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

[Bloods86]

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

It could be any 2 clubs and you'd be able to go back and find where they've benefited from decisions in/for big games.

 

[DavyRed]

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.

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.

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

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

Any hypothetical is a bad idea, regardless of who stands to profit from it.
Find a better way to finish it while everyone is still on the ground.

All this wailing and moaning and "Gimme tha pointz" from of the nuff-parade on talkback radio is ridiculous.

 

[Hobbes]

Any hypothetical is a bad idea, regardless of who stands to profit from it.
Find a better way to finish it while everyone is still on the ground.

All this wailing and moaning and "Gimme tha pointz" from of the nuff-parade on talkback radio is ridiculous.

Frankly, the one thing that's important is to GET IT RIGHT.

I don't care if the match is decided the following Thursday, as long as it's decided correctly.

Goal umpire errors on the field should NEVER happen. NEVER. If they're not 100% they review it. If they think they're 100% and they're wrong, they're out of a job, and the score should still be fixed.

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

Frankly, the one thing that's important is to GET IT RIGHT.

I don't care if the match is decided the following Thursday, as long as it's decided correctly.

Goal umpire errors on the field should NEVER happen. NEVER. If they're not 100% they review it. If they think they're 100% and they're wrong, they're out of a job, and the score should still be fixed.

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.

 

[AJB84]

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.

Where’s the option for giving the points to Adelaide because Sydney only had a big lead lead due to a flurry of umpiring errors in their favour throughout the First Half?

 

[AJB84]

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.

Been saying this for years People act like that is insane Wheatly acted like it's a nuclear option it's not is just removes ambiguity.

Port Adelaide lose by 3 points after a wrong Goal Review against the Crows in the dying stages

Yup...when i wad 9 someone stole my bike...Ive never seen it since....I moved on. Time to move on me thinks

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Bloods86]

Where’s the option for giving the points to Adelaide because Sydney only had a big lead lead due to a flurry of umpiring errors in their favour throughout the First Half?

Where's the option for Crows fans melting down over 1 decision, to consider other questionable decisions that led to goals for the Crows or Sydney not to have a shot, in the 2nd half?

I recognise that there were a few calls in the first half where I thought we were lucky (none directly led to goals that I recall though). But given we've been hammered by the umps in other games, you take it when it goes your way. Often when one team is dominating (why we had the big lead) you find the other team gets a bit more desperate and clumsy as well. That certainly happened to us for some frees late on.

 

[Bloods86]

Goal umpire errors on the field should NEVER happen. NEVER. If they're not 100% they review it. If they think they're 100% and they're wrong, they're out of a job, and the score should still be fixed.

Nah, poor call. If we start sacking umpires because of mistakes, especially if there's no trail of regular errors, and this would mean treating field umpires the same as well, then the game falls over because who in their right mind would take that job?

 

[AJB84]

Where's the option for Crows fans melting down over 1 decision, to consider other questionable decisions that led to goals for the Crows or Sydney not to have a shot, in the 2nd half?

I recognise that there were a few calls in the first half where I thought we were lucky (none directly led to goals that I recall though). But given we've been hammered by the umps in other games, you take it when it goes your way. Often when one team is dominating you find the other team gets a bit more desperate and clumsy as well. That certainly happened to us for some frees late on.

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.

 

[Bloods86]

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.

We do understand the difference, but we can't stop people imagining ways to dismiss anything which doesn't suit.

Crows fans, and others, are ONLY considering the impact of a goal umpiring decision, and not others, before they make definitive proclamations about the game result being unfair or that it should be overturned based on 1 wrong decision only.

 

[radiojake]

Crows fans, and others, are ONLY considering the impact of a goal umpiring decision, and not others, before they make definitive proclamations about the game result being unfair or that it should be overturned based on 1 wrong decision only.

Because that's the ONLY umpiring decision where a system has been put into place to ensure that what happened on the weekend doesn't happen

Bad decisions during the game that are down to interpretation of the umpire is nothing like what happened

Trying to conflate them is disingenuous

 

[Bloods86]

Because that's the ONLY umpiring decision where a system has been put into place to ensure that what happened on the weekend doesn't happen

Bad decisions during the game that are down to interpretation of the umpire is nothing like what happened

Trying to conflate them is disingenuous

It was literally down to the interpretation of the umpire(s). Where they were so confident they didn't call for a review, or be forced into a review. Obviously the system hasn't been put in place to ensure it can never happen, because it happened! I expect, as there should be, that there'll be further refinements to make it even less likely in future.

In any case, I'm responding to the result being called unfair as if that's proven fact or arguments that it should be overturned. All umpiring decisions come into an evaluation of whether a result was fair or unfair, not just those where there is a review process that may or may not be used.

 

[AJB84]

We do understand the difference, but we can't stop people imagining ways to dismiss anything which doesn't suit.

Crows fans, and others, are ONLY considering the impact of a goal umpiring decision, and not others, before they make definitive proclamations about the game result being unfair or that it should be overturned based on 1 wrong decision only.

You sat there and complained about the umpiring in the last quarter ignoring the previous 3.

Only considering the impact of the only decision that could have been reviewed in the game is perfectly logical. Flying off the handle and screaming that the field umpires were biased in the last quarter ignoring the rest of the game is sad. You are welcome to find any other scores that could have been reviewed in the game and present them but there were no others.

That just one decision has likely cost Adelaide Finals and the experience that would provide to a very young side. It has cost revenue from those finals for players, Sponsors and the club. It has cost multiple other teams their chance at finals as well every team from 13th up would have had a chance to make it now there is only 1 other team who can make it.

To flippantly dismiss it simply because it's your team is to be expected from Sydney Supporters.

 

[The Tilt]

Only considering the impact of the only decision that could have been reviewed in the game is perfectly logical.

Yeah, I think you're missing the point. Focusing on the goal umpiring error that should have been reviewed in game is fine. Claiming that therefore the AFL should intervene and overturn the result of the match is borderline insane. Check the poll results at the top of the page: 40% of respondents think the result should be overturned. I'm assuming a healthy majority of Crows fans that have responded have selected this option. Let that sink in.

 

[Bloods86]

You sat there and complained about the umpiring in the last quarter ignoring the previous 3.

Only considering the impact of the only decision that could have been reviewed in the game is perfectly logical. Flying off the handle and screaming that the field umpires were biased in the last quarter ignoring the rest of the game is sad. You are welcome to find any other scores that could have been reviewed in the game and present them but there were no others.

That just one decision has likely cost Adelaide Finals and the experience that would provide to a very young side. It has cost revenue from those finals for players, Sponsors and the club. It has cost multiple other teams their chance at finals as well every team from 13th up would have had a chance to make it now there is only 1 other team who can make it.

To flippantly dismiss it simply because it's your team is to be expected from Sydney Supporters.

Your comment to which I initially replied to was you bringing up the earlier umpiring as impacting the result, then you claim no-one was complaining about earlier umpiring. Makes sense...

At no point have I flown off the handle or anything approaching that, so I can only assume you mean others.

You're still selectively considering only the 1 reviewable decision (still open to umpire interpretation), as to whether the result was definitively fair/unfair, for reasons you've not justified. Despite claims that it's just so obvious. You do you though.

 

[AJB84]

Your comment to which I initially replied to was you bringing up the earlier umpiring as impacting the result, then you claim no-one was complaining about earlier umpiring. Makes sense...

At no point have I flown off the handle or anything approaching that, so I can only assume you mean others.

You're still selectively considering only the 1 reviewable decision (still open to umpire interpretation), as to whether the result was definitively fair/unfair, for reasons you've not justified. Despite claims that it's just so obvious. You do you though.

That comment was in response to this:

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.

 

[AJB84]

Yeah, I think you're missing the point. Focusing on the goal umpiring error that should have been reviewed in game is fine. Claiming that therefore the AFL should intervene and overturn the result of the match is borderline insane. Check the poll results at the top of the page: 40% of respondents think the result should be overturned. I'm assuming a healthy majority of Crows fans that have responded have selected this option. Let that sink in.

I voted they should take it to court but not to overturn the decision because the system is so stuff and the AFL have done nothing so far and continue to do nothing. Taking it to court and seeking damages might be the only thing that gets their head out for the sand and actually fix the system.

Start with all hits the post decisions are automatically reviewed for the rest of the season (Finals) to avoid a repeat.

 

[Bloods86]

That comment was in response to this:

Ok. Not seeing any flying off the handle here.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for Swans fans to respond with effectively "it's not that simple" when people are saying the result was definitely unfair and that it should be overturned (I haven't looked back to see exactly what you've said about it in every post, so maybe that's just others).

Then when there's a lot of dumb hyperbole about us being the AFLs love-child (laughable) or that we don't understand because we're ignorant Swans fans, I can see why some would resort to "suck it up". Though as much as I dislike the Crows, I get the situation absolutely sucks and I've tried to focus on the more over the top stuff I'm hearing.

 

[Bloods86]

I voted they should take it to court but not to overturn the decision because the system is so stuff and the AFL have done nothing so far and continue to do nothing. Taking it to court and seeking damages might be the only thing that gets their head out for the sand and actually fix the system.

Start with all hits the post decisions are automatically reviewed for the rest of the season (Finals) to avoid a repeat.

I think court is a terrible idea for everyone. Trust us, you're not a big Vic club, you don't want to piss off AFL House.

But automatic reviews on posters, whether at the time or while play resumes (though you'd have to figure out protocols for resetting the clock), is probably the way forward.

 

[sherb]

I voted they should take it to court but not to overturn the decision because the system is so stuff and the AFL have done nothing so far and continue to do nothing. Taking it to court and seeking damages might be the only thing that gets their head out for the sand and actually fix the system.

Start with all hits the post decisions are automatically reviewed for the rest of the season (Finals) to avoid a repeat.

Even the obvious ones?

 

[Bloods86]

Even the obvious ones?

I think you have to initially. Without consistently applied, 100% accurate technology that discounts other factors (e.g. players hitting the post, Dane Rampe climbing it). You could implement a consensus check where for a poster, the goal and any field umps nearby have to agree it hit the post quickly or it gets auto reviewed (doesn't necessarily get the recent blunder reviewed though).

 

[sherb]

I think you have to initially. Without consistently applied, 100% accurate technology that discounts other factors (e.g. players hitting the post, Dane Rampe climbing it). You could implement a consensus check where for a poster, the goal and any field umps nearby have to agree it hit the post quickly or it gets auto reviewed (doesn't necessarily get the recent blunder reviewed though).

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........

 

[AJB84]

Even the obvious ones?

Yes, the goal umpire thought the one on the weekend was obvious which was clearly incorrect. Don't leave it to interpretation we are talking about a few seconds on a handful of scores a game.

It is also worth noting that with the kick-in changes more clubs are using more time to kick and quick kick-ins are less common.

 

[sherb]

Yes, the goal umpire thought the one on the weekend was obvious which was clearly incorrect. Don't leave it to interpretation we are talking about a few seconds on a handful of scores a game.

It is also worth noting that with the kick-in changes more clubs are using more time to kick and quick kick-ins are less common.

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?