They were able to tell the umpire that there was an interchange infringement, so the obvious errors…yeah!
2 Likes
No call of “there’s a kent climbing up the goal posts”
15 Likes
There’s a good reason for that.
Reviewing blatant wrong decisions that lead to a score is similar to the VAR system used in major soccer leagues.
If there was a foul missed against a defender and a goal is scored, then that goal is canceled and the missed foul is awarded.
The key issue here is the word ‘blatant’. If you start reviewing every round the neck/ dropping the ball there will be bedlam.
The ball hitting the ground and not marked was ‘blatant’.
1 Like
Maybe we’ll get some of that new technology from EU football and the NBA where there are sensors in the ball, not really sure how that would end up being applicable for the live game thought except perhaps whether balls hit the post or crossed the line fully
Fooken Sydney and their rub of the green crud.
Bloke climbs a post and ump warns him and it’s good pragmatic decision making.
Roos exceed ic cap and free kick paid coz it’s to the letter of the law.
4 Likes
Wait until you realise why that interchange cap rule came in.
Sydney had 19 men on the field against North like a decade ago and it helped them kick a behind to draw the game.
4 Likes
I was steaming after that clear grounded mark right in front was given to the Tiges. There was another blatant bad call and goal around that time too.
I’d say don’t go down the road of VAR for AFL any more than what we have. It just kicks the can down the road for mine. VAR for EPL and CL etc. over here works because they can rule on offside, penalties and goalline (i.e. did it cross the line) tech only a few times a game… And its now found its rightful spot in the game.
But we introduce it in AFL it’ll kill the game. It kills momentum enough when the goal umpires rely too heavily on it today. We’ve a great game but you add more VAR to current levels and the MRO and we’ll kill the excitement factor and damage what the game is.
Bad decisions level out in the end I say…
We’ve a great game and I reckon one too many field umps as it is.
Athletic, absorbing and at times imperfect. But that’s Aussie Rules… the greatest game in the world. So let’s not overcook it.
2 Likes
In the ad break after a goal, they review every goal anyway. Perhaps it wouldn’t be too interruptive to also review the mark before the goal, if done right. At least for clear and obvious errors, perhaps.
3 Likes
I suppose for just those moments e.g. last mark before the kick to goal its worth trialling for a season.
1 Like
When will we get some levelling out of our last century of bad decisions?
4 Likes
Good argument well made.
Most sports focus on reviewing errors that affect scoring.
Getting that balance right in AFL would be a challenge.
Reviewing an umpires decision to award a free kick should never be introduced.
The rare frequency of awarding a mark to someone who clearly dropped the ball, even if it results in a goal, doesn’t warrant a review of the current system.
Just frustrating !!
1 Like
Was about to just lazily respond with a lol …but you have a good point.
I’m old enough to recall that John Somerville hit by Wright. And (before my time) there was the Coleman suspension when Caspar did his thug thing on the greatest forward of all time. Robbed us of a flag that one. And I’m not going down the Saga avenue because it boils my blood and what they did to Hirdy. But we had our bad boys too. Ronnie Andrews, Cassin, Hit man Roger … Tuddenham, although I never regarded him Essendon.
Only when we win a final and dare I even dream, win a flag once again will the flogs that hound us begin to disappear. And some umpires and the media stop allowing a baked in anti-Essendon bias is a safe place for them.
I reckon we have to win a flag Albert to shed that skin.
5 Likes
Redman gets paid for a high against within the first 2 minutes of the game.
A couple of times our guys went head down to pickup the ball and got bumped in the head, play on.
5 Likes
I don’t want every decision reviewed, and they can’t anyway as many rules are interpretations, but a howler like that ‘mark’ should absolutely be pulled up and turned to a ball up
1 Like
I guess it’s reasonable that the maggots should have to work a little bit harder to stitch us up.
We won.
It wasn’t the best umpiring, but they let a fair bit go. It’s probably pretty close to what a final should be umpired like. Except for finals in tassie.
I dunno really. It 100% absolutely was a howler, and the mark should never have been called, but it seems to me that any overrule or review mechanism for in-play umpiring calls would create as many problems as it’d solve. If you have a video ump or similar calling the reviews, then their decision is going to be as scrutinised and controversial as the original call was, as it their decision to review or not review a call in the first place. And the reviews take time, and interrupt the flow of play, and that time allows defenders to get back and set up, and of course if you do the cricket thing and allow the teams to call reviews, they’re going to be used tactically to stop play and allow your side to get back in defence at critical moments etc etc.
A lot of the worst calls are non-calls, remember. Tackles that aren’t rewarded, throws that aren’t penalised, holds that defenders get away with, marks not paid, etc etc. But in a situation like this by the time a video reviewer has decided something needed to be reviewed, gone back and found the appropriate bit of footage, viewed it from several different angles in slow motion, the game has long since moved on and the ball may be up the other end, or a goal may have been scored, and players are all in wildly different positions than they were when the incident happened. Calling it back and awarding some player a free (or mark) 30-60 seconds after the event, possible voiding a whole lot of play that happens in the meantime - it’d make the game damn near unwatchable, especially if you were actually at the game and not hearing the commentary explaining what was going on. And of course you’d have to retroactively wind back the timeclock, and the stats/fantasy footy obsessives would go off their tree as whole passages of play were retroactively deemed to have not existed. If anything, a rule like this would make the umpires more intrusive into the game, not less.
Frankly, the AFL needs to get a bit more mature about umpiring in general. The whole ‘umpires must never be questioned’ thing is just counterproductive because anyone watching the footy can see these howlers being made and no action seemingly ever being taken. Umpires are as human as players - they probably make many times more decisions in a given game than players do, so it’s inevitable that some of those decisions are going to be wrong, sometimes ludicrously so, But when a player stuffs up, we are quite ok with the commentators saying ‘that was a bad decision, X needs to do better than that’ or whatever, and just moving on. We need to have the same culture with umpires. Sometimes they get it wrong, when they do, we admit it, and if they continue to do so too often, they get dropped and everyone can see it.
This umpires-are-always-right closed-ranks see-no-evil Omerta stuff that the AFL is pulling, is doing nobody any favours.
14 Likes
And it has spread into the minor leagues. Some of the umps there are just disgracefully bias, but you can’t criticize them cause they are in short supply, so your lucky to have them bend you over is the attitude from league officials. But the lack of criticism means these dickwads will never work to get better, will never ask why am I being booed etc … pretty farked up when you think of all the work put in by players, members & officials, just to have some farkwit have his way with all those endeavors.
Bring on the AI umps I say, at least they would be equitable, 1 way or the other