-
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.
Goal Review Technology - Farce or not?
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
I have it! Irish football has proved you can adapt Hawk-eye to goal posts. Now you add Google Glass. So the goal ump sees the hawk-eye live or as close to live as hawk-eye can get. Cool huh?
I still argue that there are that many mistakes by field umpires that lead up to goals being scored that makes goal line technology redundant.
If we had the technology to scrutinise field umpire mistakes then it might be worthwhile but unfortunately there are a lot more mistakes made in a game by them than goal umpires which makes the focus on just the goals kind of silly.
If you're going to allow human error by field & boundary umpires then it should be the same for goal umpires too.
Besides the tech is still considerably flawed even after all these years.
Ditch it already.
If we had the technology to scrutinise field umpire mistakes then it might be worthwhile but unfortunately there are a lot more mistakes made in a game by them than goal umpires which makes the focus on just the goals kind of silly.
If you're going to allow human error by field & boundary umpires then it should be the same for goal umpires too.
Besides the tech is still considerably flawed even after all these years.
Ditch it already.
Tigers of Old said:
agreed. Its opening up a whole can of pandoras. The odd blue, who cares? (obviously if it cost us a flag I'd care, but what are the chances?, I'm willing to take that chance to keep the game less dumb). Agree 100% that dodgey frees paid in the fwd line have a much bigger impact.
also, that goal Rocca reckoned he kicked in the GF against Brisbane he's still whinging about, the bending goal from 55? It was a point. He was 60 metres away and the ball was bending, WTF does he know?
Tigers of Old said:
It was a tongue in cheek suggestion ToO, mostly. But on field umpiring, what can be done? I don't like the paying of frees by an ump 120m away to be honest but could they change their positioning? Say have the nearest non-controlling ump try to always get to a position 180deg opposed to the controlling ump? I think it would eliminate those decisions that are clearly a "guess". They're the ones that grind my gears, when you know the ump couldn't actually see the ball or the players arms but pays what he "thinks" happened.
jb03 said:
A lot of decisions using the goal technology aren't so obvious either.
I'm sure if we used video technology on field umpiring decisions then it would be a quite different result. Of course it's time prohibitive to do that so they don't despite some howling errors that lead to goals.
My big pet hate with the goal technology is seeing with a kick at goal if the ball has been touched or not, either in the field of play or on the line. Usually they have no idea!!
Goal umps - can they be paid off? If there was anyone able to control the destiny of a game it's a goal ump. Anything that lessens the likelihood of match fixing gets my vote.
But then again.......some of the goal reviews to date have been pretty dodgy and they've got away with it. Does anyone check their bank accounts. OK, I've got it - we need a review of the reviewer - preferably from a separate bunker - using heat cam, pheromone detection and eye movement analysis technology.
But then again.......some of the goal reviews to date have been pretty dodgy and they've got away with it. Does anyone check their bank accounts. OK, I've got it - we need a review of the reviewer - preferably from a separate bunker - using heat cam, pheromone detection and eye movement analysis technology.
Tigers of Old said:
Yup. Completely disagreed with using this tech to judge "touched" from the start. That has to be umps call. The tech is only for whether the ball went the right side of the sticks. That's it.
Not for the time it wastes in a game that's already arguably too long. Too often they go through these incidents frame by frame and find nothing. It just slows the entire game down. A game that's already riddled with human error.jb03 said:
Just stop replaying goals in slow motion at the ground and get on with it warts and all.
Farce.
Needs to be at every ground, with standardised camera angles.
Can't see the point if some grounds have it and others don't or don't have the same camera's to judge with.
Needs to be at every ground, with standardised camera angles.
Can't see the point if some grounds have it and others don't or don't have the same camera's to judge with.
