No, he referred it to the ARC to either confirm or overturn his decision. It doesn’t go to the ARC without a call as a goal or a point for them to decide. It goes to them as a goal or a point for them to either confirm, overrule or cede that they don’t have enough evidence to make a call. It doesn’t get to them nude.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Footy Classified
- Thread starter tigerrookie1
- Start date
This is true. But what they have failed to do is show us the actual evidence to prove it’s a behind.
This is the out cry from us mug punters.
Sorry, how do you make a decision if you say you “think” it’s a goal and then also ask someone else - a higher authority no less - to review it ? The goal umpire is asking for a review for a reason !
Cmon now. Apply some logic Snake.
They wouldn't have had time to review any other footage. If they show something it will be revisionist history and the AFL scrambling to prove it was a point. Nothing can ever get away from the fact that the AFL contravened their own documented process.
That’s what every review is. The umpire thinks it was touched or not touched or hit the post or didn’t then uses the ARC to review their call.
Yes. That is right. As I say the ARC actions should be scrutinised but in discussing the incident, it’s wrong to say the goal umpire made a decision and it was overruled. The goal umpire made no decision, just passed a view on what he thought might have happened, otherwise can we get ARC to confirm or not ie ARC make the ultimate call.
I don't understand why you keep claiming this. The goal umpire ALWAYS makes a decision, then they asks the arc to review it.
It doesn't matter what language is used between goal and field umpire, at the end of the day the goal umpire makes a call one way or the other. that is how it's been since they brought in the arc.
That’s right. Their “call”. A “call” under the rules is not a decision. Two fingers up and flags is.
I'm just quoting the AFLs ARC process, someone posted it, very clear, very simple, "on-field" call is only overturned if evidence is conclusive. You can say the 'on-field call' is not a decision if you want, I'd call it a provisional decision, but its still critical to the process. In theory at least.
Yes. He asks for a review to confirm his decision. Or not.
It made sense, the kick was hit with power from close range. Would have been challenging to see it definitively in real time. Given the match situation it made sense to call for a review. I have no issues with it. He said he believed it was a goal. He did everything correctly, if that was a lions shot I would have been furious if there was no review.
It was the next step that is farcical.
The AFL should come out and lay blame at the umpire. At the end of the day if the goal umpire had the balls he should have not referred it to us. He has made us look silly so is now confined to umpiring in the outback NT for the next 6 months.
And I don’t understand how you don’t get the logical process of events.
The goal umpire makes a call to the field umpire on what he believes to be the case but does not make a definitive decision because he has an element of doubt. If he didn’t, then why ask for a review ? And like I told you the other day, asking for a review is a ceding of the decision by the goal umpire to ARC.
You keep using the word decision. The goal umpire does NOT a make a decision. ARC make the decision - a poor one it seems.
It’s only critical when ARC can’t come to a conclusion and reverts to the umpires CALL.
At best, you could say they overturned the goal umpires call, but certainly not their decision because they never made one in the first place.
And you want them to use the technology available if there is any doubt. That’s what the process is about. To get more decisions correct. Decisions made by goal umpires and sent upstairs for review. They don’t send them upstairs without confirming the umpires call. They send them upstairs to confirm or overrule or say inconclusive. It’s always referenced back to the umpires call.
Partially yes, but not completely. Your argument implies the on field call carries no weight, it does.
Is your understanding of these rules written in the AFL's publically available guidelines? Because that makes no sense to me.
My understanding is that if the umpire "thinks" a certain scenario has occurred then he/she is making a "call" one way or the other (or a "decision", as you put it). They just want to verify their decision is correct or not. Of course there is the element of doubt but that doesn't mean the umpire hasn't made a call in the first place.
If the umpire "believes/thinks/reckons/ponders" the situation, they have still made their official determination of whether or not it is a goal. It doesn't matter what language they use when communicating this to the field umpire.
Now you’re getting there MD. It’s a call….not a decision that really…has no significance unless ARC can’t decide.
And ARC it appears shouldn’t have decided goal or behind and therefore referred back to the call. But they didn’t.
