- May 23, 2016
- 8,098
- 7,020
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I and some others did think of this. Not feasible now, but it could've been done after the final siren. Oh well.
-
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Play Nice Goal Umpire costs Adelaide a shot at finals, how do you stop it from happening again?
- Thread starter Wosh
- Start date
- Tagged users None
in 96 they replayed the entire final quater, not from the point the power went off. And they did it because the game literally never finished.
This is completely different. This game ended. A team won. It was a bad decision, like so many before it in every game. There is no fair way to solve this injustice at this point as we will never know what would have happened no matter what you try and do. The only cure is prevention.
lacrow
Team Captain
There are several good solutions, IMO:
1. (Easiest and most obvious) Get rid of the post rule. Whether it hits the post or not, if it goes through it's a goal, period. As has been mentioned before, every other sport does this: Soccer, Hockey, the NFL, Gaelic etc.
2. Update the posts so they are smart posts. The tech MUST exist somewhere to be able to create a post that can signal when it has been touched by the ball. Either it changes color or sounds an alarm or something, but I've got to believe that's a doable thing somehow. (And then it becomes a penalty if a player purposely slaps the post.)
3. Increase the monitoring tech somehow (better cameras and more of them).
4. Better process. Resume play but let the booth judges review and give them the ability to restart play and timeclock if they overturn a decision. And get rid of the stupid rule that only goals can be reviewed.
1. (Easiest and most obvious) Get rid of the post rule. Whether it hits the post or not, if it goes through it's a goal, period. As has been mentioned before, every other sport does this: Soccer, Hockey, the NFL, Gaelic etc.
2. Update the posts so they are smart posts. The tech MUST exist somewhere to be able to create a post that can signal when it has been touched by the ball. Either it changes color or sounds an alarm or something, but I've got to believe that's a doable thing somehow. (And then it becomes a penalty if a player purposely slaps the post.)
3. Increase the monitoring tech somehow (better cameras and more of them).
4. Better process. Resume play but let the booth judges review and give them the ability to restart play and timeclock if they overturn a decision. And get rid of the stupid rule that only goals can be reviewed.
lacrow
Team Captain
There are several good solutions, IMO:
1. (Easiest and most obvious) Get rid of the post rule. Whether it hits the post or not, if it goes through it's a goal, period. As has been mentioned before, every other sport does this: Soccer, Hockey, the NFL, Gaelic etc.
2. Update the posts so they are smart posts. The tech MUST exist somewhere to be able to create a post that can signal when it has been touched by the ball. Either it changes color or sounds an alarm or something, but I've got to believe that's a doable thing somehow. (And then it becomes a penalty if a player purposely slaps the post.)
3. Increase the monitoring tech somehow (better cameras and more of them).
4. Better process. Resume play but let the booth judges review and give them the ability to restart play and timeclock if they overturn a decision. And get rid of the stupid rule that only goals can be reviewed.
1. (Easiest and most obvious) Get rid of the post rule. Whether it hits the post or not, if it goes through it's a goal, period. As has been mentioned before, every other sport does this: Soccer, Hockey, the NFL, Gaelic etc.
2. Update the posts so they are smart posts. The tech MUST exist somewhere to be able to create a post that can signal when it has been touched by the ball. Either it changes color or sounds an alarm or something, but I've got to believe that's a doable thing somehow. (And then it becomes a penalty if a player purposely slaps the post.)
3. Increase the monitoring tech somehow (better cameras and more of them).
4. Better process. Resume play but let the booth judges review and give them the ability to restart play and timeclock if they overturn a decision. And get rid of the stupid rule that only goals can be reviewed.
I mean that’s literally what happened here, but there’s no way of proving he did it deliberately. There's footage where you can see the goal post actually wobbles because Mills uses it to stabilise himself and smacks it while running in. It wobbles exactly as the ball lines up with the post, that’s what that umpire went off when he made that call, no doubt. And in these cases that audio spike technology is just rendered completely void
The goal ump (and field umps to an extent) being a little less confident (which goes against what they’re taught ironically) and using the players and crowd reactions (which are going to be honest more often than not) in the dying stages of a match as context clues to maybe double check the call prevents all this though
Everything about this just seems like complete failure of common sense, but it’s the process that really has to change and the reviewers up stairs simply have to be able to communicate to the umpires that they’ve made an error, regardless if play has resumed or if it wasn’t requested. But the AFL care too much about “flow” to pause a game to prevent something like this
Maybe there should be some kind of blanket rule where anytime the margin is tight at the death all scores are automatically reviewed? Idk but I’m still farken pissed at how easily this could have been avoided if one of those umpires had a shred of situational awareness. Knowing the AFL their training is probably counterintuitive too
Last edited:
Why would they be penalised? The controlling umpire blew the end of the game. He had to ask and check what the free was for and why.
It was a free kick, the siren went, and a Sydney player booted the ball into the stands. Free kicks can't be paid after the siren but 50m penalties can. And although 50m penalties are given for a player putting his fingertips on the ball and then letting it go, a ball kicked into the stands was somehow not penalised.
"Common sense" was apparently applied in Sydney's favour while completely disregarding the rules. Funny how that same "common sense" wasn't applied to maybe, just maybe review Keays's goal.
Just be thankful the AFL bends over backwards to appease you. Remember COLA, the Lockett trade...
Because the controlling umpire blew time off. The free kick was awarded before the end of the game, but the ball was kicked into the stands before the controlling umpire was informed of the free kick. Watch the next time you see an out of zone call being made, the controlling umpire will repeat it to the players and signal the direction.
I'd say it's just the application of the rules. The controlling umpire hadn't awarded the free kick (when an out of zone umpire makes a call, the controlling umpire relays and confirms it to the players.
In the Swans' case, the rules were followed. The kick into the crowd occurred before the controlling umpire awarded the free kick. In the Crows' case, something unprecedented would have needed to happen, that is, the field umpire stopping resumed play to check behind. It was absolutely a mistake not to send it for review, but you can't just break rules for 'common sense'
- Jul 5, 2012
- 26,032
- 42,978
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
None of the official footage definitively shows the goal ump was wrong, so the call would have stood. So why are you upset about it?
- Mar 3, 2022
- 5,958
- 8,211
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The tech already exists to differentiate object from person so the alarm only sounds if ball hits it. Similar to VAR in EPL, doesn't matter how many bodies are around it, they can still give you a perfect picture of whether the ball is relative to the goal.
- May 19, 2017
- 9,439
- 10,989
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Cough, 2009, cough...Geelong.
I genuinely don't get why the AFL does not do what pretty much every other ball sport does and not have the ball touching the post matter.
If the ball touches the post and goes through, call it a goal, if the ball touches the post but goes through behind call it a behind and if the ball touches the post and stays in play then it is play on.
Would solve 90% of issues in regards to score reviews and it would not change the game at all.
If the ball touches the post and goes through, call it a goal, if the ball touches the post but goes through behind call it a behind and if the ball touches the post and stays in play then it is play on.
Would solve 90% of issues in regards to score reviews and it would not change the game at all.
Alvin Purple
Team Captain
Never mind Adelaide I lost my AFL Fantasy final by 3 points, I had Keays
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
LMAO are you serious? Numerous videos, official AFL statement stating that Keays kicked the goal. There's having your head up your arse and then there's this.
I don’t think core rule changes are necessary just better cameras and a process with a couple of fail safes built in. All scores need to be reviewed whether the umpire calls for it or not, the game can continue and if there’s a need for it to stop to correct an error then so be it, it’s the same in soccer if a penalty needs to be reviewed etc.
Nothing will be perfect, it’s about minimising the errors, the current process is wide open to human error.
I’ve operated finish line technology at horse races and it will make obvious 90% of results but there’s always some where it’s still not quite clear….nothing it perfect
Nothing will be perfect, it’s about minimising the errors, the current process is wide open to human error.
I’ve operated finish line technology at horse races and it will make obvious 90% of results but there’s always some where it’s still not quite clear….nothing it perfect
As a blues supporter can feel with the Crom supporter that a small incident cost them a shot in September.
Given the time left in the game, and the score situation he shouldv'e called the review. this the AFL and the umpires are so keen to get the ball back into play asap, that the make the calls too quick.
The ARC should be able to call an audiable every time there is an iffy goal/point i.e. Jezza Cameron, Keays, or if a defender marks the ball on the line and plays on straight away, and it is then shown to have possibly crossed the line.. the central umpire then calls for review at next stop of play, and then ball goes back and clock re-set if required.
The ARC could tell them thru the ear piece and then the ump makes soft signal i.e X over the head and calls "review next stoppage" so that if the ball is marked etc they cant play on..
Given the time left in the game, and the score situation he shouldv'e called the review. this the AFL and the umpires are so keen to get the ball back into play asap, that the make the calls too quick.
The ARC should be able to call an audiable every time there is an iffy goal/point i.e. Jezza Cameron, Keays, or if a defender marks the ball on the line and plays on straight away, and it is then shown to have possibly crossed the line.. the central umpire then calls for review at next stop of play, and then ball goes back and clock re-set if required.
The ARC could tell them thru the ear piece and then the ump makes soft signal i.e X over the head and calls "review next stoppage" so that if the ball is marked etc they cant play on..
- Jul 5, 2012
- 26,032
- 42,978
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
I'm getting tired of repeating myself. There are numerous official videos showing it certainly looks like a goal. I agree it certainly looks like a goal.
There are zero official videos definitively showing the umpire was wrong. Look up "definitive" if you are in any doubt as to its meaning.
In every video, the goal post is in the way, or the image is too blurred when freeze framed.
And then, fan videos are not official videos, and even then, of the two most widely circulated (both from a far better angle than any official footage, ie almost as good as the goal umpire's excellent angle) - in one, the ball disappears from frame at the crucial moment, and in the other one, the ball appears to indeed hit the post, but it is too blurred to say with complete confidence. So the umpire's call stands.
As a follower of a club that copped a two year trade ban from the AFL for no reason whatsoever, I don't care what the AFL says. They threw the umpire under a bus for reasons known only to themselves.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 23,222
- 27,219
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
I tend to think that once people think this through properly they eventually realise why the rule is the way it is. For a start, pretty much every other similar ball sport either has you scoring the maximum or scoring nothing.
- Oct 6, 2012
- 13,724
- 27,778
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
#4 is so simple and easy.
And guaranteed most games there wouldn’t be a need to use this part of the system at all.
It might happen 2-3 times a round where play is reset.
Doesn’t rugby union use this system?
76woodenspooners
Brownlow Medallist
Gil said that the umpire both heard and saw a deflection.
I know that many would have us believe that the goal umpire was simply playing his part in some secret AFL conspiracy designed to persecute the Crows / support the Swans, or maybe even in the service of Port Adelaide aligned bikies in order to repay drug debts. I don’t think so.
I reckon that there’s an extremely high probability that in the umpire’s own mind he believed that ball hit the post. He was clearly wrong, but something must have made him think that?
Mills whacking (or hitting or whatever) the post is one plausible explanation, are there others?
76woodenspooners
Brownlow Medallist
Wait, what? Surely you’re not talking about 2022? Blues lost that fair and square.
If anything the Blues have benefited (2013), although admittedly that was more than a “small incident”.
The Swans were the ones keen to get the ball back into play while Crows players were preoccupied on the other side of the ground dancing the Macarena with the crowd.
The attacking team would still be disadvantaged because of winding down of the game clock, and there is no provision in our game to reload the game clock.
The problem is, judging by his reaction, he was 100% in his call, he signals straight away and doesn't appear to have any doubt.
It would be interesting to hear why he was so certain, because clearly he was wrong.
I'm getting tired of calling out bs.
30 seconds of googling and I came across this:
AFL boss Gillon McLachlan says last night's decision to call a Ben Keays shot at goal a behind was a mistake, and that the call would have been overturned had it been reviewed.
McLachlan fronted a press conference on Sunday morning to say the mistake was due to "human error", and that had the call been sent to the video review system, the technology would have picked up that it was actually a goal.
The system ****ed up. It was a goal that was incorrectly called a point and if it'd been reviewed then Sydney in all likelihood lose the game.
I don't even like Adelaide, in fact I can't stand the pricks. But I'll call out a shit decision when I see one. Just be happy the dominoes fell your way again and get your head out of the sand. It was a clear error that benefited your team. End of story.
