Would the referral system alter the Tom Hawkins debacle?

[Enrico_Misso]

Would this new referral system have prevented the Tom Hawkins post debacle that arguably cost us a Premiership?

Many might say they wish they had this system in place for the 2009 Grand Final.
But would it have helped?
Apparently they ignore player appeals, as per the Sam Fisher incident last week.
A referral has to come from an umpire expressing doubt.

So in 2009 the umpires would have ignored our defenders appeals.
If any of the other umpires had noticed the "poster" on the day then they would have either over-ruled it or at at least gone into a "discussion huddle". If that huddle had happened then they would have certainly called for a video review.
But on the day all the other umps simply didn't notice or just accepted the decision and got on with it.

So there was no doubts expressed by any of the umpires.
Hence it would never have been referred.
Hawkins would still have got the goal.
The ball would still have gone back to the middle.
They would still have got the next goal.
The game would have gone down the same path.
Goddard would still have broken his collarbone.
Missed shots.
Missed frees.
Toepoke.
We would still have lost the Premiership.

How has this referral system addressed this fundamental deficiency?

[skeptic]

The whole thing is a farce... IMO the umpires decision should stand.

The TH goal didn't cost us the GF... it was one of 30+ decisions (including free kicks not paid either way) that could have drastically altered the outcome one way or another

this tech thing is just ruining the game... I watched the Geary touched goal replay at the game... cdnt tell whether it was touched or not but obviously upstairs could... why does this have to be so complicated. Umps shd just make a decison and stick to it

[gringo]

The whole thing is a farce... IMO the umpires decision should stand.

The TH goal didn't cost us the GF... it was one of 30+ decisions (including free kicks not paid either way) that could have drastically altered the outcome one way or another

this tech thing is just ruining the game... I watched the Geary touched goal replay at the game... cdnt tell whether it was touched or not but obviously upstairs could... why does this have to be so complicated. Umps shd just make a decison and stick to it

That first game showed Sam Fisher touch the ball on the boundary and was referred. The footage from one angle was inconclusive and was the footage shown at the ground after the goal stood they showed another angle which looked more like Sam got hands on it. At least pay for three handy cams from different angles that can't be expensive. A closed circuit system can be set up for a few hundred bucks.

[plugger66]

The Hawkins decision would have been overturned as replays before the ball being bounced were so obvious. The system is better than none at all but like the cricket will not be perfect. If 10 decisions were wrong last year and then it drops to 5 then surely it is better than none.

[kosifantutti]

The Hawkins decision would have been overturned as replays before the ball being bounced were so obvious. The system is better than none at all but like the cricket will not be perfect. If 10 decisions were wrong last year and then it drops to 5 then surely it is better than none.

I'm not sure the replays were shown before the bounce and as Enrico says, if the umpires don't think it's dodgy there is no referral regardless of what's on the replay.

There seems to have been minimal improvement in the decisions made and it's added a lot of time. I also think it encourages players to cheat. Jump up and down and say you touched it if you got close. If they go to a review it is almost always inconlusive.

By the way, kudos to the goal umpire who called what would have been Gold Coast's first goal touched from 30m away. If he hadn't seen it, I don't think the field umpire was going to send it to review.

[8856brother]

Yes.

[gringo]

The Hawkins decision would have been overturned as replays before the ball being bounced were so obvious. The system is better than none at all but like the cricket will not be perfect. If 10 decisions were wrong last year and then it drops to 5 then surely it is better than none.

so far it's been farcial and hasn't been used well at all, I'm not sure it has proven any better. Slows down the game and is still just a guess at the end.

[dragit]

If the AFL had their drugs policy in line with WADA in 2009, would Chapman been able to continue without the aid of oxygen-spun blood? Which of course was banned before another match was played.

Would we have won then?



Still

Bitter

[saintspremiers]

The system will only work well IMO when it is referral based.