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

[Syd]

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.

No, the goal umpire has one job to do and trained if they have any doubt to call for a review.
He had no doubt and made the call without the call for checking.
Right or wrong, he was convinced and called it as he saw it.

FWIW, I do believe it did not touch the post, nor any other conspiracy at play (players "whacking" the post, AFL called it in with 71 seconds on the clock etc)

It was a mistake and a costly one.

BUT the rules do not allow for retrospective review unless called for, and as said, he had no doubt at the time.

I feel sorry for the Goal Umpire, he made a mistake but has been completely hung out to dry by the AFL and probably not living his best life (he is South Australian, yes?) right now.

 

[Syd]

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.

And by the way, the yellow light means stop unless unsafe to do so, so no, that is not correct.

"Thinking the light is green" means you weren't paying attention and probably shouldn't be driving anyways.

 

[Maddo11]

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

Interesting example but I think by the time the dogs are chipping the ball around on the wing (12:20 game time) the ARC would have had time to go "hey probably stop the play ump we need a minute here" or decide that the vision isn't conclusive enough to over turn.

The AFL could easily go to champion data though and ask "what's the shortest time between a point at one end and a goal at the other and how often does it happen?" and pick a time limit for the ARC to work off based on that

 

[AJB84]

No, the goal umpire has one job to do and trained if they have any doubt to call for a review.
He had no doubt and made the call without the call for checking.
Right or wrong, he was convinced and called it as he saw it.

FWIW, I do believe it did not touch the post, nor any other conspiracy at play (players "whacking" the post, AFL called it in with 71 seconds on the clock etc)

It was a mistake and a costly one.

BUT the rules do not allow for retrospective review unless called for, and as said, he had no doubt at the time.

I feel sorry for the Goal Umpire, he made a mistake but has been completely hung out to dry by the AFL and probably not living his best life (he is South Australian, yes?) right now.

It's amazing that every Sydney fan only feels sorry for the umpire and don't care about anyone else.

 

[Bluelegs]

Interesting example but I think by the time the dogs are chipping the ball around on the wing (12:20 game time) the ARC would have had time to go "hey probably stop the play ump we need a minute here" or decide that the vision isn't conclusive enough to over turn

Agree its not a perfect example but more to illustrate a situation where the ball goes end to end with no stoppages. It could certainly happen even faster than this.

Should the goal review be able to stop the play before they've made a decision? I feel that would be pretty detrimental to a game iif a team is moving the ball at pace. But many goal reviews take over a minute to make a decision and if a score is kicked in that time rolling back the clock would be pretty controversial.

 

[Maddo11]

Agree its not a perfect example but more to illustrate a situation where the ball goes end to end with no stoppages. It could certainly happen even faster than this.

Should the goal review be able to stop the play before they've made a decision? I feel that would be pretty detrimental to a game iif a team is moving the ball at pace. But many goal reviews take over a minute to make a decision and if a score is kicked in that time rolling back the clock would be pretty controversial.

I know it's not likely to ever happen again but imagine if this were reversed because of a score review up the other end



Just 12 seconds for ARC to decide lol.

It's a tough one

 

[Maddo11]

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.

The car turning would be at fault either way, the lights going yellow doesn't mean right of way stops existing...

 

[AJB84]

I know it's not likely to ever happen again but imagine if this were reversed because of a score review up the other end



Just 12 seconds for ARC to decide lol.

It's a tough one

No its not.

Call it back and start at the centre bounce they only scored due to the point and that never should have happened.

 

[Roby]

So with have a consensus solution (even with the crappy ARC), that solves TWO problems:

1) All scores are reviewed; goals and behinds. If score is incorrect, we reset the clock to the time in game of when the score was incorrect, and we start from a kick-in or centre bounce, depending on what the new score is.

2) umpires should never have to call for the ARC again. They make a call that stands, meanwhile in the background, the ARC will check if the score is correct and will only call it back if it's not. This will allow for continuous play, and we don't have to have so many calls for the ARC to review; in fact we'll have none.

 

[Bluelegs]

So with have a consensus solution (even with the crappy ARC), that solves TWO problems:

1) All scores are reviewed; goals and behinds. If score is incorrect, we reset the clock to the time in game of when the score was incorrect, and we start from a kick-in or centre bounce, depending on what the new score is.

2) umpires should never have to call for the ARC again. They make a call that stands, meanwhile in the background, the ARC will check if the score is correct and will only call it back if it's not. This will allow for continuous play, and we don't have to have so many calls for the ARC to review; in fact we'll have none.

Don't really agree on point 2. If an umpire isn't sure they should be allowed to go to the Arc, knowing the Arc will fix their mistake if they're wrong will give them more confidence in their calls anyway. But the umpires should certainly be allowed to say "I have no idea what that was, can the arc make the call"

 

[Tbonefreo]

This flipping stinks big time.

Very sus by the afl

 

[Syd]

So with have a consensus solution (even with the crappy ARC), that solves TWO problems:

1) All scores are reviewed; goals and behinds. If score is incorrect, we reset the clock to the time in game of when the score was incorrect, and we start from a kick-in or centre bounce, depending on what the new score is.

2) umpires should never have to call for the ARC again. They make a call that stands, meanwhile in the background, the ARC will check if the score is correct and will only call it back if it's not. This will allow for continuous play, and we don't have to have so many calls for the ARC to review; in fact we'll have none.

If ARC is the arbitrator of all calls, why the need for goal umpires in the first place?

Replace them with technology and be done with it.

 

[Crow till I die]

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.

Nah..its simple, show the score as what it was and it was a goal so adjust the score to be correct as no further score happened after that from open play. Dont conflate other free kicks etc where there is no technology there to review them like there was for this goal. Or if you dont want that, then replay the entire game or maybe as sydney didn't deserve to win either, award no premiership points for the game. But the outcome as it stands is all for Sydneys benefit and none for Adelaide and its also cost geelong a chance at finals this week too. Its the worst outcome of a hatful of outcomes the AFL cpuld have run with

 

[Crow till I die]

Agree its not a perfect example but more to illustrate a situation where the ball goes end to end with no stoppages. It could certainly happen even faster than this.

Should the goal review be able to stop the play before they've made a decision? I feel that would be pretty detrimental to a game iif a team is moving the ball at pace. But many goal reviews take over a minute to make a decision and if a score is kicked in that time rolling back the clock would be pretty controversial.

Not at all..they would be the rules and they would be clear rules

 

[The Tilt]

I know it's not likely to ever happen again but imagine if this were reversed because of a score review up the other end



Just 12 seconds for ARC to decide lol.

It's a tough one

This is a key reason why i'm not all that enthusiastic about the "review it in the background and reverse the clock if/when needed" option. Declaring that 30-40 seconds of otherwise legitimate play is null and void feels like a big drawback.

 

[The Tilt]

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.

Exactly! The hilarious thing here is that those who most despise the AFL administration seem comfortable giving administrators the power to undertake some elaborate after-the-fact analysis to determine the official winner days after a match has ended. You can just imagine how well the outcomes of that type of analysis will go down on Bigfooty.

 

[Tiger 80]

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

Why the goal umpire chose not to err on the side of caution makes no sense to me.

"I think it's a goal but I just want to make sure that it didn't hit the post" guarantees a review and the correct call being made, if you want the correct call being made of course?

I can only think that the goal umpire was simply doing the AFL's bidding by calling point.

 

[Roby]

Don't really agree on point 2. If an umpire isn't sure they should be allowed to go to the Arc, knowing the Arc will fix their mistake if they're wrong will give them more confidence in their calls anyway. But the umpires should certainly be allowed to say "I have no idea what that was, can the arc make the call"

The umpire makes the call, if it's wrong, they'll fix it. We have to go on the soft call anyway. This will eliminate stoppage in the game.

 

[Roby]

If ARC is the arbitrator of all calls, why the need for goal umpires in the first place?

Replace them with technology and be done with it.

Seriously? Think about what you just typed

 

[Roby]

This is a key reason why i'm not all that enthusiastic about the "review it in the background and reverse the clock if/when needed" option. Declaring that 30-40 seconds of otherwise legitimate play is null and void feels like a big drawback.

Son you'd rather keep the incorrect score over bringing the play back? Wow

 

[flamethrower]

This just proves one thing - the technology that the AFL relies on to make these decisions is grossly inadequate.

Not one camera angle shows the "money shot". The moment when the spinning ball and the post are at their closest point. Only that would show if the goal umpire was correct or not.

When you have an oval shaped ball spinning on its axis, and on a curved path, the chances of one camera capturing the "money shot" frame is like finding a needle in a haystack.

Video review technology from other sports (especially the NFL and MLB) has proved that to adequately judge ball trajectory in 4 dimensions requires a minimum of one camera per 5 to 10 degrees of coverage. That means the AFL needs a minimum of 36 cameras covering 360 degrees, all recording in 8k, to maximize the chances of getting decisions correct.

 

[Syd]

I can only think that the goal umpire was simply doing the AFL's bidding by calling point.

****ing LOL

 

[The Tilt]

Son you'd rather keep the incorrect score over bringing the play back? Wow

Yep. Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I'd rather err on the side of less disruption to the game even though this will allow some wrong decisions through.
Case in point: I think decisions between a behind and no score should be umpires call only i.e. not eligible for review. From time to time this will mean some wrong calls, but the stakes are typically low enough that we should avoid the cost of stopping the game. Those stoppages also have their impact: e.g. the team with possession exited their defensive area, potentially prevented from scoring opportunities etc.

 

[Bluelegs]

The umpire makes the call, if it's wrong, they'll fix it. We have to go on the soft call anyway. This will eliminate stoppage in the game.

I don't think the odd break in play is a big deal tbh. Howlers like the one on the weekend are rare. I'd rather these things get sorted out immediately where possible.

 

[Father Jack]

Why the goal umpire chose not to err on the side of caution makes no sense to me.

"I think it's a goal but I just want to make sure that it didn't hit the post" guarantees a review and the correct call being made, if you want the correct call being made of course?

I can only think that the goal umpire was simply doing the AFL's bidding by calling point.

There's a school of thought that the umpires were instructed to maybe rely on their own instincts a bit more after the previous week's score review shenanigans, and to be honest that makes more sense to me than a goal umpire winging it on his own initiative. Maybe I should head off to the Conspiracies board