Score review replays for posters

[kp junior]

We saw it again today in the Adelaide Freo game, when the umpires go upstairs to check a poster, they insist on using frame by frame super slomo replays. The only way a replay can show a poster is by seeing the deflection, which is almost impossible to see on frame by frame. Just replay it in real time and the deflection is obvious.

 

[Sarang]

Agreed. Watching it live you could instantly tell it hit the post because the ball changed path. But then judging solely from the slow-mo replay it was hard to tell if it did or not

 

[brmi]

It's simple. If the ball hits the post but still goes thru the big sticks, it's a goal. If it hits the post and goes thru for a point, it's a point. If the ball hits the post and comes back into play, it's also a point.

Confusion, goal umpiring mistakes and goal review all a non issue any more.

 

[pjcrows]

The amount of time it took today was moronic.

 

[Pusswah]

Yup. I think this every goddamn time.

 

[Wooljay]

It's simple. If the ball hits the post but still goes thru the big sticks, it's a goal. If it hits the post and goes thru for a point, it's a point. If the ball hits the post and comes back into play, it's also a point.

Confusion, goal umpiring mistakes and goal review all a non issue any more.

That's all well and good until people start driving it into the inside of the goal posts trying for a rebound into goal instead of using some semblance of skill to kick it through cleanly.

 

[BigLefty]

The amount of time it took today was moronic.

this is the main issue. IMO, as soon as there's a hint of a video review. call for it. then have your ridiculous discussion about what happened while you're waiting for it.

even better. the flog in the review box should be onto any potential review straight away just in case it's called for.

then, let the guy whose job it is to adjudicate do his job.

this one today was a total farce. it was a set shot, the goal umpire thought it was a goal, he was standing directly underneath the ball as it passed the post. then the boundary umpire says he "heard it hit the post". then the muppet central umpire decides to go with the boundary umpire if it's inconclusive.

to me, common sense would suggest that if it's inconclusive you go with the decision of the guy standing on the post. not a guy 30m away that only "heard it" but couldnt actually "see it"......

this one took too long, the logic was terrible, and the footage still didnt really determine it anyway.

in the end it probably didnt matter, it ended up a 7 point play for Adelaide. but this was a terrible sequence of events.

 

[THE EQUALIZER]

I can't believe how easy it is to talk the goal umpire out of his/her original decision.

This is how it should work.

Goal umpire gives his decision and sticks to it.

If a field or boundary umpire think differently and there is doubt over the goal umpire's decision then we go to the video review to overrule the original decision.

Seeing a goal umpire having his/her decision changed before the review just belittles them because of their lack of conviction.

Finally, we saw in the Hawthorn-Sydney game and again in the Adelaide-Fremantle game that when a goal has been given, then reviewed with behinds being paid, the goal umpires become so flustered that they signal behinds without annulling the goal they originally paid and have to be told by the field umpire to annul the goal by crossing the flags.

Too often the goal umpires have been made to look stupid with too much time being wasted in the process. Stick to your guns, and if you got it wrong after a review, then so be it as long as we get the right result and eliminate the howler.

 

[BigLefty]

I can't believe how easy it is to talk the goal umpire out of his/her original decision.

This is how it should work.

Goal umpire gives his decision and sticks to it.

If a field or boundary umpire think differently and there is doubt over the goal umpire's decision then we go to the video review to overrule the original decision.

Seeing a goal umpire having his/her decision changed before the review just belittles them because of their lack of conviction.

Finally, we saw in the Hawthorn-Sydney game and again in the Adelaide-Fremantle game that when a goal has been given, then reviewed with behinds being paid, the goal umpires become so flustered that they signal behinds without annulling the goal they originally paid and have to be told by the field umpire to annul the goal by crossing the flags.

Too often the goal umpires have been made to look stupid with too much time being wasted in the process. Stick to your guns, and if you got it wrong after a review, then so be it as long as we get the right result and eliminate the howler.

agree. and since when did Boundary Umpires become the gods of footy? i always thought they were the dudes that could run well and.......and....nup thats it.

 

[smoovy]

I disagree it was so obvious as people were saying. I was right behind the shot at the game and the ball definitely moved, but in my view it moved after (all be it very marginally) after it went past the post. I just looked at the replay (in full speed as the OP suggested which I agree is the best way) and I believe it conforms what I saw from behind the goals.

I have no idea why they took the boundary umpires view when the goal umpire was in the best spot. I can only assume that they arrived at that view in the end because they took the lesser score because of the doubt.

 

[Bone71]

I have no problem with a boundary umpire piping up and saying he saw or heard something different but surely once a goal umpire has given his decision then surely that decision stands unless conclusive vision says different? So tired of the AFL making simple processes difficult by applying little logic in how they instruct umpires and officials to make their decisions.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Watching at home both my Crows supporting wife and I thought it hit the post on first view.

The only rule change as I see it needs to be to do it like cricket, if it's inconclusive, go back to the goal umpire's decision. None of this lower score rubbish. If it's inconclusive and the goal umpire thinks goal, it should be a goal.

 

[Geoffa32]

The amount of time it took today was moronic.

Tbis is the annoying thing. Saw the deviation on the screen and they were still discussing whether or not to go upstairs..

 

[PrideOf]

agree. and since when did Boundary Umpires become the gods of footy? i always thought they were the dudes that could run well and.......and....nup thats it.

We now have a situation where the guy standing right under the ball with a perfect view is being overruled by a marathon runner 20 metres away who reckons he might have heard something.

Scrap it, or do it properly.

 

[Starburns_]

There's no way that a boundary umpire should ever have the definitive say in that situation. Regardless of what the boundary "heard", the goal umpire was in position to see and hear, if neither happened in his opinion, then the boundary should just be told to STFU.

That said, I thought it was a poster and the correct decision was arrived at, just an absolute mess how they got there though.

 

[ilovethelegs]

If they are going to bother going upstairs, why not let the video review umpire also decide whose decision to go with. If its a dispute over whether it hit the goal post, that should always be the goal umpire as he will always have the best view. When the behind post is in question, it probably should be the boundary umpire, especially if he is right on the post. But boundary umpires overruling a goal umpire who is in perfect position is ridiculous.

I'd like to see the review umpire actually consider who is in best position and announce "goal umpires call" or "boundary umpires call", eliminating the doubt over who to go with. Leaving that to the field umpire who probably doesn't know who really was in the best position doesnt and is never going to work.

The decision today should have been "goal umpires call as he is clearly in the best position".

 

[PrideOf]

agree. and since when did Boundary Umpires become the gods of footy? i always thought they were the dudes that could run well and.......and....nup thats it.

We now have a situation where the guy standing right under the ball with a perfect view is being overruled by a marathon runner 20 metres away who reckons he might have heard something.

Scrap it, or do it properly.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

How many times did the field umpire have to ask the goal and boundary umpire though, I mean HURRY UP, must have asked them about 5 times each before he got an answer he was happy with.

 

[PrideOf]

And then, surely if the video is inconclusive, you revert to the umpire's original call?

Or would that make too much sense?

 

[Fireballs]

this one took too long, the logic was terrible, and the footage still didnt really determine it anyway.

You could tell on the replay that it clearly deflected, or, AAMI had a 150km/h wind gust. Which one was more likely?

 

[BigLefty]

You could tell on the replay that it clearly deflected, or, AAMI had a 150km/h wind gust. Which one was more likely?

i couldnt. actually i thought it looked as if the ball continued tracking left after it had passed the post and then veered right.

i guess it depends which one eye your looking through.

the goal umpire was looking through both and had the best position. he was certain it was a goal.

 

[Fireballs]

i couldnt. actually i thought it looked as if the ball continued tracking left after it had passed the post and then veered right.

i guess it depends which one eye your looking through.

the goal umpire was looking through both and had the best position. he was certain it was a goal.

If you watch the replay in real time it is clear.

 

[Starburns_]

You could tell on the replay that it clearly deflected, or, AAMI had a 150km/h wind gust. Which one was more likely?

With the way that Dangerfield kicked it (he didn't kick through the ball properly), it was always going to fade right.

 

[BigLefty]

If you watch the replay in real time it is clear.

na, it's not.

carry on.

 

[SA Blue]

I was at the game, behind the goals and it clearly hit the post. You could also hear it.

Everyone around us agreed.