Video Reviews - Not Working?

[Enrico_Misso]

The two referrals were not a good look.

The first one seemed to defy logic.
Goddard gave the ball a huge roost.
If it had hit the defenders hand you would have seen his fingers flick back.
But there was no movement of the fingers.
So no obvious evidence that it was touched.
At best he brushed the ball.
Surely in the absence of decisive proof of it being touched the decision should therefore favour the kicker???
So how come it didn't?

Did they get the second one right?
Were they looking to see if the ball came of Stanley's boot, or were they checking to see if it hit the post?

[kosifantutti]

Port's first goal last week was never looked at despite it looking just as touched as the Goddard shot tonight. Fisher claimed he touched it but they never reviewed it. Lucky it wasn't a close game!

[Buckets]

Both were correct. First one was because the boundary umpire believed it was touched due to inconclusive evidence they went the lesser of the two scores. Second one there were two things to look at whether it was or wasn't kicked by Stanley and if it hit the post.

[BackFromUSA]

E_M

On the video evidence shown at the ground we all thought both were goals. Perhaps the 4th umpire had different video?

Was Goddards kick touched? The fingers / hands did not reat to an impact ... so what evidence was there that it was touched. No umpire called touched so video umpire created that ruling once it was questioned.

As for the Stanley toe poke ... it wasn't touched ... and it didn't look like it hit the post ... so unsure how it could be a point.

UNLESS the umpire had vision we did not have shown on the big screen at the ground.

Perhaps the TV Viewers can fill us in?

[Enrico_Misso]

Both were correct. First one was because the boundary umpire believed it was touched due to inconclusive evidence they went the lesser of the two scores. Second one there were two things to look at whether it was or wasn't kicked by Stanley and if it hit the post.

How would a boundary umpire 20 metres away know it was touched when a slow motion replay didn't show any recoil in the defenders hands?
At best his fingers just brushed the ball.
The boundary umpire would never ever ever have heard that.

Who instigated the referral?
Was it a GC B@stard or was it an umpire?
As KFT points out - why wasn't Fisher's appeal last week listened to?

Does this mean that after each goal if a defender got close to getting a touch on the ball he should appeal and hope that the footage is inconclusive in which case the goal will be disallowed as per tonights precedent?

[Bernard Shakey]

The first one the boundary ump said he heard it hit the hand. Video was inconclusive, so it goes to umpires decision, which was probably correct.
Second one definitely hit the post.

[Enrico_Misso]

E_M

On the video evidence shown at the ground we all thought both were goals. Perhaps the 4th umpire had different video?

Was Goddards kick touched? The fingers / hands did not reat to an impact ... so what evidence was there that it was touched. No umpire called touched so video umpire created that ruling once it was questioned.

As for the Stanley toe poke ... it wasn't touched ... and it didn't look like it hit the post ... so unsure how it could be a point.

UNLESS the umpire had vision we did not have shown on the big screen at the ground.

Perhaps the TV Viewers can fill us in?

Yep BFUSA - from half way back up the Moorabbin Wing they both looked like rubbish decisions!
But as you say maybe the TV footage was more conclusive?

[Bernard Shakey]

Both were correct. First one was because the boundary umpire believed it was touched due to inconclusive evidence they went the lesser of the two scores. Second one there were two things to look at whether it was or wasn't kicked by Stanley and if it hit the post.

How would a boundary umpire 20 metres away know it was touched when a slow motion replay didn't show any recoil in the defenders hands?
At best his fingers just brushed the ball.
The boundary umpire would never ever ever have heard that.

Who instigated the referral?
Was it a GC B@stard or was it an umpire?
As KFT points out - why wasn't Fisher's appeal last week listened to?

Does this mean that after each goal if a defender got close to getting a touch on the ball he should appeal and hope that the footage is inconclusive in which case the goal will be disallowed as per tonights precedent?

Players cannot appeal, it is completely up to the umpires making sure. Tonight's so called precedent was a boundary umpire saying he heard it hit the hand, nothing to do with an appeal by a defender.

[clarky449]

Idiots in the crowd were going on about the second one.. "Its a goal, Its a goal".. "This is ridiculous"... But FFS it clearly hit the post. You can see it very clearly. Absolute footy nimbats, many of them. They say s*** and have no clue. Just spend a second and think.

[clarky449]

And it pisses me off.

[Enrico_Misso]

Interested to know on the second one - was it referred for clarity on if the ball came off Rhys' boot, or if it hit the post, or both?
If, as I think has been suggested, it was just to check it came off his boot then what gives the video ref the authority to adjudicate on the separate issue of hitting the post?

[clarky449]

Interested to know on the second one - was it referred for clarity on if the ball came off Rhys' boot, or if it hit the post, or both?
If, as I think has been suggested, it was just to check it came off his boot then what gives the video ref the authority to adjudicate on the separate issue of hitting the post?

Whether it was or not, at least the right decision was made IMO

[Enrico_Misso]

Interested to know on the second one - was it referred for clarity on if the ball came off Rhys' boot, or if it hit the post, or both?
If, as I think has been suggested, it was just to check it came off his boot then what gives the video ref the authority to adjudicate on the separate issue of hitting the post?

Whether it was or not, at least the right decision was made IMO

I'm just interested in how much discretion the video referee has.

What if the replay showed one of our forwards illegally holding a defender preventing him from getting to contest the ball with Stanley.
Would he be able to issue a "free kick to defender X" ruling?
What are his boundaries?
And did he go beyond his bounds in adjudicating on a decision that he wasn't specifically asked to?
Where do you draw the line?

[Bernard Shakey]

Interested to know on the second one - was it referred for clarity on if the ball came off Rhys' boot, or if it hit the post, or both?
If, as I think has been suggested, it was just to check it came off his boot then what gives the video ref the authority to adjudicate on the separate issue of hitting the post?

Do you not have ears? The ump clearly said he wanted to know if it came off a boot or hand and also whether it hit the post.
It came off Stanley's boot and hit the post. No argument.

[Enrico_Misso]

Yes I do have ears.
But I was actually at the game supporting my team so I didn't hear the sound feed on the TV.
That is why I asked about what was shown on the TV.
That is why I asked the question of the TV viewers.
Perhaps you don't have eyes?

[Buckets]

EM I was watching it on the TV
In the first instance it went to replay because the boundary umpire gave his opinion.
In the second the goal umpire was unsure of 2 things - if stanley had kicked it or if it came off the GC player and whether it hit the post. Stanley did in fact kick it however the ump was correct in thinking that the ball had brushed the post. On review you could clearly see the ball deviate slightly when it came into contact with the post.

Both decisions fair and reasonable.

[bigcarl]

I support it in the cricket where snicko and hotspot allow a correct decision to be reached, but in the footy there are simply too many grey areas,

Scrap it.

[hungry for a premiership]

Buckets wrote:

Both were correct. First one was because the boundary umpire believed it was touched due to inconclusive evidence they went the lesser of the two scores. Second one there were two things to look at whether it was or wasn't kicked by Stanley and if it hit the post.

Enrico_Misso wrote:

How would a boundary umpire 20 metres away know it was touched when a slow motion replay didn't show any recoil in the defenders hands?
At best his fingers just brushed the ball.
The boundary umpire would never ever ever have heard that.

Who instigated the referral?
Was it a GC B@stard or was it an umpire?
As KFT points out - why wasn't Fisher's appeal last week listened to?

Does this mean that after each goal if a defender got close to getting a touch on the ball he should appeal and hope that the footage is inconclusive in which case the goal will be disallowed as per tonights precedent?

On the 3rd level at Etihad you can clearly hear the player's and umpires voices on the ground. They echo straight up and are clearly audible. Particularly on nights like tonight when its a small crowd, you can hear the words of the players very clearly, as opposed to on the first level where you can't hear them at all.


I was sitting directly behind the goals right at the front of level 3 last night, where you can hear and see everything right there in front of the goals and in the forward 50 crystal-clear, at the end where those two decisions happened one after the other.

Re: first decision


Goddard snapped that goal, and there was no initial reaction from any of the goal or boundary umpires in that first instance whatsoever except to give the all clear. It was Gary Ablett who initially was the only Gold Coast player who a moment after the ball had sailed through the high diddle-diddle turned to the goal umpire, slapping his hands, exclaiming, "touched!, touched!" The Gold Coast player who alledgedly touched it was then also claiming this as well and then after Ablett & Co. had raised the doubt in the mind of the goal umpire did rush in the field umpire and the boundary umpires and they had a little conference in the goal-square. It was then that the boundary umpire, when asked his opinion by the field umpire, said that he thought it might have been touched, and then they went to the video, which in turn was completely and utterly inconclusive and provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the ball had indeed been touched, and it's then called a point. Ablett gave the goal umpire a thumbs-up when the decision was referred to the video. It was he who raised the initial doubt in the goal umpires mind that caused the decision to be taken by the rest of the umpires and bandied about until the wrong call was finally arrived at.

Farcical.

Wrong decision.

The unrelenting and systematic rorting of St.Kilda at the hands of the umpires continues.


Re: second one

Correct decision. Again didn't appear touched off the boot and the video provided no evidence that it had been, but my initial reaction, and the goal-umpires, was that it hit the post, and the video seemed to provide evidence of an apparent deviation in the ball's rotation when passing the post, but again, the evidence was far from conclusive. In both instances the goal-umpires initial reaction was correct.



The only way video decision referrals can work is if more money is thrown at it and technology capable of conclusively determining these decisions is put in place, until then, farcical and subject to rorting.

[Devilhead]

Idiots in the crowd were going on about the second one.. "Its a goal, Its a goal".. "This is ridiculous"... But FFS it clearly hit the post. You can see it very clearly. Absolute footy nimbats, many of them. They say s*** and have no clue. Just spend a second and think.

So your preference is to sit behind the goals???

[saintspremiers]

I support it in the cricket where snicko and hotspot allow a correct decision to be reached, but in the footy there are simply too many grey areas,

Scrap it.

No keep it.

But use a challenge system FFS AFL!!

Maybe one challenge per quarter per team, regardless of you're right or not.

Not sure of the parameters required, but put it back in the hands of the teams to make the call if a review is required.

[gringo]

It's funny that in the Port game we got the decision go with the goal scorer as if it was inconclusive so the benefit of the doubt goes with the goal. Then a week later they err on the side of inconsistency. For a group that seems to be made up of lawyers the AFL hierarchy seem to constantly change policy on the run, change the rules during the season to suit their agenda and have an innate ability to make poorly worded rules with limitless interpretations so that even they don't understand them.

I understand they have to have people from the gold coast watch but when they allow betting money in, they need to be much more professional, it's cute that they don't penalise the new teams but it is also corrupting the rules, I have no confidence that the administration doesn't ask for specific umpiring outcomes for certain games. That is a fairly common view point and an embarrassment for our game.

[Cairnsman]

The jury is out for mine on the video ref. What will we argue about in the pubs after the game if it becomes impossible for refs to make a bad call.

[perfectionist]

Re: first decision
Goddard snapped that goal, and there was no initial reaction from any of the goal or boundary umpires in that first instance whatsoever except to give the all clear. It was Gary Ablett who initially was the only Gold Coast player who a moment after the ball had sailed through the high diddle-diddle turned to the goal umpire, slapping his hands, exclaiming, "touched!, touched!" The Gold Coast player who alledgedly touched it was then also claiming this as well and then after Ablett & Co. had raised the doubt in the mind of the goal umpire did rush in the field umpire and the boundary umpires and they had a little conference in the goal-square. It was then that the boundary umpire, when asked his opinion by the field umpire, said that he thought it might have been touched, and then they went to the video, which in turn was completely and utterly inconclusive and provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the ball had indeed been touched, and it's then called a point.

Yes, that's what happened. The "process" was wrong, but perhaps the ball was touched. If the boundary umpire thought it was touched, he should have immediately informed the goal umpire and not waited for the field umpire to react to a player's call. No doubt the umpire will be counselled about this.

Re: second one
Correct decision. Again didn't appear touched off the boot and the video provided no evidence that it had been, but my initial reaction, and the goal-umpires, was that it hit the post, and the video seemed to provide evidence of an apparent deviation in the ball's rotation when passing the post, but again, the evidence was far from conclusive. In both instances the goal-umpires initial reaction was correct...

The number one problem is that the people at the ground don't know what is going on. In the NFL in the US, the ref's calls are made public, so that the people know what is being reviewed and what is not. If the field umpire here, by his own volition, or after notification by other umpires, signals for a video review, he should then be broadcast to the spectators (TV audiences get this) as to the action under review. For example: " Video check to see if the ball was touched off the boot" or "Video check to see if the ball hit the post."

[stevie]

I was watching this live on telly. I actually thought BJ's kick hadn't gone through the goals at all, let alone been touched! It went up so high.

I didn't have a prob with the boundary ump claiming he'd heard a sound; that's what they are meant to do now, help with these decisions. But as someone suggested, he should've came in straight away and told the ump that. They could still watch the video and if it was inconcluisve, well, its up to the field ump.

We need to keep this system in. It would be great to have it for all dodgy decisions but that would be too much. It works in the NFL, as the game is one of inches and yards gained. The NFL is the most perfectly run sport in the world - there are no more wrong decisions.

Its unbelievable that FIFA don't adopt this. The world's most popular game, and games are now won and lost by one referee who can be blindsided easily.

[desertsaint]

poster was a poster - good use.
As for the boundary ump thinking he may have heard a touch - if the video referral doesn't support his thoughts and evidence is inconclusive (in other words, replays also show nothing else occurred - i.e it touches the post) - surely the umps will call it a goal as the default. There needs to be consistency when we use half-hearted technology to decide. benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.
I'd say either do it right and have appropriate technology (could you imagine cricket using the regular tv feed to assist on decisions instead of implementing special technology) and a clear guideline or simply scrap it.