New Score Review System Addresses None of the Problems

Football Discussion Dustin Fletcher Hangar
1
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-04/new-look-for-video-review
 
A REVAMPED score review system will be introduced this season with the AFL confident reviews will now be quicker and more accurate.
 
AFL football operations manager Mark Evans told AFL.com.au on Monday the new score review system would be unveiled in this month's NAB Challenge and used in every premiership season game.
 
Evans said the new system was the result of trials late in last year's premiership season and would allow the reviewing umpire to view multiple camera angles on one screen at the same time.
 
Evans' early worries over video review system
 
Last year, only slightly more than 50 per cent of reviews returned a conclusive decision, but Evans said that rate had risen to 80 per cent when the new system was trialled.
 
"It became quite obvious that we had to reduce the time taken to review decisions and ensure that those reviews resulted in more accurate decisions," Evans said.
 
"The new score review system allows the reviewer to look at multiple angles simultaneously, as opposed to the previous system where relevant angles were replayed by the broadcaster one at a time.
 
"Our trials have shown this new technology helps produce quicker decisions and more accurate decisions."
 
Evans said the AFL was also considering adding goal-post cameras at grounds this season to complement the eight existing camera angles provided by the broadcasters.
 
With many of the NAB Challenge's matches played at regional grounds, the new score review system will only be used at 11 of the 18 games.
 
The score review system was introduced ahead of the 2012 season.
 
===
 
Still doesn't address my main problem with the score review system in that it exists only to overturn what are called goals, not points. If a point is scored the opposition can play on before a chance to review is given. Where if a goal is scored the umpire can wait through an ad break, watch the replay and then just before the next bounce call for a review. 
 
A fairer system would be to bring in a time limit between the scoring of a point and the opposition playing on. But that would slow the game down. Precedent shows us when the AFL has to choose between fairness vs entertainment they'll choose the latter every time.
2

 

 
A REVAMPED score review system will be introduced this season with the AFL confident reviews will now be quicker and more accurate.
 
AFL football operations manager Mark Evans told AFL.com.au on Monday the new score review system would be unveiled in this month's NAB Challenge and used in every premiership season game.
 
Evans said the new system was the result of trials late in last year's premiership season and would allow the reviewing umpire to view multiple camera angles on one screen at the same time.
 
Evans' early worries over video review system
 
Last year, only slightly more than 50 per cent of reviews returned a conclusive decision, but Evans said that rate had risen to 80 per cent when the new system was trialled.
 
"It became quite obvious that we had to reduce the time taken to review decisions and ensure that those reviews resulted in more accurate decisions," Evans said.
 
"The new score review system allows the reviewer to look at multiple angles simultaneously, as opposed to the previous system where relevant angles were replayed by the broadcaster one at a time.
 
"Our trials have shown this new technology helps produce quicker decisions and more accurate decisions."
 
Evans said the AFL was also considering adding goal-post cameras at grounds this season to complement the eight existing camera angles provided by the broadcasters.
 
With many of the NAB Challenge's matches played at regional grounds, the new score review system will only be used at 11 of the 18 games.
 
The score review system was introduced ahead of the 2012 season.
 
===
 
Still doesn't address my main problem with the score review system in that it exists only to overturn what are called goals, not points. If a point is scored the opposition can play on before a chance to review is given. Where if a goal is scored the umpire can wait through an ad break, watch the replay and then just before the next bounce call for a review. 
 
A fairer system would be to bring in a time limit between the scoring of a point and the opposition playing on. But that would slow the game down. Precedent shows us when the AFL has to choose between fairness vs entertainment they'll choose the latter every time.

 

They should not be allowed to call a review after seeing a replay. If the umpire is sure it is a goal and the field or boundary umpires believe they don't have anything to say the goal umpire was wrong, then no review at all. Once the ball is back in the center, it should be deemed too late to call a review and play on.

3

Will they review the ASADA inquiry ?

If they do it wil take till??????????????

As long as it is done and dusted by the end of August 2014 in time for the finals.

4

Will they review the ASADA inquiry ?

If they do it wil take till??????????????

As long as it is done and dusted by the end of August 2014 in time for the finals.

Maybe, maybe not, but read yesterday that the (Government)/ASADA have hired a (retired) Judge Downes to try to wrap up investigation as it's been going for so long.

 

Sorry, don't know how to do a link .

 

 

Re scoring review, I agree with Rossoneri.

5

The system is OK. Its the umpires who made it look like it was retarded. How many times did they call for it when it was an obvious goal/behind?

Will never forget the behind Heppell kicked against Carlton where the ball bounced in for a point but it was really close to the behind post. Boundary umpire had PERFECT poisition, literally standing 1cm away from the ball. Asked for a review, delayed play for 2 mins where all that could’ve been avoided.

6

Wonder what The Geisch would make of all this? The admission that accuracy of the review system has risen from 50 to 80 % means they were getting wrong half the time. All that time and money wasted on getting a the same result that could have been achieved by tossing a coin. 

7

as long as they don't let boundary umpires who are twenty meters away overrule goal umpires who are in the ideal position i will be happy.

 

i also think they should do away with review of touched decisions because they take the longest and more often than not the footage is inconclusive because the frame rate isn't high enough.

8

The system is OK. Its the umpires who made it look like it was retarded. How many times did they call for it when it was an obvious goal/behind?
Will never forget the behind Heppell kicked against Carlton where the ball bounced in for a point but it was really close to the behind post. Boundary umpire had PERFECT poisition, literally standing 1cm away from the ball. Asked for a review, delayed play for 2 mins where all that could've been avoided.

Spot on. The goal umpire says he is sure that it was a goal or touched but the field umpire says "we'll check it anyway".

 

If the goal umpire has no doubt, why question him? What's worse is when the boundary umpire who was running in from 40m away says "I think that was touched"

9


The system is OK. Its the umpires who made it look like it was retarded. How many times did they call for it when it was an obvious goal/behind?
Will never forget the behind Heppell kicked against Carlton where the ball bounced in for a point but it was really close to the behind post. Boundary umpire had PERFECT poisition, literally standing 1cm away from the ball. Asked for a review, delayed play for 2 mins where all that could've been avoided.

Spot on. The goal umpire says he is sure that it was a goal or touched but the field umpire says "we'll check it anyway".
If the goal umpire has no doubt, why question him? What's worse is when the boundary umpire who was running in from 40m away says "I think that was touched"
Ever since the Phil Carman/Graham Carbery incident boundary umpires have been after their 30 seconds of fame.
10

It is a comedy the likes of which only the AFL could implement. Counterintuitive and counterproductive. 

11

I don’t mind the review system.
The main problems with it are:
1) Fans not understanding how it works.
2) Footy commentators not understanding how it works (either not bothering to learn to understand it or being too dumb to understand it). Then because they don’t understand it they bag it. Their not understanding and bagging of it contributes to fans not understanding it and bagging it.
3) Umpires calling for its use when it isn’t needed. It shouldn’t be used for when the umpire wants confirmation, it should be used for when he just doesn’t know.
4) having the cameras in the wrong place.
The thing that shows that most people don’t understand the fundamental philosophy of the system is comments like “what’s the point of the review system when most of the reviews come back inconclusive”.
WTF? Think about it. Of course there should be a lot of inconclusive reviews. If the situation was so cut and dried
then it wouldn’t need a review in the first place!!
The system is fine. It’s the umpires over using it and the morons on TV trying to expain it that are the problem.

12

They should not be allowed to call a review after seeing a replay. If the umpire is sure it is a goal and the field or boundary umpires believe they don't have anything to say the goal umpire was wrong, then no review at all. Once the ball is back in the center, it should be deemed too late to call a review and play on.

 

But this doesn't fix the Tom Hawkins scenario which is one of the reasons this whole system was brought in. If the guy upstairs sees something he should (and does) notify the umpire. That is what happened with the Hurley one last year (can't remember which game it was).

13

Wonder what The Geisch would make of all this? The admission that accuracy of the review system has risen from 50 to 80 % means they were getting wrong half the time. All that time and money wasted on getting a the same result that could have been achieved by tossing a coin. 

Read it again. Inconclusive is not the same as incorrect.

14

I don't mind the review system.
The main problems with it are:
1) Fans not understanding how it works.
2) Footy commentators not understanding how it works (either not bothering to learn to understand it or being too dumb to understand it). Then because they don't understand it they bag it. Their not understanding and bagging of it contributes to fans not understanding it and bagging it.
3) Umpires calling for its use when it isn't needed. It shouldn't be used for when the umpire wants confirmation, it should be used for when he just doesn't know.
4) having the cameras in the wrong place.
The thing that shows that most people don't understand the fundamental philosophy of the system is comments like "what's the point of the review system when most of the reviews come back inconclusive".
WTF? Think about it. Of course there should be a lot of inconclusive reviews. If the situation was so cut and dried
then it wouldn't need a review in the first place!!
The system is fine. It's the umpires over using it and the morons on TV trying to expain it that are the problem.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not this. We get a lot of inconclusive reviews because the technology is not good enough and the AFL are too cheapskate to install cameras in the goal posts. The camera angles provided by the broadcasters are almost never good enough to tell if a ball was touched in front of or over the line because they are in the wrong position and this leaves too much room for doubt (hence inconclusive). I echo other posters sentiments re: touched off the boot. These should never be reviewed.

 

I think the system could be greatly improved by installing cameras in the goal posts and point posts and only allow reviews for the following scenarios

  • touched / marked on the line
  • determining if the ball hit the post
  • determining which side of the post the ball travelled (goal / behind or out on the full)
15

The Jonathan Brown incident. I will never get over that.

 

Remember it? It was conducted wrongly in every single way. Every single way.

16

 

They should not be allowed to call a review after seeing a replay. If the umpire is sure it is a goal and the field or boundary umpires believe they don't have anything to say the goal umpire was wrong, then no review at all. Once the ball is back in the center, it should be deemed too late to call a review and play on.

 

But this doesn't fix the Tom Hawkins scenario which is one of the reasons this whole system was brought in. If the guy upstairs sees something he should (and does) notify the umpire. That is what happened with the Hurley one last year (can't remember which game it was).

 

If the system was brought in, the umpire may have reviewed the decision.

17

The Jonathan Brown incident. I will never get over that.
Remember it? It was conducted wrongly in every single way. Every single way.

That cost us the game too.
18

 

 

They should not be allowed to call a review after seeing a replay. If the umpire is sure it is a goal and the field or boundary umpires believe they don't have anything to say the goal umpire was wrong, then no review at all. Once the ball is back in the center, it should be deemed too late to call a review and play on.

 

But this doesn't fix the Tom Hawkins scenario which is one of the reasons this whole system was brought in. If the guy upstairs sees something he should (and does) notify the umpire. That is what happened with the Hurley one last year (can't remember which game it was).

 

If the system was brought in, the umpire may have reviewed the decision.

 

Maybe, but probably not. I think at the time everyone assumed it was a goal. 

19

 

 

 

They should not be allowed to call a review after seeing a replay. If the umpire is sure it is a goal and the field or boundary umpires believe they don't have anything to say the goal umpire was wrong, then no review at all. Once the ball is back in the center, it should be deemed too late to call a review and play on.

 

But this doesn't fix the Tom Hawkins scenario which is one of the reasons this whole system was brought in. If the guy upstairs sees something he should (and does) notify the umpire. That is what happened with the Hurley one last year (can't remember which game it was).

 

If the system was brought in, the umpire may have reviewed the decision.

 

Maybe, but probably not. I think at the time everyone assumed it was a goal. 

 

I remember being at the game and when it happened I turned to my mate and said "I am sure that hit the post". I was on HFF Southern stand side so probably had a better view than the umpire as you could see the goal mouth. Not sure where the field umpire was at the time.

20

My main frustrations with the review system were:

 

1 - the central umpire makes the final call, not the goal umpire. Remember the Brisbane game where the goal umpire called a behind and the central umpire called a mark to John Brown? They fluffed for 2 mins, called umpires call, central umpire called a mark to Brown who goaled. 

 

2 - the umpire can be wrong or a player appeals and no referral is made, it's the umpires call and if he is sure (despite being wrong), no review is made.  Can't remember which game, but it happened with Pears clearly touching a ball and no review was taken so it remained a goal on the scoreboard.

 

Reducing the inconclusives is one thing, dealing with them when they arrive is another.