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

[Rory Walkerfield]

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.

Am sure there could be a process where the ARC signals the ump that a review is underway. Perhaps have a 30 second clock on that so you know within 30 seconds if a review is happening.

Could even have a light on the scoreboard that illuminates when a score review is happening in the background.

India just landed a river on the moon. Getting a review process right isn’t rocket science.

 

[Tiger 80]

All the goal umpire had to do was call a goal. "I think it's a goal but I just want to make sure that it didn't hit the post."

I honestly believe the AFL got the result they wanted and that the goal umpire was just doing their bidding, it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

[JackFlash]

As the dust settles on this injustice we should try and answer the question:

How do you stop it from happening again?​

The field Umpires have to be allowed to question the Goal Umpire and ask for a review if they think the call is questionable.
The AFL has to improve the technology in order to satisfy all officiating umpires, there must be no doubt from anyone.
It was very obvious that the players and fans behind the goals knew it went through, why couldn't any of the two boundary umpires who were standing at both point posts also say anything? They should be allowed to consult with the Goal Umpire or Field umpire and make sure a review is undertaken if unclear.

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

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.

That's exactly what I said.
If the quarter or game is due to end but there is still a pending review, there is no more regular play but no one leaves until ARC has either:

• upheld the previous decision: umpires signal the end of the quarter or game. Situation normal.
• overruled the previous decision: reset play and the clock at the time of the event that triggered the review.

It gets decided before anyone leaves the ground, not in the media or in the courts days or weeks later.

 

[Crow till I die]

That's exactly what I said.
If the quarter or game is due to end but there is still a pending review, there is no more regular play but no one leaves until ARC has either:

• upheld the previous decision: umpires signal the end of the quarter or game. Situation normal.
• overruled the previous decision: reset play and the clock at the time of the event that triggered the review.

It gets decided before anyone leaves the ground, not in the media or in the courts days or weeks later.

Going forward that is how it should be and the technology available needs to be employed as a mandatory for every score, not on the whim of a goal umpire per se with play able to be stopped, brought back and the clock reset where there is an error

 

[AJB84]

The ball smashes into the goal post, the ball rebounds 20 metres back onto the field, the post is still swaying a minute later and it should be reviewed?

I was going to say no because I thought I had written that in my original post. But it would take like a second for the person in ARC to give the all-clear so why not.

Overall I don't understand why hitting the post should be a point in the future and we should just change it so if it goes through the posts it is a goal like every other sport. It removes a massive possibility of error going forward and would ever so slightly increase scoring like the AFL wants.

 

[AJB84]

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.

I don't want damages I want a lengthy painful court hearing where all the details come out and are public.

I do not trust the AFL to review itself and make the required changes any more than I trust a goal umpire to make a mistake then call for a review.

I want to know what every umpire on the ground saw and was thinking and why they didn't stop play.

I want to know because the AFL has already hidden all of the details from us and will not tell us anything and are now making changes with no oversight and no way for us to know anything.

 

[AJB84]

As the dust settles on this injustice we should try and answer the question:

How do you stop it from happening again?​

The field Umpires have to be allowed to question the Goal Umpire and ask for a review if they think the call is questionable.
The AFL has to improve the technology in order to satisfy all officiating umpires, there must be no doubt from anyone.
It was very obvious that the players and fans behind the goals knew it went through, why couldn't any of the two boundary umpires who were standing at both point posts also say anything? They should be allowed to consult with the Goal Umpire or Field umpire and make sure a review is undertaken if unclear.

Before all of this we need to know what happened on the night what each umpire saw and thought and why they did not act to ensure the correct decision.

Everyone here seems fine with the AFL hiding this from everyone.

 

[JackFlash]

Before all of this we need to know what happened on the night what each umpire saw and thought and why they did not act to ensure the correct decision.

Everyone here seems fine with the AFL hiding this from everyone.

Agreed, we have heard nothing from any other umpires on the night. The AFL will have to act fast on this, but they don't have a head of football to make a decsion.

 

[boncer34]

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.

Yep. Done.

 

[LordLucifer]

This will lead to a rule change though. Can’t kick in until authorised.

Should never haver changed the rule originally.

In the old days, the full-back had to wait until the goal umpires had waved their flags before they could kick in and only from inside the goalsquare. With this recent insistence on making the game quicker and implementing oddball strategies to remove breaks in the game, players can now "play on" immediately from a kick-in as they have extra balls waiting for them behind the goals.

I don't understand why there was the urgent need to make that change especially as it looks like they will revert back to that method now in order to give the review people a little extra time to look at things.

From a tactics & strategy angle, the old rule makes it far more interesting and forces coaches to come up with new plans to get around the opposition wall etc.

And for the record, if the ball gets locked in your defensive 50m and your players are incapable of getting past the opposition via a kick-in and handballs etc, then stiff sh1t. Why have a faux rule (you can run 30m fro a kick in and then handball ) just to give the crap teams a leg-up ??

 

[LordLucifer]

The result stands even if it was a cruddy decision.

However, in the off-season, the AFL boffins MUST come up with a virtually foolproof system for reviewing scores. Failing that, scrap the whole video review system (it has never ever worked and is a waste of time) and scrap two of the field umpires at the same time.

Put in two extra goal umpires (one on each goalpost) who can confer and make a call, if they get it the occassional one wrong then so be it, it'll be way better than what we have in place right now.

Besides, we never ever had this much trouble in the old days without the review system !!

 

[Bloods86]

I don't want damages I want a lengthy painful court hearing where all the details come out and are public.

I do not trust the AFL to review itself and make the required changes any more than I trust a goal umpire to make a mistake then call for a review.

I want to know what every umpire on the ground saw and was thinking and why they didn't stop play.

I want to know because the AFL has already hidden all of the details from us and will not tell us anything and are now making changes with no oversight and no way for us to know anything.

One day the Crows might learn that upsetting AFL HQ doesn't end well for interstate clubs.

Cool, let's go after the umpire more in a public court case. See what that does to them and how many sign up in the future.

 

[Crow till I die]

The result stands even if it was a cruddy decision.

However, in the off-season, the AFL boffins MUST come up with a virtually foolproof system for reviewing scores. Failing that, scrap the whole video review system (it has never ever worked and is a waste of time) and scrap two of the field umpires at the same time.

Put in two extra goal umpires (one on each goalpost) who can confer and make a call, if they get it the occassional one wrong then so be it, it'll be way better than what we have in place right now.

Besides, we never ever had this much trouble in the old days without the review system !!

The result stands in that they gave Sydney the W, but they can certainly go back and amend the official records to show the crows 78 - Sydney 74 so it is there for perpetuity. Does not change that Sydney now are unfairly locked in for finals and the crows unfairly are mathematically no chance of finals as they still should have been, but it does reflect the actual final score considering after that, no further score was had.

 

[Bloods86]

The result stands in that they gave Sydney the W, but they can certainly go back and amend the official records to show the crows 78 - Sydney 74 so it is there for perpetuity.

The AFL has done plenty of other dumb things in the past, but I reckon they won't be doing that.

 

[Crow till I die]

The AFL has done plenty of other dumb things in the past, but I reckon they won't be doing that.

yeah you are right..because its not dumb so the AFL won't do it

 

[Bloods86]

yeah you are right..because its not dumb so the AFL won't do it

It is dumb though, the Crows didn't win. And if the goal had been given, we don't know what the end result/score would have been.

 

[Crow till I die]

It is dumb though, the Crows didn't win. And if the goal had been given, we don't know what the end result/score would have been.

Sydney didn't either - shall we replay the game?

 

[Speck]

The obvious thing to me is that the ARC is watching the games and if an iffy decision isn't reviewed then they take the decision to review it themselves (this is "we are going to review" only) and alert the on-field umpire.

From there you either stop the game at the next opportunity (kick out not taken, free kick/mark by either team, ball up) or always call it back to the goal square regardless of what happened.

Then the ARC goes through the review process as usual and decides on an outcome. Soft call is what the umpire originally decided (likely a behind).

Reviewing while the game goes on doesn't make any sense as it could be a minute to get the right decision.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

The umpire stuffed up but the AFL has stuffed even more by implementing a system where points aren't checked

 

[Bluelegs]

On the topic of bringing the play back in the event of an overturned goal this moment in the 2021 GF comes to mind.



Max Gawn

11

Max Gawn

Age

32

Ht

209cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.1

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

6.7

4star

CL

2.8

4star

HO

35.3

5star

D

18.5

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

7.0

4star

CL

3.5

4star

HO

29.2

5star

D

8.4

3star

K

3.6

2star

HB

4.8

4star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

15.6

5star

kicks what looks to be a goal on various camera angles, umpire rules it a behind. Dogs immediately move the ball to the opposite end where Bont takes a mark and kicks a goal.

My question is, if the Ark decided to call the Max Gawn

11

Max Gawn

Age

32

Ht

209cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

14.1

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

6.7

4star

CL

2.8

4star

HO

35.3

5star

D

18.5

4star

K

11.5

4star

HB

7.0

4star

CL

3.5

4star

HO

29.2

5star

D

8.4

3star

K

3.6

2star

HB

4.8

4star

CL

1.0

3star

HO

15.6

5star

shot as a goal how long do you allow them to make that call? When Bontimpelli takes the mark? After he kicks the goal?

 

[Syd]

Stupid comment by you here.

All the goal umpire had to say was: "I think it's a goal but I just want to make sure that it didn't hit the post." If he did that, we get the right winner of the game, which is what I prefer, and you obviously don't, I wonder why?

But he didn't think it was a goal, thats kinda why it didn't get reviewed.

He was 100% convinced it had hit the post.

 

[SC_Power]

The result stands in that they gave Sydney the W, but they can certainly go back and amend the official records to show the crows 78 - Sydney 74 so it is there for perpetuity. Does not change that Sydney now are unfairly locked in for finals and the crows unfairly are mathematically no chance of finals as they still should have been, but it does reflect the actual final score considering after that, no further score was had.

I still don’t get the rationale that people have for changing the result.

Everyone is up in arms about not following due process in a goal review, and yet they want to change a black-and-white all-sport perpetual sporting process in that the umpires determine the game result.

In the quoted example, if a f-up with 1:10 to play is to be taken as influencing the final result, if next week it’s 1:16 on the clock and something happens, should that be allowed to change the game result? What about 1:30? 2:00?
Maybe we need a Duckworth-Lewis calculation where we can adjust scores based on assessments of free kicks through the game so we can declare a calculated result where the team that scored more on the field can still lose based on umpiring adjustments?
Maybe also can include wind and rain conditions to even it up in true D-L fashion (kick with the wind in the first quarter and get 4 goals up, then if it rains the other team gets a 2 goal weather adjustment).

FFS, it’s a f-up, rant and rave at umpires, AFL, whomever…. but just get some perspective on what “compensation” is deserved.

 

[_Mike_]

Crows CEO Tim Silvers said an admission of umpire error did not lessen the frustration and disappointment shared by the players, coaches, staff, members and fans alike. "The failure to video review the scoring attempt in question is inexplicable given the enormity of the moment, not just for that game but also what it meant for our finals chances and those of other teams in the competition.

"Having spoken to the AFL and with no further avenues to explore, we have no choice other than to turn our focus to the final home and away match of the season." ... Tim Evans

'It would have been overturned': AFL boss says umpire got it wrong in crucial 'behind' call in Crows game

AFL boss Gillon McLachlan says last night's controversial 'behind' call in Adelaide's loss to Sydney would have been overturned if it had been reviewed, in what he called a "human mistake".

www.abc.net.au

The Adelaide FC has accepted the error and moved on from the match.

 

[SC_Power]

But he didn't think it was a goal, thats kinda why it didn't get reviewed.

He was 100% convinced it had hit the post.

So are you saying it’s sort of equivalent to approaching a set of traffic lights in your car and hitting a turning car from the opposite direction and you either tell the police

• I saw the lights turn yellow but I thought it was ok so I decided to proceed as normal and misjudged (failure in process, I should have approached with caution)
• I thought the lights were green, I was then watching the car in front and genuinely didn’t see the light turn yellow so why would I follow due process and approach with caution - I was 100% convinced it was green (dumb mistake)

Interesting take.