Decision Review System

[bulldogtragic]

In the 2009 Preliminary Final, Riewoldts match winning goal was actually touched, but with no review system they win.

Last night Jake's little finger touched a decision called a goal. But with DRS, it's over turned. 5 points saved. At the siren, we were 5 points up.

There's a lot still to improve, but it made sure a wrong decision didn't cost us a prelim.

[Throughandthrough]

And quote from last night "I think it's a goal, but want it checked"

[LostDoggy]

Excellent point. It seems those touched off the boot type decisions are where the DRS system is highly beneficial (as well as posters). Very hard call for a goal umpire to make, especially when often there may be players between them and the kicker/smotherer.

[jeemak]

There's still confusion surrounding when the umpires facilitate a formal review because of a disagreement or clarification needing to be made, and the public's understanding (or lack of) that each goal that may be close is reviewed.

[AndrewP6]

I think it has made goal umps less sure of themselves, and therefore less able to confidently make a call. I watch the footage when a review happens and I sure as hell cant see what they claim to see on review! If they're going to run with it, take decisions out of the umpire's hand, and use them to simply communicate scores -ie by signalling. Seen too many where the goal ump has made a call and the field ump has called for a review.

[KT31]

In the 2009 Preliminary Final, Riewoldts match winning goal was actually touched, but with no review system they win.

Last night Jake's little finger touched a decision called a goal. But with DRS, it's over turned. 5 points saved. At the siren, we were 5 points up.

There's a lot still to improve, but it made sure a wrong decision didn't cost us a prelim.

Lets not forget Libba's goal in 97, review would have reversed the decision and it would have been called a goal.

[Sedat]

In the 2009 Preliminary Final, Riewoldts match winning goal was actually touched, but with no review system they win.

Last night Jake's little finger touched a decision called a goal. But with DRS, it's over turned. 5 points saved. At the siren, we were 5 points up.

There's a lot still to improve, but it made sure a wrong decision didn't cost us a prelim.
Was an 11 point turnaround just when we were wobbling - straight down the other end for Daniel to tighten the score.

[Sedat]

In the 2009 Preliminary Final, Riewoldts match winning goal was actually touched, but with no review system they win.

Last night Jake's little finger touched a decision called a goal. But with DRS, it's over turned. 5 points saved. At the siren, we were 5 points up.

There's a lot still to improve, but it made sure a wrong decision didn't cost us a prelim.
Was an 11 point turnaround just when we were wobbling - straight down the other end for Daniel to tighten the score.

[bulldogtragic]

So I pumped it up last week, but it may be my biased eyes, but for the life of me I'm not sure they over ruled the goal umpire on JJ's kick.

[bornadog]

So I pumped it up last week, but it may be my biased eyes, but for the life of me I'm not sure they over ruled the goal umpire on JJ's kick.

That was a goal - 100% certain.

[aker39]

That was a goal - 100% certain.


I don't think from the footage shown that anyone can be 100% certain whether it was a goal or not, but that uncertainty is enough for it to go back to the original goal umpires decision.

[bulldogtragic]

That was a goal - 100% certain.

I'm glad it wasn't relevant in the end, but they reviewer should be sacked. Using a 2D image with a heap of doubt, and the goal umpire was perfectly positioned. Rubbish.

[G-Mo77]

I don't think from the footage shown that anyone can be 100% certain whether it was a goal or not, but that uncertainty is enough for it to go back to the original goal umpires decision.

Exactly!

[Cyberdoggie]

The reviewer was basically overruling a decision based on a possible margin of a few cm.
Add to that there is really no point of reference to align the camera and the goal line. You can't directly imagine a straight line
from the middle of the camera shot to the line on the ground because that is not accurate (camera positioning on the post, camera lens type, depth perception, distance etc). There is no hawkeye animation review like in the tennis or cricket where it shows the margin (or computed margin), so it is a naked eye guess based on an inaccurate image. With the small margin in question you simply can't overrule the decision.
If the umpire had said I think it was touched can you prove otherwise then that is different.

Anyway we won but had we not and that margin was a factor then crikey I would be fuming.

[bornadog]

I don't think from the footage shown that anyone can be 100% certain whether it was a goal or not, but that uncertainty is enough for it to go back to the original goal umpires decision.

I know it makes no difference but:

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/vlcsnap-2016-10-03-17h27m09s360_zpsldnjb8ke.png


http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/vlcsnap-2016-10-03-17h27m26s615_zpsyl1ujdqm.png


http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/vlcsnap-2016-10-03-17h28m07s610_zpssbu7vro4.png

[bulldogtragic]

I have perfect 20/20, irrespective of team, that's a goal or enough to stick with the goal umpire at worst. I simply don't see a 'howler' or conclusively wrong decision.

[aker39]

The reviewer was basically overruling a decision based on a possible margin of a few cm.
Add to that there is really no point of reference to align the camera and the goal line. You can't directly imagine a straight line
from the middle of the camera shot to the line on the ground because that is not accurate (camera positioning on the post, camera lens type, depth perception, distance etc). There is no hawkeye animation review like in the tennis or cricket where it shows the margin (or computed margin), so it is a naked eye guess based on an inaccurate image. With the small margin in question you simply can't overrule the decision.
If the umpire had said I think it was touched can you prove otherwise then that is different.

Anyway we won but had we not and that margin was a factor then crikey I would be fuming.

Gerard Whately said exactly the same as you.

[ratsmac]

I agree that the naked eye on the footage is just touched. But like you say with all the variables how can it be overruled. But again, in saying that if it were at the other end and we lost by a goal we would be calling for the naked eye version.

[hujsh]

Have they just completely thrown out the 'only over rule the umpire if there is clear evidence' part of this system this year?

There've been so many both to our advantage and detriment that have been turned over on sketchy at best evidence.

[boydogs]

Happy with the no goal call but it was punched back into play. Should have been a ball up instead of a behind

[azabob]

Happy with the no goal call but it was punched back into play. Should have been a ball up instead of a behind

I disagree with your first comment, but interesting take on the whole kick out V ball up.

To me your logic appears sound.

Wonder why it wasn't balled up?

[ledge]

Great spot either it was a goal or continue playing . Why a ball up ?

[azabob]

Great spot either it was a goal or continue playing . Why a ball up ?

How would you call play on in this situation?

"Upstairs" over ruled the goal as the ball was brought back to the centre square.

[ledge]

I know what everyone's saying But in essence being touched and not fully going over the line , technically its play on.
So they actually got everything wrong !
1 it wasn't a goal because it didn't fully go over the line
2 it went back into play
3 the umpire called a goal it wasn't
4 therefore it wasn't a point as it didn't go fully over the line
5 it was by technicality play on
6 if not it should have been balled up in the square.
7 it went back for a kick out when it wasn't even a point.
The whole thing is a comedy of errors :-)

[1eyedog]

What about holding the ball on Kennedy, he did a 720! Also what about too high on Wood by Parker which led to Kennedy's second?

[jeemak]

Great spot either it was a goal or continue playing . Why a ball up ?

The ball ended up going through the goals afterwards, hence a behind.

[boydogs]

The ball ended up going through the goals afterwards, hence a behind.

What if it was called a goal, but instead of it being punched on the line it was marked by one of our players, but then spilled out when they hit the ground? Does the video reviewer then make the decision on whether that should be called a mark after overruling the goal? What if the player who marked the ball was obstructed from the camera by another player when they landed?

All the video reviewer should be doing is confirming or overruling the goal umpire's decision, not making judgements on subsequent play

[Danny the snakeman]

I thought it was pretty funny when the camera went to libba in the stands and he was jumping up and down then it was given a point. Reminded me of him jumping up celebrating his goal/point in the prelim.