It’s completely ceded. ARC makes one of three decisions: goal, behind or umpires CALL ( not decision).
The goal umpire does not make a decision in a review situation. ARC does.
-
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
The goal umpire does not make a decision in a review situation. ARC does.
Anyway, not sure ARC is going to help Wayne Carey ... seems to have found himself in a bit of bother ... again.
Sorry BT, but you just don‘t get the difference between a call and a decision.
The goal umpire does not make a decision in a review situation. ARC does. Otherwise why is he going to ARC in the first place and asking them to adjudicate !
we're going around in circles. The way I read it, conclusive evidence is required to overturn the umpires CALL. Thats the ARC process in black and white. I suppose legally you can say he's ceded his decision to the ARC, but his call, is still in theory, critical. Otherwise the process would just be 'send it to the ARC and let them decide'.
Not this incident specifically but the goal umpire usually says something like "I believe it is a goal but can you check that the ball didn't hit the post." The field umpire signals a goal and says it a a goal to the ARC who should only then over turn if the evidence is definitive. The call is critical to the process as it will be the fall back decision should the ARC not have definitive evidence (as how the system works in cricket too).
What may be a simpler system is that if video evidence is inclusive, the lesser score will take precedence.
One is only a less than certain belief or piece of input. The other is a definitive decision that is final.
At least you didn’t say the goal umpire makes a decision. He’s only making a call on what he thinks or believes happened. Then otherwise the ACTUAL decision is made by ARC.
The difference between the two terms is nothing more than semantics.
Yes. Like MD, now you’ve got the gist. Overturn or ignore a CALL or revert back to it. But not overturn or ignore a goal umpire‘s convicted decision. The goal umpire had enough doubt to pass it off to ARC …..who made the decision (incorrectly) for all of us.
No it’s not. Saying the goal umpire’s “decision“ was overruled implies that their authority was undermined and their conviction in it was too.
That never happened.
The goal umpire makes a "decision". But they ask for the arc to double check that their "decision" is the correct one.
Then the arc either agrees with, or overrules the original "decision". Semantics.
This from September 2019
"UPGRADED cameras and the addition of 'Extreme Super Slow Motion' cameras at every ground will be a feature of the new AFL Review Centre (ARC) that will be trialled this September.
There will be a minimum of three 'Super Slow Motion' cameras, including a minimum of one 'Extreme Super Slow Motion' camera, at every stadium set to host a finals match over the next month.
It will enable score reviews the most clear and precise means of correcting or confirming contentious on-field decisions throughout the finals period."
www.afl.com.au
"UPGRADED cameras and the addition of 'Extreme Super Slow Motion' cameras at every ground will be a feature of the new AFL Review Centre (ARC) that will be trialled this September.
There will be a minimum of three 'Super Slow Motion' cameras, including a minimum of one 'Extreme Super Slow Motion' camera, at every stadium set to host a finals match over the next month.
It will enable score reviews the most clear and precise means of correcting or confirming contentious on-field decisions throughout the finals period."
Meet ARC: AFL's new review hub gets 'extreme' makeover for finals
More cameras and 'Extreme Super Slow Motion' are a feature of the new AFL Review Centre (ARC)
No, I’m not agreeing with you. Name it what you want, a call or decision, but the goal umpire sends it up for review after deciding if it’s a goal or a point. It doesn’t go upstairs for the ARC to decide it goes up for them to review. In every case. It’s a decision review system. The goal umpire decides, the ARC reviews.
You realise how illogical that is BT ?
Snake, MD, Smoking etc now get it but If you can’t get the difference there’s no point going on. And it’s why still cant answer that if you’re genuinely making a decision, why do you hand it off to someone else to actually make (ARC) !!!
MD….. when it was pronounced a behind who relayed that to everyone ? The goal umpire or ARC ?
The goal umpire decided nothing. Otherwise he wouldn’t have asked ARC to decide for him.
VERY SIMPLE.
Actually I think I understand your point now Red. Because the ARC does in fact come back and say Goal or Point or umpires call. They don’t come back and say we agree with the goal umpire. They actually make the call in the booth. It’s only when they can’t decide that they revert to umpires call?
Is that it!!!! ????
Is that it!!!! ????
If there's no sufficient evidence most times with kicks like that, these goal dumpires should just 'harden up' and make the call instead of going wishy-washy asking for a review. No-one would dispute it as much as is done with this fARC system and we have less arguments.
