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

[Maddogmetro]

What about the suspect umpiring decisions where the Crows goaled from or right after? Or where we should have had a shot at goal late?

Instead, despite getting back into the game with the help of several questionable umpiring decisions, the focus is on 1 mistake that went against.

I get being aggrieved, but it's a bit much to say the least fair result is a Sydney win.

This isn't a 'dodgy umpiring decision' like an ambiguous holding the ball call. It was a clear goal that was given one point. Two very different scenarios.

 

[Bloods86]

There would have to be some sort of process to filter out undisputed posters and only review the questionable ones, otherwise you would have the absurd situation of the ball smashing into the post and off to review it goes........

As has been said, if you leave it to umpires to adjudicate clear posters or not, you end up with some risk of an error. Making it a consensus call rather than goal umpire decides and others go along with it, does increase the chances at least 1 of the umps will be uncertain and it gets reviewed, but no guarantee.

Otherwise it has to be goalpost sensor technology and I don't think we're there yet in terms of reliability.

 

[SC_Power]

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.

Actually the 50 mtr rule is about time wasting. It’s written in the Laws of the Game, that the intention of a 50 mtr penalty is for when an opposition player deliberately impedes or delays the game. Neither is applicable post siren, an umpire could certainly give one if they wanted but it’s not the intent of the rule.

 

[Burtonsgottago]

I’d actually argue why not go one step further - if it goes through the main posts from a kick it’s six points, regardless of whether the ball was clearly touched or hit the post.

Save a lot of problems.. although I’m sure the AFL would still find a way of stuffing it up.

 

[kriles76]

Any chance Adelaide could’ve kicked 8.4 rather than 4.8 in the quarter? Umpire’s decision would’ve been an irrelevant footnote in that case. Very gettable shots at goal were missed.

 

[SC_Power]

Save a lot of problems.. although I’m sure the AFL would still find a way of stuffing it up.

Clearly touched as goals is a massive change, and needs to be really well thought out.
A number of different situations where touched goals can occur. Are we going to introduce rushed goals and own goals as well as points?

 

[Burtonsgottago]

They weren’t too comprehensive for three quarters. The umpires gave them a ride in the last quarter. Lucky they got as close as they did.

These are the comments that make me question the mentality of the average Port supporter. Regardless of who is playing, is this the way we wish those officiating our game, with the aid of technology, to be making decisions?

 

[JimmyBC]

Any chance Adelaide could’ve kicked 8.4 rather than 4.8 in the quarter? Umpire’s decision would’ve been an irrelevant footnote in that case. Very gettable shots at goal were missed.

If Adelaide had kicked straight in a number of games they'd be locked in the 8 instead of whinging right now.

 

[Burtonsgottago]

Any chance Adelaide could’ve kicked 8.4 rather than 4.8 in the quarter? Umpire’s decision would’ve been an irrelevant footnote in that case. Very gettable shots at goal were missed.

So true… or maybe they could’ve kicked 12 straight or even better not let Sydney score all game..

 

[Burtonsgottago]

Clearly touched as goals is a massive change, and needs to be really well thought out.
A number of different situations where touched goals can occur. Are we going to introduce rushed goals and own goals as well as points?

Would you miss not seeing defenders rush behinds anymore?

 

[bonehilda]

Any chance Adelaide could’ve kicked 8.4 rather than 4.8 in the quarter? Umpire’s decision would’ve been an irrelevant footnote in that case. Very gettable shots at goal were missed.

This was the score line at the end of the game, edited for umpiring incompetence. Most of those rushed behinds occurred in the last.

Being denied a goal in the dying minute of a game because an umpire’s brain decided to stop working is justified because they were inaccurate beforehand is a disingenuous argument and you know it.

 

[SC_Power]

Would you miss not seeing defenders rush behinds anymore?

If a ball is kicked across goal, hits a defender and goes through the goals?
If a ball is rolling towards the goals, attacker and defender dive and it gets pushed through?
if a ball is punched in a marking contest 15 mtrs out from goal, and is punched through, is is a goal?

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

If a ball is kicked across goal, hits a defender and goes through the goals?
If a ball is rolling towards the goals, attacker and defender dive and it gets pushed through?
if a ball is punched in a marking contest 15 mtrs out from goal, and is punched through, is is a goal?

Perhaps it was you or another power supporter that suggested the simplest option.

Just implement that all scores are reviewed.

If it’s called a point, then it just happens in the background. In the rare circumstance that a wrong decision has been made then play gets called back and the clock reset.
Goals are automatically reviewed, so just automatically review points too.

99% of scores will take one camera roll to confirm that the right call was made.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

If a ball is kicked across goal, hits a defender and goes through the goals?
If a ball is rolling towards the goals, attacker and defender dive and it gets pushed through?
if a ball is punched in a marking contest 15 mtrs out from goal, and is punched through, is is a goal?

Sorry to spam.

I’m also not a fan of changing any of the scoring system. Seems like overkill when simpler solutions exist.

The goal should be to ensure that Clanger calls are weeded out completely.

You are always going to have “umpires decision” calls that technology will struggle with/

 

[Maddo11]

Watching the footage from the crowd behind the goal umpire, you can see why he thought it might have hit the post. He's in the perfect spot and the ball seems to quickly break to his left once it's at the post. (Nowhere here am I saying it actually hit the post)

It makes the AFLs action to immediately stand him down seem rushed and unprofessional, especially after he was doxxed and threatened.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

The fact that Sydney fans don't understand the difference between a score that can be reviewed and a field umpiring decision that can't is staggering.

Nobody is complaining about the other terrible umpiring because there is no process in place to overturn those decisions and the fact you can't understand the difference is insane.

There is a reason that the missed free kick to for Dawson to win the Collingwood game is not discussed in the same way as this is extremely obvious to anyone paying attention. There is no process to review a missed or given free kick so its crap but you move on. There is a score review system in place for this explicit purpose. These are fundamentally different things and that is the point.

I think you are confusing people who have a different perspective than you on whether or not to accept the result of a game (which was never going to be over turned) with those people not understanding the rules.

A human error led to the score not being reviewed (the goal umpire perceived that there was no doubt in his decision), just like a human error led to several poor decisions against the swans in the last quarter, and poor decisions against both teams throughout the game, particularly against the crows in the first half.

Don’t get me wrong, if the Swans lost, then Swans fans including me would be angry about the poor umpiring. But there is a difference between fans letting off steam on a footy forum and a club embarrassing themselves publicly because they didn’t like one decision, and it’s fans demanding the result is turned over.

Edit: I can see that you don’t want he result turned over, but instead court action and damages. To be honest, I think that outcome is even less likely. I sympathise with your frustration.

My comment to “suck it up” was in reference to the ridiculous voting options that lent heavily in one direction and implied that swans only won because of the umpires. You only have to view the game day thread and comments by neutral observers to know that the umpiring was atrocious against the swans in the last quarter, and had a huge impact on how close the game was.

 

[Hobbes]

I think you are confusing people who have a different perspective than you on whether or not to accept the result of a game (which was never going to be over turned) with those people not understanding the rules.

A human error led to the score not being reviewed (the goal umpire perceived that there was no doubt in his decision), just like a human error led to several poor decisions against the swans in the last quarter, and poor decisions against both teams throughout the game, particularly against the crows in the first half.

Don’t get me wrong, if the Swans lost, then Swans fans including me would be angry about the poor umpiring. But there is a difference between fans letting off steam on a footy forum and a club embarrassing themselves publicly because they didn’t like one decision, and it’s fans demanding the result is turned over.

Edit: I can see that you don’t want he result turned over, but instead court action and damages. To be honest, I think that outcome is even less likely. I sympathise with your frustration.

My comment to “suck it up” was in reference to the ridiculous voting options that lent heavily in one direction and implied that swans only won because of the umpires. You only have to view the game day thread and comments by neutral observers to know that the umpiring was atrocious against the swans in the last quarter, and had a huge impact on how close the game was.

An on-field mistake by the goal umpire should NEVER happen. He has the ability to refer if he isn't 200% sure.

If he's 200% sure but still wrong, he doesn't deserve to appear on the field again.

 

[Do the Dew]

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

On the Tigers board we compared McCartin's incident to Mansell's against Freo. Mansell was much closer to winning the ball and probably would've if it didn't bounce sideways. He braces for contact, contact occurs to Aish's head, and Mansel gets 3 weeks at the tribunal. I don't see how he gets 3 weeks and McCartin get's off particularly as there was no malice (compared to the McAdam one where yes, he didn't get him in the head but there was malice).

 

[Do the Dew]

Actually the 50 mtr rule is about time wasting. It’s written in the Laws of the Game, that the intention of a 50 mtr penalty is for when an opposition player deliberately impedes or delays the game. Neither is applicable post siren, an umpire could certainly give one if they wanted but it’s not the intent of the rule.

Not necessarily. The rule in question states that the ball needs to be returned directly and on the full to the player with the free kick. You can still impede the play even if there's no time left.

Hypothetically, if a player gets a free kick 120m from goal as the siren goes, an oppo players boots it away, thereby stopping the player from quickly advancing to take their shot at goal when there's maybe less defenders so the ball can bounce through, then this would be classified as impeding the game. It's not just about time, impeding the play also means that maybe you can't have a bunch of guys on the mark etc. Prestia's and any other future incident falls into the latter category.

 

[peetoo]

Perhaps it was you or another power supporter that suggested the simplest option.

Just implement that all scores are reviewed.

If it’s called a point, then it just happens in the background. In the rare circumstance that a wrong decision has been made then play gets called back and the clock reset.
Goals are automatically reviewed, so just automatically review points too.

99% of scores will take one camera roll to confirm that the right call was made.

Thers a break for tv adverts anyway. It’s the point score which would be the issue. AFL decided a quick play on would be a better look. I don’t agree. Advantaging the team which just escaped 5 points against, makes no sense.

Have any rule changes increased scoring overall by the way, it doesn’t seem so

 

[Truetiger]

How do we know Sydney would not have kicked a goal right after. 1min to play still. Should have done a review.

 

[Crow till I die]

Get it correct, sure. But do it on-field.
Review every goal decision automatically. If it is different, call it back and reset the clock. Have an indicator on the scoreboard when anything is in review, and when the siren sounds, stop play where it is until any in-progress review is cleared.

Then the umps signal the game is over, and at that point the game is over: no recourse.
No smoking and carrying on and grabbing yer lynchin' ropes via the media for God knows how long.

What if..in the case of saturday night, the goal was reviewed when play continued and the review had not finished by the time the final siren went?. It should not matter if the siren went, if it was a goal, then go back to that point in time, call the goal and add the time back on the clock as if the final siren never went. Any review should trump a siren to end a quarter or game when there is a live review being undertaken in that scenario...and it might well have happened like that saturday night had that system been in play.

 

[Crow till I die]

Not necessarily. The rule in question states that the ball needs to be returned directly and on the full to the player with the free kick. You can still impede the play even if there's no time left.

Hypothetically, if a player gets a free kick 120m from goal as the siren goes, an oppo players boots it away, thereby stopping the player from quickly advancing to take their shot at goal when there's maybe less defenders so the ball can bounce through, then this would be classified as impeding the game. It's not just about time, impeding the play also means that maybe you can't have a bunch of guys on the mark etc. Prestia's and any other future incident falls into the latter category.

That has happened in a country grand final before. It was amazing to watch the footage of one side celebrating as the final siren went only for one of the winning side to run across the mark where the other side had the free as the game ended..the ump payed a 50m and the guy kicked a long range goal with no one on the line to touch it as they all were still celebrating. The goal kicked from the 50m after the siren changed the result and the other team ended up winning. It was incredible to watch

 

[Do the Dew]

That has happened in a country grand final before. It was amazing to watch the footage of one side celebrating as the final siren went only for one of the winning side to run across the mark where the other side had the free as the game ended..the ump payed a 50m and the guy kicked a long range goal with no one on the line to touch it as they all were still celebrating. The goal kicked from the 50m after the siren changed the result and the other team ended up winning. It was incredible to watch

Feel like I've watched this on Almost Football Legends from the footy show 20+ years ago

 

[Crow till I die]

Feel like I've watched this on Almost Football Legends from the footy show 20+ years ago

You might be right there...great segment that was too