Umpiring Interstate

[Devilhead]

Just watched it goal umpire thought it was a goal. Boundry thought it may have been touched. Goal has to be paud.

That is wrong.

No you are wrong

[CURLY]

Just watched it goal umpire thought it was a goal. Boundry thought it may have been touched. Goal has to be paud.

That is wrong.

Your right it should of been paid a goal.

[plugger66]

Just watched it goal umpire thought it was a goal. Boundry thought it may have been touched. Goal has to be paud.

That is wrong.

No you are wrong

Are you 5 because it seems like you are when you post.

[Devilhead]

That is wrong.

No you are wrong

Are you 5 because it seems like you are when you post.

Is that it Plugger - crikey you have been proven wrong in this argument and you attack the man??

No doubt you will try and turn it into your favour by saying you were being sarcastic or some shite like that

Just admit you are wrong on this one and take it like a man

The AFL need to take a serious look at their goal referral system this has been my argument all along yet you blindly back them and have your head so far up their and the umpiring fraternity's arse it's laughable

[plugger66]

No you are wrong

Are you 5 because it seems like you are when you post.

Is that it Plugger - crikey you have been proven wrong in this argument and you attack the man??

No doubt you will try and turn it into your favour by saying you were being sarcastic or some shite like that

Just admit you are wrong on this one and take it like a man

The AFL need to take a serious look at their goal referral system this has been my argument all along yet you blindly back them and have your head so far up their and the umpiring fraternity's arse it's laughable

No what you are saying is wrong. Attack the man. Very funny after your hilarious stuff last time. You were wrong about what the decision is after a referral but you call me wrong. Look I know you arent in Australia and it is hard to understand footy from so far away but please dont call someone wrong who is right.

[Hawkesbury Saint]

I was behind the goals in the stands above the incident. It looked lke a behind off the boot. Late swing got it in for a goal. The swing was away from any defender's hand. He was following it. If touched, it was over the line. In live action time I thought it was untouched and am looking forward to seeing the replay. Bad call. Body language of the goal ump suggested goal initially. The Sydney crowd I was around were groaning at another Saints goal.

Have to agree that Umps spent time taking goals off Saints while gifting frees that lead directly to goals. As far as the free count goes its not how many but where and when they are given. A few howlers I thought. A number of Sydney fans laughing at some decisions for them, embarrassed chuckles at other times or even silence. At least some of the crowd knew their rules.

Umpiring by crowd reaction for a lot of it (often the uninitiated Sydney crowd who scream without sometimes knowing many rules) Fair enough the crowd creates pressure but really we should expect a greater degree of professionalism. We expect our players to enter any interstate cauldron and blinker out pressure, I don't think we should expect anything less of our umpires. I echo your sentiments from the srands there today Big Mart!

Go Milney you star!

Clearly not good enough today in holding out the fast finishing Swans, but without the gifts they received I doubt they would have had their tails in front and the run of the green for the last dramatic 6 minutes.

[Hawkesbury Saint]

Whoops repeat!

[Devilhead]

No what you are saying is wrong. Attack the man. Very funny after your hilarious stuff last time. You were wrong about what the decision is after a referral but you call me wrong. Look I know you arent in Australia and it is hard to understand footy from so far away but please dont call someone wrong who is right.

Where am wrong in saying that the referral system needs an overhaul??

Why have a referral system where the inconclusive cannot be deemed conclusive??

[plugger66]

No what you are saying is wrong. Attack the man. Very funny after your hilarious stuff last time. You were wrong about what the decision is after a referral but you call me wrong. Look I know you arent in Australia and it is hard to understand footy from so far away but please dont call someone wrong who is right.

Where am wrong in saying that the referral system needs an overhaul??

Why have a referral system where the inconclusive cannot be deemed conclusive??

You were wrong about saying it goes to the lower score. Some people think the referral is rubbish. I reckon as long as they go to the orginal decision if not conclusive it is worth having. Even if 1 on 10 are found to be wrong it is better than none in 10. Lets face it today there was no hope of getting that one right. They had enough camera views but like in cricket when they look at ball that may have bounced before being caught, ometime you will never get it 100% correct.

[Hawkesbury Saint]

I think today was wrong.

[saint75]

No what you are saying is wrong. Attack the man. Very funny after your hilarious stuff last time. You were wrong about what the decision is after a referral but you call me wrong. Look I know you arent in Australia and it is hard to understand footy from so far away but please dont call someone wrong who is right.

Where am wrong in saying that the referral system needs an overhaul??

Why have a referral system where the inconclusive cannot be deemed conclusive??

You were wrong about saying it goes to the lower score. Some people think the referral is rubbish. I reckon as long as they go to the orginal decision if not conclusive it is worth having. Even if 1 on 10 are found to be wrong it is better than none in 10. Lets face it today there was no hope of getting that one right. They had enough camera views but like in cricket when they look at ball that may have bounced before being caught, ometime you will never get it 100% correct.

Correct. The rule is that if the vision is inconclusive, they go with the original decision. I still have not seen the full game yet (as I was at Junior football) so what was the decision that was called? Did the goal umpire actually call it as a goal BEFORE it was referred?

[Old Mate]

Just seemed like all the 50/50's even 70/30's in our favour went against us. We could have easily been up by a couple of goals heading into the final quarter.

[Devilhead]

Correct. The rule is that if the vision is inconclusive, they go with the original decision. I still have not seen the full game yet (as I was at Junior football) so what was the decision that was called? Did the goal umpire actually call it as a goal BEFORE it was referred?

The goal umpire shaped as if he was going to award a goal and the field umpire stepped in - they spoke and then he asked the boundary umpires over - he then made the referred square box signal and said " We think it is a point" which could mean either " we are unsure whether it was touched before the line" or " we are certain it touched before the line" - this he did not clarify - extremely grey area

The camera evidence was inconclusive and a point was awarded - the commentators kept saying if the evidence is inconclusive then the decision must go with the lower score - nothing about an original decision being made

BTW just checked the 2012 AFL rules and there is not even a section on referring decisions

The umpires should be made to say " we are certain it is a point" or " we are certain it is a goal"

[plugger66]

Correct. The rule is that if the vision is inconclusive, they go with the original decision. I still have not seen the full game yet (as I was at Junior football) so what was the decision that was called? Did the goal umpire actually call it as a goal BEFORE it was referred?

The goal umpire shaped as if he was going to award a goal and the field umpire stepped in - they spoke and then he asked the boundary umpires over - he then made the referred square box signal and said " We think it is a point" which could mean either " we are unsure whether it was touched before the line" or " we are certain it touched before the line" - this he did not clarify - extremely grey area

The camera evidence was inconclusive and a point was awarded - the commentators kept saying if the evidence is inconclusive then the decision must go with the lower score - nothing about an original decision being made

BTW just checked the 2012 AFL rules and there is not even a section on referring decisions

The umpires should be made to say " we are certain it is a point" or " we are certain it is a goal"

How many times do you have to be told you are wrong? They go to the original decision that the field umpire tells the video umpire. If they were certain they dont use the video.

[Devilhead]

You were wrong about saying it goes to the lower score.

What if 2 umpires say it was definitely touched and 2 umpires say it was definitely NOT touched - how do they come to a decision before the referral

I would say that's when the lowest score decision comes into the equation if the referral then proves inconclusive

Explain why Experienced AFL commentators keep keep harping on about the lowest score being awarded??

BTW their is no section in the 2012 AFL rules outlining and clarifying referred decisions that I could find

[Devilhead]

Correct. The rule is that if the vision is inconclusive, they go with the original decision. I still have not seen the full game yet (as I was at Junior football) so what was the decision that was called? Did the goal umpire actually call it as a goal BEFORE it was referred?

The goal umpire shaped as if he was going to award a goal and the field umpire stepped in - they spoke and then he asked the boundary umpires over - he then made the referred square box signal and said " We think it is a point" which could mean either " we are unsure whether it was touched before the line" or " we are certain it touched before the line" - this he did not clarify - extremely grey area

The camera evidence was inconclusive and a point was awarded - the commentators kept saying if the evidence is inconclusive then the decision must go with the lower score - nothing about an original decision being made

BTW just checked the 2012 AFL rules and there is not even a section on referring decisions

The umpires should be made to say " we are certain it is a point" or " we are certain it is a goal"

How many times do you have to be told you are wrong? They go to the original decision that the field umpire tells the video umpire. If they were certain they dont use the video.

How can they come to an original decision if they are not certain????

[Jacks Back]

I don't understand why they don't have cameras in the posts at all AFL grounds. They can be in the padding that can be transferred from ground to ground thereby cutting down the number of cameras required (to save costs).

If you are going to use technology then either go the whole hog or nothing at all. This slip shod system is a joke!

[plugger66]

You were wrong about saying it goes to the lower score.

What if 2 umpires say it was definitely touched and 2 umpires say it was definitely NOT touched - how do they come to a decision before the referral

I would say that's when the lowest score decision comes into the equation if the referral then proves inconclusive

Explain why Experienced AFL commentators keep keep harping on about the lowest score being awarded??

BTW their is no section in the 2012 AFL rules outlining and clarifying referred decisions that I could find

Well in that case it obviously goes to the lower score but in the last lot of referrals I have heard they always say what they think it is. They did again today. And why did experienced AFL commentators say in the Richmond game say it goes to what the umpire originally thinks it was.

[plugger66]

The goal umpire shaped as if he was going to award a goal and the field umpire stepped in - they spoke and then he asked the boundary umpires over - he then made the referred square box signal and said " We think it is a point" which could mean either " we are unsure whether it was touched before the line" or " we are certain it touched before the line" - this he did not clarify - extremely grey area

The camera evidence was inconclusive and a point was awarded - the commentators kept saying if the evidence is inconclusive then the decision must go with the lower score - nothing about an original decision being made

BTW just checked the 2012 AFL rules and there is not even a section on referring decisions

The umpires should be made to say " we are certain it is a point" or " we are certain it is a goal"

How many times do you have to be told you are wrong? They go to the original decision that the field umpire tells the video umpire. If they were certain they dont use the video.

How can they come to an original decision if they are not certain????

Ever heard of the word think. You should try it sometime.

[Devilhead]

How many times do you have to be told you are wrong? They go to the original decision that the field umpire tells the video umpire. If they were certain they dont use the video.

How can they come to an original decision if they are not certain????

Ever heard of the word think. You should try it sometime.

Think could mean a lot of things it could mean

I'm not quite sure but

Or

In my opinion

Maybe you should try thinking a little a bit - be careful though because i THINK your brain is likely to explode

[Devilhead]

You were wrong about saying it goes to the lower score.

What if 2 umpires say it was definitely touched and 2 umpires say it was definitely NOT touched - how do they come to a decision before the referral

I would say that's when the lowest score decision comes into the equation if the referral then proves inconclusive

Explain why Experienced AFL commentators keep keep harping on about the lowest score being awarded??

BTW their is no section in the 2012 AFL rules outlining and clarifying referred decisions that I could find

Well in that case it obviously goes to the lower score

Hurrah - pop open the champagne - after being called wrong this whole Plugger finally gets it

Looking forward to the apology!!!

[CURLY]

Herald Sun today reported that goal umpire believed it was a goal as I posted earlier. How the hell that can be dismissef is beyond a joke.

[plugger66]

Herald Sun today reported that goal umpire believed it was a goal as I posted earlier. How the hell that can be dismissef is beyond a joke.

Firstly when have you all of sudden beleived what is written and even if it was true he must be a poor umpire for his belief to be dismissed by the other umpires because by the time they went to the video review it was decided they believed it was a point.

[stinger]

Herald Sun today reported that goal umpire believed it was a goal as I posted earlier. How the hell that can be dismissef is beyond a joke.

exactly....piss poor imfho......robbed us of momentum....


says it all really

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-ne ... 6432047594



"4. THERE was just one video review of a goal in the match and it looked like it might decide the outcome when things were close halfway through the last term.

Justin Koschitzke's shot looked like it had made the distance and the goal umpire thought so as well. The field umpire, after consulting with the goal umpire, called for a video review which changed the initial call of a goal to a behind."

[bergholt]

4 incorrect decisions led o 4 goals in a row

A couple of blatant errors

Umpires escape criticism though??

criticise them all you want, but we didn't lose because of the umpires. we lost because we kicked 4.15 between the start of the second quarter and half-way through the last. we didn't have to kick much straighter at all to win that game.