gives others a target to deflect and ridicule.

Why should it not be sensationalised?

It cost the club a place in the finals!

 

[SC_Power]

Why should it not be sensationalised?

It cost the club a place in the finals!

When you have the facts on your side, use the facts and hammer home the facts. No need to go over the top with some of the tripe that we are hearing here.

 

[radiojake]

I wish we'd had the simple technology in 1997 that we have today. Adelaide possibly would not gave played in the GF that year had it been available.

Swings & roundabouts...

I love this folklore that makes it seem as if there has been a replay that proved Liberatore kicked a goal

There is no such replay

Saying it was a goal as fact is wrong

 

[ElectricG]

Making it soccer rules would be an exercise in re-discovering why we have the rules that we currently do

 

[GetDimmaBack]

I love this folklore that makes it seem as if there has been a replay that proved Liberatore kicked a goal

There is no such replay

Saying it was a goal as fact is wrong

That's why I said "possibly".

We'll never know, but I wish we'd had the technology...

 

[radiojake]

That's why I said "possibly".

We'll never know, but I wish we'd had the technology...

Ah fair enough

 

[Hobbes]

And if your Auntie had bollocks she'd be your uncle.

Games don't get decided on hypothetical scenarios as to what would or might have happened if things had gone differently, even scenarios that involve better umpiring that one we got. They get decided based on what actually happened.

Except, you're demanding a result based on the hypothetical possibility of Sydney scoring another goal.

 

[Hobbes]

Poor logic, they only needed to chip the ball around for a minute to win. Why risk rushing it up the other end and potentially turning it over?

If it had been adjudicated a goal, the ball goes back to the middle and they go like hell for the last minute instead. Who knows what happens then.

What we do know is that it makes no sense to award Sydney a win on that assumption. All we know for certain is that Sydney deserved to be behind with 78 seconds to play.

 

[Engimal v3]

Would a proper video-review system actually work given the AFL's decision to occasionally play at local ground? I imagine this would be quite a hassle to set up at these kinds of locations.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Where’s the option for suck it up and move on because they were only within a kick due to a flurry of umpiring errors in their favour throughout the fourth quarter?

It was clearly a goal and clearly should have been reviewed and overturned, but if the crows think they missed out on finals because of this one bad decision, they aren’t doing nearly enough self reflection.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

See, whether I think the Swans would or wouldn't have scored a goal in the last 78 seconds (had Keays' goal been allowed) is irrelevant. It's just plain absurd to think the AFL should overturn the official result of a match on the basis of a poor umpiring decision along with some assessment of what might have happened had that poor decision not been made. Games of football get decided on the football field, not by football administrators. Sure, what happens on the field isn't always fair, but we football fans just need to live that. It's called being an adult.


Yeah, not sure i'd describe it as comprehensive. If it was comprehensive you'd have actually won.

Should it be surprising that a Sydney supporter would find all the 'Adults' on team Sydney's side?

 

[Do the Dew]

I can’t see any part of my post you’re replying to that I can make any clearer. Read it again very slowly and make sure you understand the words I am saying.

The ump was in a better position to adjudicate that goal than any official camera from which footage has been released.

It very much looks like it was a goal, no argument from me there, but there is no footage definitively showing the ump was wrong.

Do you understand the distinction?

As to the AFL, I already said I don’t give a stuff what the AFL says.

And if the AFL were so confident a review would have shown it was a goal, you’d think they would have released that footage by now, wouldn’t you?

So if you call out BS whenever you see it, how about calling out that top-notch BS from the AFL?

And finally, it has nothing to do with who I support. You weren’t to know, but only last week I posted images on the Swans board showing conclusively that despite what a lot of Swans fans had concluded, Braeden Campbell actually did deserve his one week suspension for his hit on a Giants player.

Anyway, I’m done here. Have a great day mate.

They did release the footage and a statement. What do you expect, them to email you personally with evidence/justification? Also interesting how every one of your posts has multiple negative reactions, maybe that's cause you're way off the mark.

Also Swans getting sucked off again with the McCartin non-suspension.

 

[Do the Dew]

I don't see how you can give a 50mtr for time wasting when there is no time on the clock?

They don't run the 30 second clock after the siren do they?

Nothing to do with time wasting. It's the rule that you have to give the ball back to the player who received a free kick in a timely manner. Pumping it into the stands is sort of against this.

The umps are *usually unbelievably strict on this rule too. Melbourne/Richmond supporters will remember the one paid against Jacob Hopper this year when a Dees player got a free as Hopper was picking up the ball, the ump blew the whistle and called the free (but not who it was for), Hopper had his fingertips on the ball and then let it go and BANG, 50m penalty, Dees taken to the goalsquare for a certain goal.

 

[Bloods86]

Still a few entitled Swans fans still melting about the free kicks in the 2016 GF.

You're not one of them...are you?

I am of the view that the 2016 GF umpiring was subpar and it was entirely one way in being subpar. Something the AFL said in a statement, where they could only provide examples one way (against us).

If you think melting means thinking the Dogs won, but it would have been good to have fair umpiring to see what could have happened then yeah I guess.

I didn't bleat about a clear stolen result, I didn't ask for an overturned result, I didn't make some ridiculous list of demands. Nor did my club.

 

[Bloods86]

Most umpire decisions aren't decisively a goal though.

That is true, but we're in the context of plenty saying the result is wrong. If we adjudicate the "poster" to be a goal, and the other decisions differently, or at least some of them, who can say what the result was going to be.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Agreed.

People seem to be under the impression we'd be resetting play multiple times a game (heard Cornes complain that we'd be doing this 7 times a game). But the reality is that a reviewed score probably gets overruled from the umpires call once every 2 to 3 games.

So for the cost of a recall and time reset a couple of times a week we get every single score in the game reviewed and no longer have to wait around 2 or 3 times a game for a score review. I'd take that in a heartbeat.

If they would like to test this in an actual game (given there are no pre season games with arc/ cameras) I offer up this weeks Hawks Freo game to test proof of concept.

 

[radiojake]

Also Swans getting sucked off again with the McCartin non-suspension.

It's funny how inconsistent the tribunal is

Rnd 1 - McAdam gets a 3 week ban for bumping a bloke in the sternum who gets straight back up and plays the rest of the game and plays the following week

Rnd 23 - AFL gives the bloke who breaks McAdam's cheekbone a 1 week ban

 

[Rusty Brookes]

So I just found out today on SEN radio, that goal umpires have KPI's for how often they go to the ARC. Really? OMG.

Add the fact that commentators and supporters complain when goal umpires go to the ARC when they are unsure, commend them for not going to the ARC, do we wonder why the umpire may have decided to not go to the ARC in the last minute of game?

Great point. To be fair to the goal umpire, there was a noise (caused by Hickey hitting the post) and I reckon the ball did deviate slightly after passing the post (which wasn't caused by the ball hitting the post, either the spin of the ball or a slight gust of wind most likely caused it) and they are instructed to pay the LOWER score if they're not sure. This is a hill I'm willing to die on. Pay the goal if it's kicked and passes between the posts. If it's clearly hit the post or touched, pay the behind. If the goal umpire is unsure, send it to review every time. Only pay the behind if there is CLEAR evidence the ball was touched or hit the post.

That way there is no ambiguity, no "I believe it hit the post but can you check" (only for the evidence to come back inconclusive). And the field umpires should be able to call for a review as well.

 

[ChristianBoy]

It's funny how inconsistent the tribunal is

Rnd 1 - McAdam gets a 3 week ban for bumping a bloke in the sternum who gets straight back up and plays the rest of the game and plays the following week

Rnd 23 - AFL gives the bloke who breaks McAdam's cheekbone a 1 week ban

Answer- Sydney Swans

 

[Crow till I die]

It will be interesting come week’s end who misses the finals due to this poor decision

Everything has changed though..Sydney now don't have to win against Melbourne whereas they would have ad that adds its own pressure. Geelong have put their warhorses out to pasture this week as they are out no matter what whereas they still would have been a chance so likely lay Cameron etc this week against the dogs who now might get an easier game as a dead rubber for Geelong etc.

Too many variables are now different for it to be meaningful

 

[Mofra]

The irony of these two clubs going head to head about umpiring 'errors' - one who benefitted from a goal in 97 not being awarded, the other benefitting from the AFL deeming Barry Hall's love-tap being "in play" while the ball was 80m away - is very highly amusing.

Keep it up I say

 

[sherb]

The irony of these two clubs going head to head about umpiring 'errors' - one who benefitted from a goal in 97 not being awarded, the other benefitting from the AFL deeming Barry Hall's love-tap being "in play" while the ball was 80m away - is very highly amusing.

Keep it up I say

My recollection of that - happy to be corrected - is that the decision was in accordance with the very guidelines the AFL had issued to the clubs earlier in the season.