-
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.
Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
I really can't see a justification for changing the scoring, just silly. If you introduce this and then allow rushing a behind you will have the same problem. A player is running toward the ball which is heading through the goals, they fumble, the ball falls out of their hands, and goes through. Is that rushed or not - if you think that is too clear then just think of the situation which is on the margin. The ARC is rubbish and solves nothing, the AFL are clearly not willing to do score reviews properly, so let's just go with the umpires' ruling.
As for understanding the rules, yeah, teach the fans, but teach the bloody commentators first, they are clueless.
There are occasionally good rule changes. I may not like 6-6-6 because it goes against the freedom of movement Australian Rules Football has always had, but the centre square was actually a good rule. Was one of very few rule changes back then. Out of bounds on the full was also a good rule. Play on from the goal square is fine, the issue with that rule is that the umpires just don't seem to enforce running too far without a bounce, which really shouldn't be that hard.
If you want to allow throws, restart the VFA, they allowed it for decades. I just think they need to be harder on defining a handball. They let way too much go now. If they enforce it better the players will change their behaviour.
DS
As for understanding the rules, yeah, teach the fans, but teach the bloody commentators first, they are clueless.
There are occasionally good rule changes. I may not like 6-6-6 because it goes against the freedom of movement Australian Rules Football has always had, but the centre square was actually a good rule. Was one of very few rule changes back then. Out of bounds on the full was also a good rule. Play on from the goal square is fine, the issue with that rule is that the umpires just don't seem to enforce running too far without a bounce, which really shouldn't be that hard.
If you want to allow throws, restart the VFA, they allowed it for decades. I just think they need to be harder on defining a handball. They let way too much go now. If they enforce it better the players will change their behaviour.
DS
The other thing with the ARC is it is not being used for the purpose it should be.
The ARC should be to correct the glaring mistake, not second guess umpires who are standing a foot away as to whether or not the ball brushed the post or not.
As I've always said with cricket, the review should only be applied if there is an immediate glaring error like the Tom Hawkins one in the Grand Final.
If the ARC remained I'd like to see it used like cricket with 2 available per game for the Captain to call and the umpire only able to call if he was knocked over etc and prevented from watching.
Never used for touches or if it crossed the line, just did it go through the right posts or not. One look, decision, move on.
The ARC should be to correct the glaring mistake, not second guess umpires who are standing a foot away as to whether or not the ball brushed the post or not.
As I've always said with cricket, the review should only be applied if there is an immediate glaring error like the Tom Hawkins one in the Grand Final.
If the ARC remained I'd like to see it used like cricket with 2 available per game for the Captain to call and the umpire only able to call if he was knocked over etc and prevented from watching.
Never used for touches or if it crossed the line, just did it go through the right posts or not. One look, decision, move on.
Wanganeen I reckon! Seems a nice lad! Bet he would offer to help clean up after a barbie as well!
And a cunning player, like Nathan Jones will be aware that if you act like you touched it then there is a good chance it will go your way.
There's another player, who I won't name, that cottoned onto this early and has saved lots of goals by 'touching' them.
Yeah - that one (if you mean the one “touched” about 30-40m from goal) and another (called by the goal umpire) but then reversed on the basis of being touched on the goal line
Both were overturned because of supposedly “clear evidence” - but neither was clear on the footage shown on TV
His forearm. Clear deflection of the ball. It’s why it was overturned.
If that was clearly touched then over the decades dozens of games have been decided on an unjustified goal. Glad we have cleaned that injustice out of the game. And those missed pinkie grazes 40m from goal have blighted the game since players since day one. Is The game better for making decisions on blurred pictures?
And often the biggest decision is the free kick or mark awarded that leads to a goal. They aren't reviewed. Did the ball travel 15? Was there really prior opportunity on a HTB? Was a forward pushed out by a defender or one of his own team... etc etc.
I would say field umpiring "errors" lead to more goals than marginal goal line adjudications.
But if you can get more decisions correct then what is the issue? The rule is if it is touched it is not a goal. Howard touched it, no goal.
I'd question the judgement of anyone that couldn't see that Howard touched the ball. There is a clear deflection of the ball.
The right decision was made. It's at a stop play so doesn't interfere with the play.
The more decisions they get right the better, a bit like the cricket review system. It's not perfect but getting more decisions correct is better than not IMO.
I'd prefer we don't get the absolute howler decide a game.
They would have been. Getting more decisions right is better than less. Is it clearing all injustice - of course not. But it's assisting goal umpires and at least directing some of the angst away from them.
Reckon it can become a can of worms.
What about if while watching that video (of Howard) there was another Brisbane player near the goal line seen to be clearly having his jumper held - or tackled high - or some other blatant howler that had been missed?
Likewise if in the review of the Jones "touch" - and a similar incident is seen nearby?
Should those howlers be now paid?
No, that's not what it is there for. That's just a straw man argument. It's there to get more decisions in relation to whether goals are legitimate or not. That is all. Does it do this? Yes, in the main it does. It results in more accurate decisions in relation to goals/points, that is all it is designed to do.
I'm not superfussed, but think it is moe beneficial than less so happy for it to stay.
And again we couldn't understand the decision when he was saying 'based on this angle there is is a clear deflection before the ball has crossed the line' because channel 7 only showed us the front of goal vision and not the goal line until the decision was made, when the ARC needed to piece both together.
It's almost as though I've spent a fair bit of time sitting there and seeing this stuff used sometimes, but hey what would I know.
Yeh, the way you've explained it makers it a lot easier to understand how they are coming to decisions.And again we couldn't understand the decision when he was saying 'based on this angle there is is a clear deflection before the ball has crossed the line' because channel 7 only showed us the front of goal vision and not the goal line until the decision was made, when the ARC needed to piece both together.
It's almost as though I've spent a fair bit of time sitting there and seeing this stuff used sometimes, but hey what would I know.
Ch 7 should make it very clear that what they show is is not exactly what the guy in ARC is looking at.
But they should then show us what footage he actually based his decision on.
