Goal review system is a joke

[kosifantutti]

I thought the rule was the goal umpire's decision could only be overturned if there was conclusive evidence that it was wrong.

First incident, the Lennon goal, the umpire calls it a goal and says I just want to check it didn't hit his knee. Well it did come off his knee but then there seemed to be no interest in whether he subsequently touched it with his foot, which I reckon he did.

Second incident, Seb Ross' goal. The umpires called it a goal and not one camera shot showed the Richmond player definitely touching the ball, the umpires didn't call for a review yet it gets overturned.

The whole system is a joke and should be scrapped.

[Life Long Saint]

I thought the rule was the goal umpire's decision could only be overturned if there was conclusive evidence that it was wrong.

First incident, the Lennon goal, the umpire calls it a goal and says I just want to check it didn't hit his knee. Well it did come off his knee but then there seemed to be no interest in whether he subsequently touched it with his foot, which I reckon he did.

Second incident, Seb Ross' goal. The umpires called it a goal and not one camera shot showed the Richmond player definitely touching the ball, the umpires didn't call for a review yet it gets overturned.

The whole system is a joke and should be scrapped.

Every goal is reviewed. Can't tell you how many times that has been said on the commentary over the past few seasons.

[kosifantutti]

That doesn't address the issue of them just overturning umpire decisions on a whim.

[satchmo]

I would like all communication with umpires via their earpiece to be public. There is some strange stuff happening out there, and with so much money bet on games these days the AFL should be very transparent in their comms.

[SemperFidelis]

At the ground after the review I thought they said it hit the post? Which at the time I thought was truly bizarre. No replays played at the ground so no idea!

[Life Long Saint]

That doesn't address the issue of them just overturning umpire decisions on a whim.

Yes. It does.
Every goal is reviewed whilst the ball is being taken back to the centre. Every goal!
Happened last season during the ANZAC day game v Carlton in Wellington.

Comms at the ground could be better, though.

[LTN16]

Lennon goal?

He didn't play

[Munga]

No idea how they can say Seb's kick was touched

[WellardSaint]

Lennon goal?

He didn't play

Imagine there's no review
Easy if you try
No umpire below it
Above us only sky

[kosifantutti]

That doesn't address the issue of them just overturning umpire decisions on a whim.

Yes. It does.
Every goal is reviewed whilst the ball is being taken back to the centre. Every goal!
Happened last season during the ANZAC day game v Carlton in Wellington.

Comms at the ground could be better, though.

No it doesn't. My point is decisions should be overturned only if there is clear evidence that it was wrong.

Looking at the Ross goal, there is no evidence at all that anyone touched it. Why overturn it?

[citywest]

I thought the rule was the goal umpire's decision could only be overturned if there was conclusive evidence that it was wrong.

First incident, the Lennon goal, the umpire calls it a goal and says I just want to check it didn't hit his knee. Well it did come off his knee but then there seemed to be no interest in whether he subsequently touched it with his foot, which I reckon he did.

Second incident, Seb Ross' goal. The umpires called it a goal and not one camera shot showed the Richmond player definitely touching the ball, the umpires didn't call for a review yet it gets overturned.

The whole system is a joke and should be scrapped.

Your posting style makes it very difficult for me to believe you are an ex moderator Kosi. You give us 2 examples and call for the system to be scrapped.

[kosifantutti]

I'll try to be more like you Citywest. Then I can gain everyone's respect.

[saynta]

I'll try to be more like you Citywest. Then I can gain everyone's respect.

Post of the week.

[citywest]

I'll try to be more like you Citywest. Then I can gain everyone's respect.

I'll take that as a compliment Kosi.

[LTN16]

I'll try to be more like you Citywest. Then I can gain everyone's respect.

I'll take that as a compliment Kosi.

It wasn't a compliment chitypest

[derby Street]

I'll try to be more like you Citywest. Then I can gain everyone's respect.

Of course you will have to support another side - but still OK for you to be a major troll I wouldn't count on gaining everyones respect - in fact the exact opposite. Good post.

[BringBackMadDog]

I thought the rule was the goal umpire's decision could only be overturned if there was conclusive evidence that it was wrong.

First incident, the Lennon goal, the umpire calls it a goal and says I just want to check it didn't hit his knee. Well it did come off his knee but then there seemed to be no interest in whether he subsequently touched it with his foot, which I reckon he did.

Second incident, Seb Ross' goal. The umpires called it a goal and not one camera shot showed the Richmond player definitely touching the ball, the umpires didn't call for a review yet it gets overturned.

The whole system is a joke and should be scrapped.

The Richmond one was definitely a point it came off his knee rolled over the goal line and then hit his foot, it was clearly already through before he kicked it.

[Enrico_Misso]

The system did what it was meant to do yesterday.

The outrage still remains from 2009 where a schoolboy howler decision (or a conspiracy from a Geelong supporting $#%&) cost us a premiership.

[Life Long Saint]

That doesn't address the issue of them just overturning umpire decisions on a whim.

Yes. It does.
Every goal is reviewed whilst the ball is being taken back to the centre. Every goal!
Happened last season during the ANZAC day game v Carlton in Wellington.

Comms at the ground could be better, though.

No it doesn't. My point is decisions should be overturned only if there is clear evidence that it was wrong.

Looking at the Ross goal, there is no evidence at all that anyone touched it. Why overturn it?

Because it was touched by the Richmond player. Looked pretty conclusive to me.

[kosifantutti]

Because they had four angles up at once, I rewound four times. Not one of them showed a conclusive touch. The only angle that looked crisp enough to show something like that was filmed from behind Seb.

[Linton Lodger]

Geez, I thought the Seb Ross decision, must have been heard by the umpire and that the umpire must of called it touched. I don't know how the hell you could conclusively say that was touched from the video???