The goal review thing is dumb. It should actually be wound back. Only used for the total clangers, like when a ball hits the post or goes the wrong side of the post and the goal umpire doesn’t notice. (which was the reason it was introduced in the first place).
It should not be used for determining whether a ball was touched, ever. Just let all of those go.
Deserved more than a like. I totally agree.
Yep invest in the technology to improve the cameras on the goal line, then should only be used for score review decisions there, nowhere else.
Anywhere else on the ground, umpires call and play on.
If they think this is an issue, what if it was marked in the goal square. The mark would have been paid and no-one would have complained.
But it would have been just as big a contravention of the rules.
Should we start reviewing every decision?
Solution is to scrub video review for everything but the goal line.
It’s all a storm in a teacup.
Keep reviewing touched decisions. Only over rule the umpire if it’s beyond reasonable doubt. People just have to accept that we may get a few wrong. Just make sure you don’t over rule correct calls unless you are 100% sure. That way, we are no worse off.
The simple solution here is motion sensors in all the balls they use, that signal like snicko to a monitor, and show up every touch of the ball. Post hit shows up, finger touches show up, sorted.
Add a cam looking down each side of the posts from the top, and one looking up, along with a blue laser beam extending the post to Moon, and you won’t miss a thing.
You could actually do away with Goal Umpires altogether. 
Technology’s never going to give you 100% accuracy. World doesn’t work like that.
What has the 666 rule achieved?
More Beasts?? 
It’s introduction was never a good Omen.
Lord nelson if I read one more “bEtTeR tEcHnOlOgY” take…
I think what they have available in cricket has clouded our view of what is possible. The trick in cricket is that the action happens in two fixed locations on the ground which makes the vision/audio needed for decisions easy to capture. It’s “set and forget” for the camera techs.
Now, my somewhat rudimentary understanding of A/V tech can partly dispel the following ideas
GoPros on the goalposts for super slo-mo: super slo-mo footage from GoPros is very data heavy and couldn’t be wirelessly transmitted in enough time for the review to happen. Nothing is instantaneous. In fact in cricket the reason the hawkeye is always looked at last is because it takes time for the system to work it out. Looking at the slomo and hotspot etc etc is literally killing time until the Hawkeye analysis is ready.
More super slo-mo cameras: they’re incredibly expensive to run. Channel 7 ditched one from their regular coverage to save on production costs so there’s only one running at the best of times. Good luck getting it to hit the right angle at all times.
Hotspot on the goalposts. Again, very expensive to set up and run. The reason the BBL doesn’t use it. And I don’t think a (comparatively) slow moving football on aluminium would have the same friction effect as a cricket ball on wood.
Snicko. I can’t even begin to think how you would implement this effectively when a game of footy has about 1 million times more auditory mess than cricket. I have no idea how this “AFL Edge” thingo might work and to be honest I don’t reckon the AFL does either.
So for anyone saying “invest in better technology” you’re really saying “invent better technology”
This is more or less how NRL’s bunker has been working this season. They have a couple of looks and if it’s not immediately clear they just go “iunno, refs call”
Much easier going “umpire’s call” on all “touched” except for the goal line.
It had been that way for 140+ years. It’s a much better alternative than changing one of the basic concepts of the game.
I must admit it might have been difficult to set up a camera obscura in 1873.
Finished!
Evidence would suggest it’s led to low scoring and a more defensive game style. This also may be a direct impact of greatly reducing the interaction with players via runners. But the basis of 666 appears to have greatly reduced the creativeness of coaches in terms of their setups. Now with players all matched up over the ground they are less willing to take the game on.
I trust you’re being facetious
They just need to invest in the infrastructure, and instead of spending a couple of mil on cameras and technology they are ■■■■■■■ it into Gill and Hockings pocket.
There is more than enough tech out there to ensure this always works.
I’m certainly not being facetious about the cost.
The broadcaster and the AFL can’t make a start on just getting two at the 'G for this year?
You know, Grand Final and all.
I don’t know about the specs, but I think it’s fair to point out that that article is seven years old.
The trick in cricket is it’s actually some dude in a back room actually doing it, as shown by that shocker Finch copped in india earlier this year.
Oh well, just go with my first two points then
Jeez only took 6 posts.
Nocturnal scroll up a bit and read my post.
If the right tech was available and feasible to use it would be currently getting used.