Goal reviews

[kosifantutti]

Firstly, I think the whole system is a waste of time and should be scrapped. But if you have a system, how about using it properly.

The Grey goal. Membrey jumped from the line and touched it. Was it over the line? Who knows, but they almost always review those. Even if they did review it in the booth why would Foxtel not show it to see how close the margin was?

The Trengove goal. Longer claimed to touch it but because the goal umpire wanted to know if it hit the post there were none of those blurred close up shots of the hand and the ball.

The Membrey goal. This should not have been reviewed. It is a score review system, not an Out Of Bounds review system. If Port had cleared that it would not have been reviewed. It's only because Membrey kicked a goal that it was reviewed. But that is a separate act of play.

[borderbarry]

Are you suggesting that the umpires might be biased against St.Kilda? SHame. Shame on you.

[SaintPav]

Don't disagree but Membrey's reaction tells me it was clearly a goal.

The umpiring is still fked. In hindsight it probably would have been better for us if Carslile had been pinged for deliberate just before.

[WellardSaint]

very good OP.
"Score Review" says it all.
When the umps do the video review of the game,
they won't say so publicly, but they will make a note that it's NOT to happen again.
They can't break their own rules

[fugazi]

What would classically happen is they would review that goal and find that in fact Membrey did touch it, but won't retrospectively change the result...but will rule that from now on the result can be overruled

Then, the very first time it happens next it would be St Kilda losing a game retrospectively...

We are magnets for that kind of stuff

[shrodes]

I agree with Richo, they need to sink more money into it. Higher resolution, high framerate cameras. Put accelerometers in the goal posts to measure if the ball hits. If it's going to decide games, we need it to be quicker and more accurate.

[kosifantutti]

This is how much we lost by:


It's closer than it looks because the whole of the ball must cross the whole of the line and the camera is mounted in the middle of the post. So even a ball that was right on the line would appear slightly behind it.

[perfectionist]

I thought the reviews were OK and correct - particularly when they went with the umpire's decision in the light of no clear evidence to the contrary. Earlier in the year, we were the bunt of some howlers where the "video umpire" simply guessed with kicks that were touched. The fingers must be seen to be bent back. They seem to have backed off reviewing kicks that are claimed to have been touched off the boot.

We did OK with the ump's on Saturday night - too well as it turned out. Jake Carlisle should have been penalised for deliberate. We also got away with another one in the last quarter.