The goal that wasn't
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
The goal that wasn't
AFL seriously need to sort out the debacle that is referred goals
The rule states that if a shot at goal is referred and the result is inconclusive then the lower score is awarded - unfortunately a ball that passes at pace within 5 to 10cm of someone's fingers will always look to be inconclusive due to inadequate camera set ups
So in the end a goal that is a goal can be awarded a point - even if the likelihood of it being touched is less than 30%
In reality the system the AFL have implemented to erase doubt around goal scoring whilst works in some cases is still ineffectual in others
The AFL in the off season need to have serious look at how the referred system should be implemented
The rule states that if a shot at goal is referred and the result is inconclusive then the lower score is awarded - unfortunately a ball that passes at pace within 5 to 10cm of someone's fingers will always look to be inconclusive due to inadequate camera set ups
So in the end a goal that is a goal can be awarded a point - even if the likelihood of it being touched is less than 30%
In reality the system the AFL have implemented to erase doubt around goal scoring whilst works in some cases is still ineffectual in others
The AFL in the off season need to have serious look at how the referred system should be implemented
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: The goal that wasn't
If you are not willing to pay to have cameras covering every angle - then do not implement the rule.
Re: The goal that wasn't
Devilhead wrote:AFL seriously need to sort out the debacle that is referred goals
The rule states that if a shot at goal is referred and the result is inconclusive then the lower score is awarded - unfortunately a ball that passes at pace within 5 to 10cm of someone's fingers will always look to be inconclusive due to inadequate camera set ups
So in the end a goal that is a goal can be awarded a point - even if the likelihood of it being touched is less than 30%
In reality the system the AFL have implemented to erase doubt around goal scoring whilst works in some cases is still ineffectual in others
The AFL in the off season need to have serious look at how the referred system should be implemented
They now go by what the majority of umpires think and the goal umpire thought it was a point. Once that happened it was going to be point unless 100% proved otherwise. Not sure any cameras could have proven either way if it was touched or not. Didnt like it was to me but some people here have said it was touched. That is enough to go with the original decision. Exactly how it works in cricket.
Re: The goal that wasn't
It looked touched to me.
Probably the best thing to do would have to have a referral system like in cricket. Instead of the umpires referring it, the opposition have 2 unsuccessful referrals for the match. That way time is not wasted on marginal decisions and players could appeal against the real howlers like the ball hitting the post.
Probably the best thing to do would have to have a referral system like in cricket. Instead of the umpires referring it, the opposition have 2 unsuccessful referrals for the match. That way time is not wasted on marginal decisions and players could appeal against the real howlers like the ball hitting the post.
Feature article: KFC's "Double Down" burger!
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
- Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
Soon everytime a defender gets their hand close to the ball - either off the boot or on the line - they will appeal hoping the inconclusive footage will result in a point.
Perhaps we should get on the front foot, instead of getting shafted all the time, and train our players to do this.
Perhaps we should get on the front foot, instead of getting shafted all the time, and train our players to do this.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
How do you know for a fact that the goal umpire thought it was a point??plugger66 wrote:They now go by what the majority of umpires think and the goal umpire thought it was a point. Once that happened it was going to be point unless 100% proved otherwise. Not sure any cameras could have proven either way if it was touched or not. Didnt like it was to me but some people here have said it was touched. That is enough to go with the original decision. Exactly how it works in cricket.
Can you lip read??
It looked to me that the goal umpire actually got caught out of position and maybe thought there was a chance that it was touched - if the goal umpire thought it was definitely touched then i would say the field umpire would have allowed him to award a point on the spot
If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: The goal that wasn't
Devilhead wrote:How do you know for a fact that the goal umpire thought it was a point??plugger66 wrote:They now go by what the majority of umpires think and the goal umpire thought it was a point. Once that happened it was going to be point unless 100% proved otherwise. Not sure any cameras could have proven either way if it was touched or not. Didnt like it was to me but some people here have said it was touched. That is enough to go with the original decision. Exactly how it works in cricket.
Can you lip read??
It looked to me that the goal umpire actually got caught out of position and maybe thought there was a chance that it was touched - if the goal umpire thought it was definitely touched then i would say the field umpire would have allowed him to award a point on the spot
If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??
The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
WE could have been the field umpire and the boundary umpires with the goal umpire having no ideaplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:How do you know for a fact that the goal umpire thought it was a point??plugger66 wrote:They now go by what the majority of umpires think and the goal umpire thought it was a point. Once that happened it was going to be point unless 100% proved otherwise. Not sure any cameras could have proven either way if it was touched or not. Didnt like it was to me but some people here have said it was touched. That is enough to go with the original decision. Exactly how it works in cricket.
Can you lip read??
It looked to me that the goal umpire actually got caught out of position and maybe thought there was a chance that it was touched - if the goal umpire thought it was definitely touched then i would say the field umpire would have allowed him to award a point on the spot
If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??
The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.
Anyway back to my question - If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10426
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 713 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
Have to watch it again, but I thought the goal ump was ready to signal goal, and the field ump suddenly got instructed over the headphone - something about tv ratings in the finals - and sprinted to stop the goal ump giving the two fingered salute.
Then said 'we think' rather than 'I think' to the video reviewer. The reviewer saw a clear goal but also received instruction about ratings and afl' officials finals bonuses, so declared it inconclusive. The field ump then told he goal ump to award a point. The goal ump looked a bit miffed, but will come to his senses after the game, when made aware of the coming Xmas bonus.
Then said 'we think' rather than 'I think' to the video reviewer. The reviewer saw a clear goal but also received instruction about ratings and afl' officials finals bonuses, so declared it inconclusive. The field ump then told he goal ump to award a point. The goal ump looked a bit miffed, but will come to his senses after the game, when made aware of the coming Xmas bonus.
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
Re: The goal that wasn't
Devilhead wrote:WE could have been the field umpire and the boundary umpires with the goal umpire having no ideaplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote: How do you know for a fact that the goal umpire thought it was a point??
Can you lip read??
It looked to me that the goal umpire actually got caught out of position and maybe thought there was a chance that it was touched - if the goal umpire thought it was definitely touched then i would say the field umpire would have allowed him to award a point on the spot
If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??
The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.
Anyway back to my question - If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??
Yes it would have. Im not sure there is any other way of doing it.
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
No wrong again - the lower score ie: a point is awarded if the referral is inconclusiveplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:
WE could have been the field umpire and the boundary umpires with the goal umpire having no idea
Anyway back to my question - If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??
Yes it would have. Im not sure there is any other way of doing it.
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: The goal that wasn't
Devilhead wrote:No wrong again - the lower score ie: a point is awarded if the referral is inconclusiveplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:
WE could have been the field umpire and the boundary umpires with the goal umpire having no idea
Anyway back to my question - If the goal umpire thought it wasnt touched then would have it been awarded a goal if the camera evidence was inconclusive??
Yes it would have. Im not sure there is any other way of doing it.
I am sorry but they changed that. If before the video they decide it is a point or goal they go with that if not conclusive. Do they have out on the full yet where you watch the game?
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 17024
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3645 times
- Been thanked: 2916 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
I would be astounded if that's true.Devilhead wrote:The rule states that if a shot at goal is referred and the result is inconclusive then the lower score is awarded - unfortunately a ball that passes at pace within 5 to 10cm of someone's fingers will always look to be inconclusive due to inadequate camera set ups
It seems ridicuolous that a goal umpire would reverse his decision based on inconclusive video
Surely common sense suggests that if the video is inconclusive then the umpires original decsion should stand
Last edited by skeptic on Sun 22 Jul 2012 6:59pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The goal that wasn't
skeptic wrote:I would astounded if that's true.Devilhead wrote:The rule states that if a shot at goal is referred and the result is inconclusive then the lower score is awarded - unfortunately a ball that passes at pace within 5 to 10cm of someone's fingers will always look to be inconclusive due to inadequate camera set ups
It seems ridicuolous that a goal umpire would reverse his decision based on inconclusive video
Surely common sense suggests that if the video is inconclusive then the umpires original decsion should stand
Well it isnt true so you can rest easy.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 17024
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3645 times
- Been thanked: 2916 times
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2378
- Joined: Tue 10 Jul 2007 11:14am
- Location: Bentleigh East
- Has thanked: 272 times
- Been thanked: 628 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!
Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.
Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.
Re: The goal that wasn't
Beno88 wrote:I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!
Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.
I soppose they didnt have a camera on the line. If there was no video it would have been a point anyway. Looked like a goal to me but some people on here thought it was touched.
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
What if the goal umpire wasn't sure??? Ie: out of position and didn't have a clear viewBeno88 wrote:I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!
Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
Many people are confused by the system hence my original post stating that it needs an overhaulBeno88 wrote:I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!
Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: The goal that wasn't
Devilhead wrote:Many people are confused by the system hence my original post stating that it needs an overhaulBeno88 wrote:I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!
Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.
Can you tell me what would have changed had we not had it today?
Re: The goal that wasn't
Thought this about the 3 times we had someone alone in the goal square and ignored em.
Re: The goal that wasn't
that's how i saw it too...desertsaint wrote:Have to watch it again, but I thought the goal ump was ready to signal goal, and the field ump suddenly got instructed over the headphone - something about tv ratings in the finals - and sprinted to stop the goal ump giving the two fingered salute.
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
Yet the goal umpire was shaping up to award a goal as has been suggested by many on this forumplugger66 wrote: The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
The goal umpire awards the goal as he was shaping up to do - the ball goes back to the middle and who knows after thatplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:Many people are confused by the system hence my original post stating that it needs an overhaulBeno88 wrote:I'm confused by the system. Yes it may have been touched, but they never checked to see if it was touched inside the field of play!
Also, if the footage is inconclusive, they don't go with a lower score, they go with the umpires original decision. It just happened in the Richmond game.
Can you tell me what would have changed had we not had it today?
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: The goal that wasn't
Devilhead wrote:Yet the goal umpire was shaping up to award a goal as has been suggested by many on this forumplugger66 wrote: The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.
I am unsure anyone can say that unless they look through one eye. It looked like he wanted to look at it immediately.