Technology Review

[Cobbler]

Ok.
I’m about to go full sook levels, but should teams be equipped with a player or captain led review? Like a VAR.

It happens too often at AFL level where a call or no call literally decide the outcome of a match.

If teams had ONE review and if successful they maintain it for the final 2-5 mins of a game, would the people be happy??

All this technology. It’s a massive industry. Umpires will make mistakes but it wasn’t even a slight touch. The ball literally smashed him in the upper back and the subsequent mouthing g off was directly because of the horrendous no call.

Ignoring it is just hoping it doesn’t happen in an actual big game.

Thoughts?

Personally, I’d hate the idea but it’s just a part of sport now and the AFL only use it for goals. The direct lead up to a goal is also equally important.

I’d be for teams being allowed ONE ‘challenge’ or ‘review’. Plus one in the last 5 mins should you be successful.

 

[Yeti]

No.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

There should be something for when two umpires make two different calls on the same play. One umpire definitely called touched which means there is something for us to be annoyed about.

It should have been them conferring with one another - especially when touched is the fist call. Different if a holding the ball turns in to a push in the back and is overturned. You can’t overturn a touched call to a mark because it was touched and therefore not a mark

 

[blue shark]

Ok.
I’m about to go full sook levels, but should teams be equipped with a player or captain led review? Like a VAR.

It happens too often at AFL level where a call or no call literally decide the outcome of a match.

If teams had ONE review and if successful they maintain it for the final 2-5 mins of a game, would the people be happy??

All this technology. It’s a massive industry. Umpires will make mistakes but it wasn’t even a slight touch. The ball literally smashed him in the upper back and the subsequent mouthing g off was directly because of the horrendous no call.

Ignoring it is just hoping it doesn’t happen in an actual big game.

Thoughts?

Personally, I’d hate the idea but it’s just a part of sport now and the AFL only use it for goals. The direct lead up to a goal is also equally important.

I’d be for teams being allowed ONE ‘challenge’ or ‘review’. Plus one in the last 5 mins should you be successful.

The technology is used on certain teams to fix the result.
It’s either all or nothing, it’s BS.

 

[Cobbler]

Did someone say touched? I read that a few times but can’t seem to see or hear it.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

One ump definitely called touched but was overruled

 

[CapitalA]

 

[Bradesmaen]

Game would still be going if we allowed this. Already bad enough the over correct on the score reviews has added about 10mins to the game.

 

[Randomizor]

Eh find a sponsor willing to pay enough and the AFL will introduce anything

 

[Cobbler]

Game would still be going if we allowed this. Already bad enough the over correct on the score reviews has added about 10mins to the game.

That’s why you limit it to ONE per game with additional ONE in last 2-5 mins if successful.

Would be 4 reviews max. No more than 5 mins extra time.

Literally eradicates these type of games that are decided by an umpire making the wrong decision.

I won’t be a fan BUT bigger games will have these moments and it seems silly that we have no system in place other than goal reviews.

 

[Nodgey]

Said it before and I’ll say it again. 4 different umpires means 4 different interpretations. We’ll never get consistency in umpiring.

And with Freo being an afterthought in this competition, we invariably get the work experience umpires which makes it worse.

 

[Raz]

no evidence supplied that any umpire called TOUCHED or otherwise.
Been replayed by many and listened to on HIGH DEF audio and they still cant find any umpire call touched.
But it reported on FACEBOOK so it must be true now


We certainly dont want Video replay checks of on field umpire decisions, imagine how quickly that will grow from one or two per game to every decision

A decision made at half time could easily affect a game that is close at full time. It would be too hard to decide what is a critical call and what wasnt.

Just live with the results, play better next time. IF the players make less mistakes than the umpires then we can think the umpires caused the losses. but thathas not happened ever in ant game i watch, always the players of all teams make more mistakes. They are human. humans make mistakes.

 

[blue shark]

Said it before and I’ll say it again. 4 different umpires means 4 different interpretations. We’ll never get consistency in umpiring.

And with Freo being an afterthought in this competition, we invariably get the work experience umpires which makes it worse.

You only need 3, it’s only going to get worse with 20 teams.

 

[Raz]

You only need 3, it’s only going to get worse with 20 teams.

yes same as overal lskill level of players will drop with more teams for a period of time.

They need to expose more umpires to big matches and wear they will make mistakes same as the clubs have to live with buidling squads not just best 22s.

With AFLW growing the better umpires will also need to cover there too.

So overall we will see more mistakes as the Umpires are only HUMAN

 

[Wray27]

NRL has a 1 Captains call. Captain reviews and if correct they keep the review if incorrect they don’t have another.

 

[Stinky Lomax]

Like cricket it will be used incorrectly for teams to waste time or slow momentum & allow teams to set up defensively at vital times.
20% of contested marks are probably touched by someone else at the contest & we don’t want every one of these reviewed. Although probably correct I think the consensus is if it goes through someone else’s fingers without any major control then pay the mark to the player who does control it.

 

[Wray27]

Like cricket it will be used incorrectly for teams to waste time or slow momentum & allow teams to set up defensively at vital times.
20% of contested marks are probably touched by someone else at the contest & we don’t want every one of these reviewed. Although probably correct I think the consensus is if it goes through someone else’s fingers without any major control then pay the mark to the player who does control it.

I think they could sort that out.

 

[King Huskii]

CorrUMPtion

 

[Cobbler]

Like cricket it will be used incorrectly for teams to waste time or slow momentum & allow teams to set up defensively at vital times.
20% of contested marks are probably touched by someone else at the contest & we don’t want every one of these reviewed. Although probably correct I think the consensus is if it goes through someone else’s fingers without any major control then pay the mark to the player who does control it.

I think you could put things in place to avoid captains making the call for the sake of making the call.

Example - If you get the decision wrong it instantly becomes the opposition ball from the center with a 6-6-6 formation.

In other words captains only use it for things they’re certain on as the penalty for getting it wrong is extreme and doesn’t allow for tactical usage.

Plus they only get ONE challenge in last 5 mins, not throughout the whole game.

Its purpose is to eradicate the games decided by a last minute wrong call. There’s simply too many at AFL level.

If you can foresee it within 5 years then why not as early as next year?

It’s foreseeable. There will be another umpire blunder in the next few weeks.

 

[Stinky Lomax]

I think you could put things in place to avoid captains making the call for the sake of making the call.

Example - If you get the decision wrong it instantly becomes the opposition ball from the center with a 6-6-6 formation.

In other words captains only use it for things they’re certain on as the penalty for getting it wrong is extreme and doesn’t allow for tactical usage.

Plus they only get ONE challenge in last 5 mins, not throughout the whole game.

Its purpose is to eradicate the games decided by a last minute wrong call. There’s simply too many at AFL level.

If you can foresee it within 5 years then why not as early as next year?

It’s foreseeable. There will be another umpire blunder in the next few weeks.

But that’s the game & it sucks being on the backend of this one, but there were far more errors by the players that cost us the game than there were by the umpires.

In the 25 seconds leading up to the touched ball mark, Treacy ducked his head & dropped a sitter & Jackson hit the ball into space from stoppage giving the ball to Carlton on a platter. There were others & decision making errors earlier.

Never put it in the umpires hands, that’s the lesson from this.

 

[Cobbler]

But that’s the game & it sucks being on the backend of this one, but there were far more errors by the players that cost us the game than there were by the umpires.

In the 25 seconds leading up to the touched ball mark, Treacy ducked his head & dropped a sitter & Jackson hit the ball into space from stoppage giving the ball to Carlton on a platter. There were others & decision making errors earlier.

Never put it in the umpires hands, that’s the lesson from this.

Well there’s that aspect. The AFL has a job to do here.

A captains call could be seen as calling out umpire errors and that’s not a great look.

An alternative would be to not show contentious decisions half a dozen times. That endless showing of 50-50 calls is so negative towards the umpires that they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

 

[barreness]

Umpires are mediocre people, you'll never fix that, it's like cops; four of them is worse. Tech won't save us and never has

 

[Midnite65]

Everyone is the AFL is concerned that if there is a captains call, etc. it will take too long to decide a game. Maybe they should just have a rule that in the last 4-5 minutes of a game if there is a contentious issue like the claimed touch ball that they can review if it is a break in play like a mark, etc. Also could you imagine if it was a final or GF would they would award a second free for dissent. I don't think so. Also it is too big a penalty to give a team two goals in a row at any time so it should just be a free in the middle before the bounce, the rule about awarding it where the incident occurred or the middle whichever is close shouldn't apply to the dissent rule.

 

[pK75]

Everyone is the AFL is concerned that if there is a captains call, etc. it will take too long to decide a game. Maybe they should just have a rule that in the last 4-5 minutes of a game if there is a contentious issue like the claimed touch ball that they can review if it is a break in play like a mark, etc. Also could you imagine if it was a final or GF would they would award a second free for dissent. I don't think so. Also it is too big a penalty to give a team two goals in a row at any time so it should just be a free in the middle before the bounce, the rule about awarding it where the incident occurred or the middle whichever is close shouldn't apply to the dissent rule.

That’s my issue with the whole thing, if the dissent call was for abuse before the Carlton player had had his shot after the mark, shouldn’t it have been a 50m penalty and taken him to the goal line rather than a second shot on goal?

 

[FreoGirl]

It would slow down the game too much, but umpiring needs to be investigated. The AFL has gone too far in protecting umpires in a sport that is heavily bet on and too easily manipulated.