Plain and simple: it's farking ■■■■■. Too many cooks n' all that...
What's worse is that it's often seen as being a potential marketing tool to build up suspense and add drama. No, it's a decision making tool for tools who don't know how or have had the power removed in order to make decisions for what they were originally trained to do.
It would be a whole lot easier if they got rid of the touching the post rule. If you get it through the big sticks it‘s a goal, touched post or no touched post. Same for a behind and the point post. I‘d even be tempted to say meh to it being touched - call it a goal.And while we are at it, apply the same to the tennis with the let call. Seriously, ball brushes the net on a serve and they have to do it again. WTFoki doki - that‘s it from me.
What if it goes over the post? Did part of the ball go through the behinds or the goals? Did the ball go directly over the posts, if so what happens?
Surely they can find some technology that will register a noise or a light to go off if the ball makes contact with the post.
What if it goes over the post?Did part of the ball go through the behinds or the goals? Did the ball go directly over the posts, if so what happens?Any or all over the goal post = goal. Any or all over the point post = behind.It'll change the game we know with rushed behinds and last ditch dives to save a goal, so it's not a perfect suggestion.. but for those situations where it goes through mainly from a a kick and maybe-maybe not touched, then call it a goalThere will no doubt be an area where the goal umpire has to make a call and for those where the ball is way way..... way up high over the goal posts…. well that‘s one where all the angles etc will probably never be conclusive and we just have to cop what the umpire says.EDIT ha - typing while b00bytrap was posting. Agree that is that fly in the ointment, but for the brushing the post scenario let's make it simple..
If 3/4 of the ball is in the behinds but 1/4 of the ball is over the goal post it is ruled a goal? Here is the problem in that situation. The umpire now has to check if the ball was partial over the goal post or entirely in the behinds.
Your system may fix some issues but still creates other problems. Leave the rules as is, ditch the system until they have the correct technology for our game.
An incompetent AFL trialed a review system during the real season and as a result it was chaotic and deeply flawed. Time to point the finger at those idiots.
The 2 problems with the system are the decision makers and the technology.
I also don't think the umpires viewing the replays knew how to handle the technology.
I’ve always thought it too difficult to judge if the ball is wholly over the line in any sport. Eg footy, tennis
Why can’t they change it to the ball needing to be entirely within the playing field or it’s deemed out. Easiest example, the out of bounds. If any part if the ball is over the line it’s out. Just think it’s much easier to judge than if 1cm of the ball is still touching the line from the wrong side.
Everything the AFL do and announce is just to distract the world from how incompetent they freaking are.
It would be a whole lot easier if they got rid of the touching the post rule. If you get it through the big sticks it‘s a goal, touched post or no touched post. Same for a behind and the point post. I‘d even be tempted to say meh to it being touched - call it a goal.
And while we are at it, apply the same to the tennis with the let call. Seriously, ball brushes the net on a serve and they have to do it again. WTF
oki doki - that‘s it from me.
Noooooooo. This can never happen. NEVER
Zing Goalposts and HD spider cams above the goal line. Best I’ve got.
http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/sport/afl/news/jeff-gieschen-explains-jonathan-brown-score-review-against-essendon/
For those wanting to review the review of the Brown one…
Remember when originally if a defender claimed they touched the ball off the boot and the video was inconclusive they went for the lesser score. WTF.
I've always thought it too difficult to judge if the ball is wholly over the line in any sport. Eg footy, tennis
Why can't they change it to the ball needing to be entirely within the playing field or it's deemed out. Easiest example, the out of bounds. If any part if the ball is over the line it's out. Just think it's much easier to judge than if 1cm of the ball is still touching the line from the wrong side.
So, let me get this straight...it's easier to judge if the ball is 1cm out than if it is 1cm in? Trying to get my head around it, but technically they'd look the same, just at other sides of the middle of the line, it would be equally easy/hard to determine.