Umpires call plus inconclusive evidence equals shambles.

Remove this Banner Ad

bzparkes said:
Sure but it's not the first time there's been a controversy like this, nor will it be the last.

There's no 'conspiracy' though.
Click to expand...
Ths is why I'm in the 'shit happens, move on, forget about Score Reviews' camp.

There is always going to be controversy. There are always going to be mistakes.

No matter how much tech there is, there are still going to be game defining errors made by umpires that can't be resolved by technology.

Sports survived for centuries without it.
 
Generalissimo said:
Maybe, maybe not. It was still a goal though.
Click to expand...
Was it? Is there conclusive evidence that proves this?

It is its own argument though - if an umpire doesn't definitively see contact - and only thinks there was likely some amount of contact - should the soft call be allowed to be touched? Because in that situation the only thing that is definitive is that it went through the sticks. If he is calling for a review of touched it means that he didn't personally see it being touched, only that it was in that general area.

It's really 50/50, but again - I'm generally an advocate for umpire's call stands.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

bzparkes said:
Petracca being awarded the goal doesn't mean Melbourne would've won it.

It goes straight back into the middle for a 6-6-6 scenario. Who's to say Carlton wouldn't have gotten it down the other end and scored a goal right away?

It's too simplistic to say Melbourne were robbed of the game.
Click to expand...
The main concern is not who won but the abysmal state of goal review technology. The problems are longstanding and a blight on the game. The low res and low framerate should have been fixed years ago. Might as well have the umpire toss a coin.
 
Bowakawa said:
Was it? Is there conclusive evidence that proves this?

It is its own argument though - if an umpire doesn't definitively see contact - and only thinks there was likely some amount of contact - should the soft call be allowed to be touched? Because in that situation the only thing that is definitive is that it went through the sticks. If he is calling for a review of touched it means that he didn't personally see it being touched, only that it was in that general area.

It's really 50/50, but again - I'm generally an advocate for umpire's call stands.
Click to expand...
This.

If the ball crosses the goal line in its entirety then the soft call should be a goal by default, at this point the goal umpire should request a review if they feel it may have been touched by player or post prior.
 
Gorman said:
Soft calls should always be determined to be the higher score, then deemed otherwise. The games is cooked
Click to expand...

It's the simple and logical solution. The goal umpire pays what they can confirm - the ball has been kicked and gone through the goals. They can then review to check if it's been touched or it's hit the post. If there is conclusive evidence that the ball has been touched (fingers moving back, ball deviating), pay the behind. If there is conclusive evidence, it's hit the post (snicko, ball deviation), pay the behind. The goal umpire, of course, should still pay the behind when they can say it's touched or hit the post.

But the situation, where they say I believe it's touched but I need evidence to confirm that is ludicrous, especially when the results invariably comes back as inconclusive. It's like me saying I believe in the existence of unicorns. I ask for the evidence that unicorns exist, the evidence comes back as inconclusive, therefore unicorns exist.
 
It's worth remembering that "pay the lesser" was, and indeed still is, the official rule concerning uncertain goal decisions (Law 8.2.4(c)):
1691974555011.png
Now, obviously the score review system is something that's been "otherwise determined by a Controlling Body", so this rule has effectively been replaced at AFL level by the video review (and reversion to the umpires' 'soft call' if that's inconclusive). The score review thereby already allows for more 'uncertain' goals to be paid than would be under the rule above - "I think it's a goal, but can we please confirm it wasn't touched/didn't hit the post/was definitely struck below the knee/whatever" wouldn't lead to a goal if inconclusive otherwise - but for a video review system, that's probably a fair balance (certainly better than when they first brought in video review without a clear process so you'd get a strange hybrid of the two from umpires working it out on the fly - see from 27 minutes into this video).

But to go any further, and say it should be called a goal unless it was conclusively touched, would be fundamentally opposed to the basic principle of the existing law - if you haven't conclusively scored a goal, you don't get credited with one, because an incorrect goal being paid would be more egregiously wrong than a goal going unrewarded. If there's sufficient uncertainty in the goal umpire's mind to warrant a review, they get to make the provisional call they think is most accurate, and it stands unless and until the video proves otherwise.

That's not to say we couldn't do with better video technology to reduce the number of inconclusive reviews. But total conclusiveness isn't ever possible (especially with more interpretive decisions - "was the ball marked before fully crossing the goal line?", for example), and in light of that, it makes sense to stick to the principle that's been part of the laws for quite some time, rather than arbitrarily favouring a "goal unless proven otherwise" model.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Samji said:
Hence why it was the umpires call. It was inconclusive. The narrative getting around was it was clearly a goal and the same photos and technology show that. It’s ridiculous.
I think the marking infringement not paid against Marchbank in the same incident deserves more air time then this
Click to expand...
Exactly what i was thinking. Van Rooyen is pulling Marchbank down (hence why he cant lift his arm to touch it) yet all we are talking about is the review. Marchbank punches that into the 10th row without the interference.
 
There are some rules. When shepherding you can pretty much do anything. Having your back to the play and pulling a players arm down is another issue though
 
Generalissimo said:
Maybe, maybe not. It was still a goal though.
Click to expand...
Where does it end? Why is this THE defining decision that changed the game?
Let's go back to the goal that Melbourne scored where Trac threw the ball and reverse that.
Let's go to the free kick for Carlton where Gawn kicked the ball away well after the whistle was blown and should have conceded 50 for a shot on goal.
Let's check the Dow mark on F50 where Oliver comes through the protected area late and should've conceded a 50 for a shot from the top of the goal square.
Or where May conceded a free to Curnow(I think) and they were the only 2 players even remotely close to the contest, but he delayed giving the ball straight back while pointing at Curnow as if to say 'is it him that has the free?', which should have been 50.
Or the Carlton player that took the legs out from the Dees player that should've been a free.
 
Gorman said:
Soft calls should always be determined to be the higher score, then deemed otherwise. The games is cooked
Click to expand...
PenfoldsFan said:
This.

If the ball crosses the goal line in its entirety then the soft call should be a goal by default, at this point the goal umpire should request a review if they feel it may have been touched by player or post prior.
Click to expand...
Why?
The soft call should be whatever the goal umpire believes to be the right call. If he thinks it was touched, but isn't sure if that happened before or after the ball crosses the line, why should it be an automatic goal?
You'll just end up with the reverse situation of what we have now. A team winning a game where the ball is believed to be touched, but video inconclusive. The ump not allowed to give a soft call of touched, even though that's his belief and a goal awarded for a point.
 
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods said:
Why?
The soft call should be whatever the goal umpire believes to be the right call. If he thinks it was touched, but isn't sure if that happened before or after the ball crosses the line, why should it be an automatic goal?
You'll just end up with the reverse situation of what we have now. A team winning a game where the ball is believed to be touched, but video inconclusive. The ump not allowed to give a soft call of touched, even though that's his belief and a goal awarded for a point.
Click to expand...
Because every goal is reviewed, so if the umpire isnt 100% sure its touched he signals a goal and the ARC review it, if they see a clear touch its overturned.
If the ump is 100% sure its touched, as in clear in real time, its a behind.
If he's not sure enough so as to ask for assistance it isnt clear and should default to a goal unless the ARC find otherwise on review.
Prrtty simple really.
 
Rusty Brookes said:
It's the simple and logical solution. The goal umpire pays what they can confirm - the ball has been kicked and gone through the goals. They can then review to check if it's been touched or it's hit the post. If there is conclusive evidence that the ball has been touched (fingers moving back, ball deviating), pay the behind. If there is conclusive evidence, it's hit the post (snicko, ball deviation), pay the behind. The goal umpire, of course, should still pay the behind when they can say it's touched or hit the post.

But the situation, where they say I believe it's touched but I need evidence to confirm that is ludicrous, especially when the results invariably comes back as inconclusive. It's like me saying I believe in the existence of unicorns. I ask for the evidence that unicorns exist, the evidence comes back as inconclusive, therefore unicorns exist.
Click to expand...

The issue is that Goal Umpires are "trained" that when in doubt to give the lessor score, hence why the goal umpire paid behind, but don't know if this is in the laws of the game.

But the technology used to review scores is rubbish and does nothing to alleviate any doubt if a ball is touched/hits the post. Simple solution is to scrap it and give coaches a chance to challenge an incorrect score (ie: The Cameron goal on Friday night) would have easily been overturned. Any decisions which are doubtful (ie:petraccas goal) should be up to the goal umpire to make a decision.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Umpires call plus inconclusive evidence equals shambles.

Similar threads

MYOB
  • Poll
Grand Final umpires
Replies
6
Views
353
Dk007
D
melbournemartin
Exact AFL umpire whistle used
Replies
7
Views
417
aCunningPlan
aCunningPlan
Sentinel
Umpiring Questionable Umpiring Decisions
30 31 32 33 34
Replies
845
Views
32K
RedV3x
RedV3x
ferball
Umpiring Should umpires be coached during a game?
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
RedV3x
RedV3x
B
Umpire stopping play if someone is injured
Replies
8
Views
740
HairyO
HairyO
J
Umpires having a duty of care for injured players
Replies
7
Views
579
faible
faible
Purple7x08_24
Coaches discussing umpiring in conferences. Is it, or should it be allowed?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
geelong_crazy26
G

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top