- Apr 12, 2012
- 48,097
- 45,303
- AFL Club
- GWS
We complain the game is over officiated and it is something they get wrong often and seems to slow things down as well. Thoughts?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Time to kill the Touched rule?
- Thread starter Colonial
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Nov 6, 2011
- 3,424
- 9,134
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Nah. Get rid of the whole score review system until they develop one that they can use competently. There were fewer errors pre 2012 when it didn’t even exist.
Nah, then you'll have players kicking goals via deflections off of opposition players which will create a different set of issues. What if a player kicks a goal via a deflection off another players knee or shin? Is that a goal or a kick to the opposition player? Then we'd have different rage threads, arguing the point of contact of the deflection.
The rule is fine we just have to accept that there will be mistakes via the review system. Nearly every sport has controversial or incorrect decisions made via video review systems.
The rule is fine we just have to accept that there will be mistakes via the review system. Nearly every sport has controversial or incorrect decisions made via video review systems.
The problem is score review was supposed to be goal line technology to fix goal umpire howlers, not judge if someones pinky touched the ball off the boot 40m away. That's up to field umpires not goal umpires so shouldn't even be part of score review.
As usual the AFL saw something being used in overseas sports, tried to implement it without actually thinking about how it would work and prostituted the concept.
On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app
As usual the AFL saw something being used in overseas sports, tried to implement it without actually thinking about how it would work and prostituted the concept.
On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app
100% this. It needs to be for goal line, or for when the ball hits the post and the umpires don't pick it up. That should be it.
Flat Chat
Debutant
Just because you didn't know the errors were there, it doesn't mean they don't exist...
- Oct 7, 2009
- 19,287
- 30,784
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys Chicago Bulls
Seems strange though, Mayne's non review is the one that has caused this uproar and it was clearly touched, it's not even up for debate.
Why would you only fix the goal umpires howlers?
That's like having the technology to completely repair a quadriplegic and only turning him into a paraplegic.
Until you get resolution that exceeds that of a circa 1989 Hercules computer screen, then maybe they should. It's staggering how poor most of the vision is, are they using box brownie cameras? On the line touched at least has the point at which the score is valid, but touched in play off the boot is very hard to prove one way or the other.
Cricket has used the snicko for how long now?!? Can that be introduced into the touched off the boot review?
Who cares if it was touched? Balls are touched off the boot and in marking contests all day long and marks are still paid. If it's not touched enough for an umpire to hear it or see the ball deflect it's not worth worrying about. Or should we have mark review after a mark before a player can kick for goal?
On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app
The AFL is well behind on reviews. Then they blame technology - they should sit in front of my TV it is all reasonably clear.
NRL score reviews always consider the last acts of play to see if an infringement occurs to nullify the scoring.
Cricket systematically works through the cations form no ball through actions to the final decision.
What do the AFL do have a few chimps sit arount an iPad?
Nothing is perfect
Snicko uses a microphone behind the stumps. Couldn’t replicate that for situations like on the weekend where the goal was kicked from 45m out.
- Nov 6, 2011
- 3,424
- 9,134
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Except that we still did know when an error was there because it was literally just as identifiable via replay as it is now - difference is that now there are blatant errors literally every single week.
I'd be happy for:
Touched off the boot: Always make it umpire's call. If you only get a fingertip on it who cares.
On the goal line: I think keep the review system, particularly to confirm if touch was before or after the line.
Touched off the boot: Always make it umpire's call. If you only get a fingertip on it who cares.
On the goal line: I think keep the review system, particularly to confirm if touch was before or after the line.
ossie_21
Premium Platinum
Both the Mayne & Bont touches were only minimal & I don’t think impacted the final result of it being a goal. Sure, that call definitely cost us the game but regardless of it Cordy should have got his hand to it.
There’s always arms & hands involved in marking contests that don’t impact the mark being called, but I agree it should only be different for goal line reviews & if they are touched there and/or before or after it has crossed the line. Even that system doesn’t work well as it sits, there’s been a few wrong decisions over the years
There’s always arms & hands involved in marking contests that don’t impact the mark being called, but I agree it should only be different for goal line reviews & if they are touched there and/or before or after it has crossed the line. Even that system doesn’t work well as it sits, there’s been a few wrong decisions over the years
- Mar 11, 2019
- 17,062
- 27,987
- AFL Club
- Geelong
How about we scrap the review system until the AFL decide to pay for proper camera's and actually do it properly.(review everything not just what they want to)
I often think about some of the rules in our game and why they exist. This is an interesting one as there isn't any particular reason for it to exist. It was in the first rules of Australian football. Number 3. No other football code has this rule to prevent goals....though Rugby School, where Tom Wills played his early football before the first rules of Australian rules were drawn up, originally had a rule like this.
"It shall be a goal if the ball go over the bar (whether it touch or no) without having touched the dress or person of any player; but no player may stand on the goal bar to interrupt it going over."
So it may've just been a carry over from early rules that people played by originally that was introduced into the first rules of Australian football. It may have been useful in the early days but we just never got rid of it.
As for keeping it...I agree with most people on this thread in saying that it should be up to the umpire unless it is on the goal line. Ideally though I would like it to be removed though you would need to redefine a lot of the rules regarding what constitutes a goal/rushed behind.
I’d be happy for clear touches to be called.
No reviews. Ump sees it or doesn’t and the initial call stands. If you don’t impact the ball enough that it’s obvious, then the guy who kicks it and gets it through should be rewarded.
No reviews. Ump sees it or doesn’t and the initial call stands. If you don’t impact the ball enough that it’s obvious, then the guy who kicks it and gets it through should be rewarded.
Yep, kill it!
Also kill the;
1. Hitting the post = Behind/OOTF. The only thing that matters is what side it was on. If the ball doesn't cross the line, it's play on.
2. Behind = 1 point added. Make it a behind = 1 point removed. Then, add the 9 point goal from outside 50 to give incentive to take those shots. No score for rushed behinds and still punish deliberate rushed behinds.
Punish shithouse goalkicking!
Could you imagine the extra pressure kicking to win the game. E.g. Michael Walters vs The Lions, he could literally win or loss the game with a very small chance of drawing it. It would have been the Lions that won the game and heartache for Freo. Also, Tony Lockett would have sent Essendon into the 96 GF after kicking a point.
Also kill the;
1. Hitting the post = Behind/OOTF. The only thing that matters is what side it was on. If the ball doesn't cross the line, it's play on.
2. Behind = 1 point added. Make it a behind = 1 point removed. Then, add the 9 point goal from outside 50 to give incentive to take those shots. No score for rushed behinds and still punish deliberate rushed behinds.
Punish shithouse goalkicking!
Could you imagine the extra pressure kicking to win the game. E.g. Michael Walters vs The Lions, he could literally win or loss the game with a very small chance of drawing it. It would have been the Lions that won the game and heartache for Freo. Also, Tony Lockett would have sent Essendon into the 96 GF after kicking a point.
Last edited:
- Jun 5, 2019
- 36
- 16
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Banned
- #21
Haha so many salty pies fans not able to get over the fact that they lost a game of footy.
- Banned
- #22
No. Time to kill using the goal review for anything but whether the ball hit the post or was touched on the line (not for a scramble of players many meters away) and accept that the occasional error where an umpire doesn't see a touch that a fly wouldn't notice
Back2Back2Back
In Fagan we trust.
See the problem here is it's not a bad rule as such or even a hard rule to understand but the officials are just that bad at their job that they're constantly stuffing it up. Both times this past weekend the footage of the touch was incredibly clear and at a good frame rate, but both times the wrong part of the kick was checked - in both situations the touch was off the boot not on the line.
If they could perhaps focus on adjudicating the game properly... that would be nice. Clearly "we review every goal" is utter bullshit.
If they could perhaps focus on adjudicating the game properly... that would be nice. Clearly "we review every goal" is utter bullshit.
I think the goal umpire is the sole decider, the Cameras are simply not accurate in every case, we have all seen over turned goals and been flabbergasted one way or the other. Even touching the ball 50 metres out on a kick that goes through , how can a camera really honestly make that absolute, when it is light reflection you see from the camera and at distance? Too many things unfair, if a player can get a kick off with people all over him and his kick is accurate thyen ITS A GOAL. No more AFL over kill, humans playing humans, humans adjudicating humans , get the cameras out of the game, and the microphones!!!
