I just don't get it.

[westdog54]

Just watched a replay of Mitch Wallis' overturned goal from yesterday.

Officiating on the field is difficult in any sport, let alone a game like ours. So when such a baffling is made inside a booth, with the benefit of replays to assist, we could be forgiven for asking what the hell is going on.

When a decision can be overturned on those replays there is something seriously wrong.

I don't understand it at all.

[The Underdog]

Just watched a replay of Mitch Wallis' overturned goal from yesterday.

Officiating on the field is difficult in any sport, let alone a game like ours. So when such a baffling is made inside a booth, with the benefit of replays to assist, we could be forgiven for asking what the hell is going on.

When a decision can be overturned on those replays there is something seriously wrong.

I don't understand it at all.

The AFL wanted to be seen to be proactive on an issue that wasn't really an issue. Instead of spending time researching the best way to bring in a review system, they instead rushed in in the middle of a season using whatever half arsed camera shots they had from broadcasters. They messed it up. The system doesn't work and should be scrapped. Let the umpire make the call and live with it.

[LostDoggy]

Join the club. Not to be to Bulldog-centric, but Bonts' touched last week that was surely fully over the line. Middle finger was bent back at right angles and i'm sure it wasn't a salute to the officiators.

It's the field umpires that are constantly undermining the goal umpires on this ruling. And to add - there must be reviews of the footage that only the goal review person is seeing, because nobody in their right mind could conclusively say Wallis' goal was touched before it crossed.

[Mofra]

I thought it was a safe goal, ball bounced up so no touch. Still mystified.

[LostDoggy]

Agree with everyone on this.

That said, still not sure why Wallis chose to dribble it instead kicking a drop punt. He was 30m out running into goal with no pressure.

[LostDoggy]

Agree with everyone on this.

That said, still not sure why Wallis chose to dribble it instead kicking a drop punt. He was 30m out running into goal with no pressure.

See the Murdoch kick as to why he might have :D

[LostDoggy]

See the Murdoch kick as to why he might have :D

Fair call - my bad. Definitely something the club should concentrate on next pre season :)

[Mantis]

I thought it was a safe goal, ball bounced up so no touch. Still mystified.

The footage from the goal umpire's 'head-cam' showed that Lonergan's hand was under the ball as it passed the line, but did not show conclusively that he touched the ball.. The camera showing the ball travelling towards the goal line clearly showed the ball was in the air as Lonergan's hand reached the ball.

It was a shocking decision, but Mitch's kick allowed for this decision to be questioned when he showed have slammed it home.. But why should this kick be any different to the rest?

[always right]

I thought it was an intelligent kick as he concentrated on getting it on line, expecting it to slide through in those conditions...just as Murdoch's did later on.

Perhaps the problem is that Wallis' kicking tends to lack penetration which may have explained how the ball sat up more than you would have expected.

[Murphy'sLore]

It was a disgraceful decision. The goal umpire should only be over-ruled if there is clear evidence that he/she has made a glaring error. In this case, there was no such evidence. Chelsea was in the best possible position to make the call, and she made it, and it should have stood. Am I right in thinking that the field umpire called for the review? Why?? This makes my blood boil!

[Sedat]

Wretched system in general, and a wretched adjudication yesterday. Classic AFL policy on the run with no shred of fore-thought or research done into it.

[Hotdog60]

It wouldn't surprize me if it has all been at the beckoning of the broadcasters for that touch of intrigue. I have no other means of seeing the Dogs play but on Fox but TV has ruined a once great game.

[Eastdog]

I reckon that was a goal to us. Did not like that decision at all.

[always right]

Chelsea told the field umpire that she thought it was a goal but wanted to check to see if it was touched. The replay was inconclusive....the goal should have stood.

[Go_Dogs]

Chelsea told the field umpire that she thought it was a goal but wanted to check to see if it was touched. The replay was inconclusive....the goal should have stood.

Spot on. No one could possibly draw a conclusion based on the video - shocking rule, shocking decision yesterday and surely the AFL will admit they got this one wrong (yeah right...)

[always right]

I don't mind the fact they have introduced technology to overcome human error. Problem is we still need a human to make the call using the technology. We either get rid of the nuff nuffs reviewing the footage or we revert to the old system and only use technology where the field umpire believes there has been a blatant error.

[The Pie Man]

I thought the vision was close to confirming it wasn't touched.

Strange call - but of course, it needs to be added to the list. While everyone would agree the system needs review/dumping, the weird calls like this really are just human error

[Flamethrower]

Classic home town decision. Who knew Ian Collins was the voice of the goal line reviewer.

[Twodogs]

And Billy Brownless.

[SonofScray]

I was extremely confident it wasn't touched, both from my position in the standing area up the other end of the ground (:D) and once the replay went up. No doubt in my mind it was a goal. If the Cats fans near me were being honest they'd acknowledge it as well. They could hardly even muster a bronx cheer when it was overturned.

[LostDoggy]

Has the AFL come out and said anything about it at all? I didn't hear anything about the Bontempelli one last week, that the score reviewer clearly got wrong, and won't hold my breath about this one, does the score reviewer see different vision to everyone else? If not, he needs to get his eyes checked.

Sometimes it feels like, if the bulldogs were the victim it doesn't matter, but when it's another club that cop a bad decision, the media are all over it. eg Monfries/Murphy HTB, Bail's deliberate rushed behind.....:mad:

[Bulldog4life]

Has the AFL come out and said anything about it at all? I didn't hear anything about the Bontempelli one last week, that the score reviewer clearly got wrong, and won't hold my breath about this one, does the score reviewer see different vision to everyone else? If not, he needs to get his eyes checked.

Sometimes it feels like, if the bulldogs were the victim it doesn't matter, but when it's another club that cop a bad decision, the media are all over it. eg Monfries/Murphy HTB, Bail's deliberate rushed behind.....:mad:

You are spot on Ted.

[The Underdog]

*!*!*!*!ing serious case of the persecution blues around here.

[bulldogtragic]

Suchness

[Bulldog4life]

*!*!*!*!ing serious case of the persecution blues around here.

Not at all. Just been surprised that it hasn't been mentioned on any of the footy shows.

[The Underdog]

Not at all. Just been surprised that it hasn't been mentioned on any of the footy shows.

There's been a lot of "woe is us" conspiracy mentions lately across a few threads and it's just a bit boring. It's like being on a Collingwood board.
I've heard a bit of discussion in the media around the Wallis "Goal" and it seems to have all been in our favour, unlike to decision.
We can all agree it's a shit system. It's not weighted to a team, it's just poorly conceived and poorly executed.

[Remi Moses]

It's just becomes the ultimate farce because the AFL doesn't have the correct adjudication technology .
Some grounds don't even have the cameras in the posts!
They don't even have the right replay definition on the screen.
High farce

[bulldogtragic]

We can all agree it's a shit system. It's not weighted to a team, it's just poorly conceived and poorly executed.

I could not encapsulate this any better. This is the nub of the issue.

[Bulldog4life]

There's been a lot of "woe is us" conspiracy mentions lately across a few threads and it's just a bit boring. It's like being on a Collingwood board.
I've heard a bit of discussion in the media around the Wallis "Goal" and it seems to have all been in our favour, unlike to decision.
We can all agree it's a shit system. It's not weighted to a team, it's just poorly conceived and poorly executed.

Agree. Shouldn't have one at all unless it is a perfect system. I believe they have a superior one in the World Cup but I haven't seen it. Just let the goal umpire umpire decide. Maybe the AFL haven't thought of that.:)

[The Underdog]

Agree. Shouldn't have one at all unless it is a perfect system. I believe they have a superior one in the World Cup but I haven't seen it. Just let the goal umpire umpire decide. Maybe the AFL haven't thought of that.:)

They just don't have the technology to do it properly at the grounds currently. They should get rid of it, do some research for a year and then come back with a system that works and is consistent across venues. If they can't find a system that works, then just leave it alone.

[LostDoggy]

In this case it had nothing to do with the system, the goal umpire called it a goal, the video did not prove it wasn't, it should have remained umpires call. Doesn't get much simpler than that?

[westdog54]

In this case it had nothing to do with the system, the goal umpire called it a goal, the video did not prove it wasn't, it should have remained umpires call. Doesn't get much simpler than that?
This.

The system wasn't the issue. The decision was. The goal umpire's call should not have been overturned.

[Mantis]

Wayne Campbell was on SEN yesterday afternoon and discussed this decision. He explained that the TV umpire was "almost certain" that the ball had been touched... Almost certain.. FFS!!!

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Wayne Campbell was on SEN yesterday afternoon and discussed this decision. He explained that the TV umpire was "almost certain" that the ball had been touched... Almost certain.. FFS!!!

absolutely ridiculous. what a farce

[LostDoggy]

I honestly don't see why we need it at all. Soccer doesn't have an umpire standing on the goal line. Either get a real system and sack the goal umpire or back their decisions 100% and prepare for the odd error.

[soupman]

I honestly don't see why we need it at all. Soccer doesn't have an umpire standing on the goal line. Either get a real system and sack the goal umpire or back their decisions 100% and prepare for the odd error.

Instead they have a highly sophisticated impartial setup which by utilising multiple high definition cameras from multiple carefully selected angles can accurately determine whether the ball actually crossed the line and in which case sends a vibration to the referees watch.

The concept of using technology to try and account for human error on behalf of the goal umpires is fine. I do find it funny how when an incorrect decision is overturned based on solid video evidence almost the entire crowd still gets upset, as if they prefer the incorrect score was counted, despite this producing a better score for half the crowd.

The issues are that it has resulted in the umpires second guessing every second score, despite being in good positions to make the right call as they have been for years. Also, when they do refer it it is so time consuming and pathetically amateur and inconclusive that the crowd has no expectation of it assisting at all anymore and just gets pissed off.

[Greystache]

Instead they have a highly sophisticated impartial setup which by utilising multiple high definition cameras from multiple carefully selected angles can accurately determine whether the ball actually crossed the line and in which case sends a vibration to the referees watch.

Which they use in a tournament held once every 4 years. The rest of the time they take a rough guess and usually give the decision in favour of the bigger club. Let's not put soccer up on some pedestal for professionalism. If AFL was like soccer Collingwood would have won a lot more than 2 flags in the past 50 years, they'd probably have 15.

[jeemak]

Wayne Campbell was on SEN yesterday afternoon and discussed this decision. He explained that the TV umpire was "almost certain" that the ball had been touched... Almost certain.. FFS!!!

And this is what's wrong with the AFL.

By definition the reviewing umpire got the decision wrong, but those representing the AFL couldn't simply admit that the system's rules were not followed correctly and that the offending official would be counselled on correct procedure.

[soupman]

Which they use in a tournament held once every 4 years. The rest of the time they take a rough guess and usually give the decision in favour of the bigger club. Let's not put soccer up on some pedestal for professionalism. If AFL was like soccer Collingwood would have won a lot more than 2 flags in the past 50 years, they'd probably have 15.

Yep no objections, however at least when they do do it they do it properly, instead of having a half arsed version of it.

[soupman]

And this is what's wrong with the AFL.

By definition the reviewing umpire got the decision wrong, but those representing the AFL couldn't simply admit that the system's rules were not followed correctly and that the offending official would be counselled on correct procedure.

Which by extension means they are happy to admit that goal umpires get stuff wrong, but not the goal review guys.

[jeemak]

Which by extension means they are happy to admit that goal umpires get stuff wrong, but not the goal review guys.

There's an out for them on that front though, it revolves around game day pressure and being unsighted.

[BornInDroopSt'54]

If the goal review system had been in place in '97, Libba's goal would have been acknowledged and we'd have won the GF the next week.

[Scorlibo]

In this case it had nothing to do with the system, the goal umpire called it a goal, the video did not prove it wasn't, it should have remained umpires call. Doesn't get much simpler than that?

Exactly. The system has its flaws, but many of the decisions coming forward are entirely the fault of the score review umpire. Who remembers the Dale Morris non-touched decision?

Here are my suggestions for the goal review:

- replay the moment in real time at least twice, slow motion really doesn't help in most situations.
- introduce a challenge system, allowing the goal umpires to make their decisions more certainly and not referring every difficult decision to review. This works really well in tennis.
- either introduce a panel of umpires for score reviews or allow the review umpire to listen to the commentators. Scope for inaccuracy is reduced by collaborating with others.

As with others, I'm greatly concerned with Wayne Campbell defending the Wallis goal decision. If Lonergan touched it then it was with a fingernail and that has not come up on the replays. The correct decision would have been inconclusive. That was a goal we should have had.

[G-Mo77]

Exactly. The system has its flaws, but many of the decisions coming forward are entirely the fault of the score review umpire. Who remembers the Dale Morris non-touched decision?


Against Melbourne earlier this year?

[Sedat]

Wayne Campbell was on SEN yesterday afternoon and discussed this decision. He explained that the TV umpire was "almost certain" that the ball had been touched... Almost certain.. FFS!!!
This is more concerning than the original decision, if that's possible. Shows a complete lack of understanding of what constitutes certainty. Goal umpire's call was goal, there was no definitive evidence to suggest the ball was touched (confirmed by Campbell last night), so original decision should stand. Instead, guesswork and supposition rule the day.

Complete and utter shambles - scrap the system altogether until a well-thought out and remotely professional alternative is offered up. If the AFL's handling of the Essendon drugs saga isn't enough proof of what an insular, backwards, unprofessional organisation they are (though much more professional than the scum from Tullamarine), the score review system just drives this home.

[chef]

Which they use in a tournament held once every 4 years. The rest of the time they take a rough guess and usually give the decision in favour of the bigger club. Let's not put soccer up on some pedestal for professionalism. If AFL was like soccer Collingwood would have won a lot more than 2 flags in the past 50 years, they'd probably have 15.

They use Hawk-Eye Goal Decision System in every EPL game nowadays, .

[Greystache]

They use Hawk-Eye Goal Decision System in every EPL game nowadays, .

Watching it in use in the cricket they'd be better off sticking to guess work.

[chef]

Watching it in use in the cricket they'd be better off sticking to guess work.

Footballs a bit different(and a hell of a lot easier), the ref wears something on his wrist that tells him immediately if the balls cross the goal line and the play doesn't need to stop.

AFL's a bit more complicated than that though.

[Twodogs]

:mad:
Watching it in use in the cricket they'd be better off sticking to guess work.


It'd the single stupidest thing in world sport.

[Scorlibo]

Against Melbourne earlier this year?

Yep I believe so.