Is human error now unacceptable in umpiring our sport?

[PerthBoy86]

Nothing wrong with the idea of reviews, just improve the tech. Cameras etc also I still like the idea of say, laser sensors etc that can say, immediately detect if the ball was touched, hit the post etc. Its 2024, Im sure it can be implemented. That should mostly remove human error. Umps will cop it review or no, they've always done so, they should just reserve reviews for ones they really aren't sure about.

 

[Osho]

There is no error, just the unfolding of what is. Error is just another illusion of the self. The self is so self-important it makes up a whole system around itself. In this system error is the binary opposite of good. It needs to keep justifying itself by separating from what actually is. It's an Open Secret to steal a phrase.

 

[kreuze_missile]

The umpires need to be given a whistle limit so they stop using the things so much.

All the reviews need to go. Momentum killers & implemented in the most amateur way possible.

Every game should be umpired like it’s the last 5 minutes of a close final with a massive bias towards staying the hell out of the way.

Fans don’t care about missed frees newly as much as over umpiring.

If the mandate was to consistently under-umpire games I think everyone would be much happier, and the game would be better off for it.

 

[El Doederino]

The AFL’s pursuit of officiating perfection is causing all these issues.

(All sports are pursuing this actually)

It’s unattainable but the expectation they are creating is it exists

I prefer things the way they were

I remember an old cricket game on the C64 or Nintendo (can’t remember which) that had in its instructions a clear statement that built into the program was that some umpiring decisions would be wrong - because that’s sport

I love the history of umpiring stuff ups. The hand of god etc are part of folklore

 

[doppleganger]

Human error is unacceptable in umpiring,

IF there is technology available to stop human error occurring, which there is. Look at all other sports - soccer, basketball, tennis, american football, rugby etc all using technology that is now available, compared to 50 years ago where they didn't have access to the technology

You cant be serious if you think technology has really done anything to improve decision making in soccer, basketball or american football.

It has helped in a sport like tennis, when there is no subjectivity in the decision, was the ball in or out.

Anytime a decision involves any form of interpretation - a shout for handball in the box, whether a player dove, was it in the back, did a player drop the knees to get
high contact, was it a charge or a block, was their a hold - subjectivity comes into it.

Technology hasnt really helped those sports either, it is why there is so much moaning about VAR in soccer.

People first need to actually accept that any decision that requires interpretation will never have 100% agreeance. As a sports fan it always seems that our individual interpretation is the one that benefits our respective team.

More umpires has never been the answer,
as all that means is more different interpretations on the field.

Our scoring system is the problem...why do we even care if it grazed the post or a finger flicked back as it went through the goal? It fecking went through the goal!!

If the defensive team couldnt stop it going through it is a goal. Basketball / soccer dont care if the ball hit the post or ring...just that it goes through. And similar re getting a touch / deflection.

So much wasted time reviewing because our scoring system itself asks for it.

The tech has just shown that the system itself is part of the problem.

 

[TheBlue]

The AFL have made the game harder to umpire by some of the recent rule changes. The previous hands in the back rule was much clearer. And the insufficient intent change is much more open to interpretation.

Making the rules less open to interpretation (other than holding the ball) would be the best place to start.

Yeah agree - if there is a 'zone' of discretion for so many decisions then inevitably umpires will adjudicate a particular rule differently and that's what annoys so many spectators + players. How many times do we see two good tackles not awarded HTB only for a similar tackle to result in HTB a few moments later? It's a really bad look for the game because it makes understanding the rules so difficult and leads to so much inconsistency.

The push in the back rule is also a good example too and goes to my previous point - makes the umpire's job needlessly more difficult by requiring the umpire to also be watching the stance and position of the offending player as well as whether they used their hands or arms to push and how forceful the push was. I get why the AFL introduced the rule but not sure it's worth it?

 

[juss]

Have we now gotten to a point in our great game that umpires are too frequently and unfairly subject to copious amounts of scrutiny and footage replay of their every decision??

We are now seeing silly amounts of reviews from terrified goal umpires of an error, and reviews for out of bounds calls discussed.

Have we gone too far in our pursuit of becoming perfectionists with decision making?? Is it fair on umpires the scrutiny and fear they have in making a call??

Discuss your thoughts

There's incorrect calls and non-calls every game but rightly we can't review everything in real-time.

I think the concept of score reviews to ensure that scores are legitimate is good in theory, it's just that like a lot of things the way the AFL puts it in practice and executes it in practice isn't great in its delivery.

 

[caloschwaby]

Our scoring system is the problem...why do we even care if it grazed the post or a finger flicked back as it went through the goal? It fecking went through the goal!!

Because its been that way since 1858, literally the third ever rule ever written in the original codification of Aussie rules by Wills and the Melbourne Football Club itself.



Obviously just because a rule has been there forever doesn't mean it needs to stay (I mean look at some of these other rules), but I think given those others were altered/removed so early and this one has remained completely unchanged for over 150 years.

Removing it just so it may be it easier for umpires to adjudicate the very few hit-the-post score decisions (the vast majority being so clear-cut) would be such an overkill response for what literally is the oldest unchanged rule remaining if you count the 2nd as having changed due to no kicking-off from the centre of the goals.

I agree with you talking about interpretation though, but for 99.9% of hit-the-post decisions all it would require is camera placement on either side of the goal + ball tracking tech to see any spatial deviation/change in forces. The AFL has the money + technology available to them to implement this tomorrow. No need to cut a rule that would also rule out one of the things that makes AFL unique scoring-wise from other ball sports - as well as many classic hit-the-post moments that have come and are to come in future.

As an example, moments like this wouldn't have been possible (and I'm sure as a fellow Pies supporter that would be a dreadful thing)

 

[geelong_crazy26]

There's incorrect calls and non-calls every game but rightly we can't review everything in real-time.

I think the concept of score reviews to ensure that scores are legitimate is good in theory, it's just that like a lot of things the way the AFL puts it in practice and executes it in practice isn't great in its delivery.

i think the issue cannot be fairly resolved unless the TV coverage agrees to stop obsessing over the footage scrutinising it. Otherwise there is essentially a public review call going on anyway and if its wrong the judgement of the umpire they get criticised and abused for it publically on tv and radio.

Is that fair?? i don't think so... would channel seven agree?? they would probably refuse. So how can we blame the umpires for them doing the same and avoiding public scrutiny?