The goal that wasn't

[Devilhead]

AFL seriously need to sort out the debacle that is referred goals

The rule states that if a shot at goal is referred and the result is inconclusive then the lower score is awarded - unfortunately a ball that passes at pace within 5 to 10cm of someone's fingers will always look to be inconclusive due to inadequate camera set ups

So in the end a goal that is a goal can be awarded a point - even if the likelihood of it being touched is less than 30%

In reality the system the AFL have implemented to erase doubt around goal scoring whilst works in some cases is still ineffectual in others

The AFL in the off season need to have serious look at how the referred system should be implemented

[savatage]

If you are not willing to pay to have cameras covering every angle - then do not implement the rule.

[plugger66]

AFL seriously need to sort out the debacle that is referred goals

The rule states that if a shot at goal is referred and the result is inconclusive then the lower score is awarded - unfortunately a ball that passes at pace within 5 to 10cm of someone's fingers will always look to be inconclusive due to inadequate camera set ups

So in the end a goal that is a goal can be awarded a point - even if the likelihood of it being touched is less than 30%

In reality the system the AFL have implemented to erase doubt around goal scoring whilst works in some cases is still ineffectual in others

The AFL in the off season need to have serious look at how the referred system should be implemented

They now go by what the majority of umpires think and the goal umpire thought it was a point. Once that happened it was going to be point unless 100% proved otherwise. Not sure any cameras could have proven either way if it was touched or not. Didnt like it was to me but some people here have said it was touched. That is enough to go with the original decision. Exactly how it works in cricket.

[battye]

It looked touched to me.

Probably the best thing to do would have to have a referral system like in cricket. Instead of the umpires referring it, the opposition have 2 unsuccessful referrals for the match. That way time is not wasted on marginal decisions and players could appeal against the real howlers like the ball hitting the post.

[Enrico_Misso]

Soon everytime a defender gets their hand close to the ball - either off the boot or on the line - they will appeal hoping the inconclusive footage will result in a point.
Perhaps we should get on the front foot, instead of getting shafted all the time, and train our players to do this.

[Devilhead]

They now go by what the majority of umpires think and the goal umpire thought it was a point. Once that happened it was going to be point unless 100% proved otherwise. Not sure any cameras could have proven either way if it was touched or not. Didnt like it was to me but some people here have said it was touched. That is enough to go with the original decision. Exactly how it works in cricket.

How do you know for a fact that the goal umpire thought it was a point??

Can you lip read??

It looked to me that the goal umpire actually got caught out of position and maybe thought there was a chance that it was touched - if the goal umpire thought it was definitely touched then i would say the field umpire would have allowed him to award a point on the spot

If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??

[plugger66]

They now go by what the majority of umpires think and the goal umpire thought it was a point. Once that happened it was going to be point unless 100% proved otherwise. Not sure any cameras could have proven either way if it was touched or not. Didnt like it was to me but some people here have said it was touched. That is enough to go with the original decision. Exactly how it works in cricket.

How do you know for a fact that the goal umpire thought it was a point??

Can you lip read??

It looked to me that the goal umpire actually got caught out of position and maybe thought there was a chance that it was touched - if the goal umpire thought it was definitely touched then i would say the field umpire would have allowed him to award a point on the spot

If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??

The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.

[Devilhead]

They now go by what the majority of umpires think and the goal umpire thought it was a point. Once that happened it was going to be point unless 100% proved otherwise. Not sure any cameras could have proven either way if it was touched or not. Didnt like it was to me but some people here have said it was touched. That is enough to go with the original decision. Exactly how it works in cricket.

How do you know for a fact that the goal umpire thought it was a point??

Can you lip read??

It looked to me that the goal umpire actually got caught out of position and maybe thought there was a chance that it was touched - if the goal umpire thought it was definitely touched then i would say the field umpire would have allowed him to award a point on the spot

If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??

The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.

WE could have been the field umpire and the boundary umpires with the goal umpire having no idea

Anyway back to my question - If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??

[desertsaint]

Have to watch it again, but I thought the goal ump was ready to signal goal, and the field ump suddenly got instructed over the headphone - something about tv ratings in the finals - and sprinted to stop the goal ump giving the two fingered salute.
Then said 'we think' rather than 'I think' to the video reviewer. The reviewer saw a clear goal but also received instruction about ratings and afl' officials finals bonuses, so declared it inconclusive. The field ump then told he goal ump to award a point. The goal ump looked a bit miffed, but will come to his senses after the game, when made aware of the coming Xmas bonus.

[plugger66]

How do you know for a fact that the goal umpire thought it was a point??

Can you lip read??

It looked to me that the goal umpire actually got caught out of position and maybe thought there was a chance that it was touched - if the goal umpire thought it was definitely touched then i would say the field umpire would have allowed him to award a point on the spot

If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??

The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.

WE could have been the field umpire and the boundary umpires with the goal umpire having no idea

Anyway back to my question - If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??

Yes it would have. Im not sure there is any other way of doing it.

[Devilhead]

WE could have been the field umpire and the boundary umpires with the goal umpire having no idea

Anyway back to my question - If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??

Yes it would have. Im not sure there is any other way of doing it.

No wrong again - the lower score ie: a point is awarded if the referral is inconclusive

[plugger66]

WE could have been the field umpire and the boundary umpires with the goal umpire having no idea

Anyway back to my question - If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??

Yes it would have. Im not sure there is any other way of doing it.

No wrong again - the lower score ie: a point is awarded if the referral is inconclusive

I am sorry but they changed that. If before the video they decide it is a point or goal they go with that if not conclusive. Do they have out on the full yet where you watch the game?

[skeptic]

The rule states that if a shot at goal is referred and the result is inconclusive then the lower score is awarded - unfortunately a ball that passes at pace within 5 to 10cm of someone's fingers will always look to be inconclusive due to inadequate camera set ups

I would be astounded if that's true.

It seems ridicuolous that a goal umpire would reverse his decision based on inconclusive video

Surely common sense suggests that if the video is inconclusive then the umpires original decsion should stand

[plugger66]

The rule states that if a shot at goal is referred and the result is inconclusive then the lower score is awarded - unfortunately a ball that passes at pace within 5 to 10cm of someone's fingers will always look to be inconclusive due to inadequate camera set ups

I would astounded if that's true.

It seems ridicuolous that a goal umpire would reverse his decision based on inconclusive video

Surely common sense suggests that if the video is inconclusive then the umpires original decsion should stand

Well it isnt true so you can rest easy.

[skeptic]

Well it isnt true so you can rest easy.

cheers

[Beno88]

I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!

Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.

[plugger66]

I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!

Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.

I soppose they didnt have a camera on the line. If there was no video it would have been a point anyway. Looked like a goal to me but some people on here thought it was touched.

[Devilhead]

I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!

Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.

What if the goal umpire wasn't sure??? Ie: out of position and didn't have a clear view

[Devilhead]

I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!

Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.

Many people are confused by the system hence my original post stating that it needs an overhaul

[plugger66]

I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!

Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.

Many people are confused by the system hence my original post stating that it needs an overhaul

Can you tell me what would have changed had we not had it today?

[SainterK]

Thought this about the 3 times we had someone alone in the goal square and ignored em.

[stinger]

Have to watch it again, but I thought the goal ump was ready to signal goal, and the field ump suddenly got instructed over the headphone - something about tv ratings in the finals - and sprinted to stop the goal ump giving the two fingered salute.

that's how i saw it too...

[Devilhead]

The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.

Yet the goal umpire was shaping up to award a goal as has been suggested by many on this forum

[Devilhead]

I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!

Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.

Many people are confused by the system hence my original post stating that it needs an overhaul

Can you tell me what would have changed had we not had it today?

The goal umpire awards the goal as he was shaping up to do - the ball goes back to the middle and who knows after that

[plugger66]

The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.

Yet the goal umpire was shaping up to award a goal as has been suggested by many on this forum

I am unsure anyone can say that unless they look through one eye. It looked like he wanted to look at it immediately.