How can they possibly tell?

[Leo.J]

The first one looked touched. The second was a maybe or possibly, certainly not conclusive. If I had to put money on it, I'd say touched, but yeah not conclusive.

Agreed

[snoopygirl]

There didn't seem to be too much remonstrating from the North players in either instance which you would expect if they had touched the ball.

I was at an Angels meeting a few weeks ago where the guest speaker was an ex VFL/AFL goal umpire who is now in charge of coaching the goal umpires & the review of all goals has been happening for a few years now. He did state it needs to be conclusive evidence for them to overturn the goal umpires decision & that they have very limited time in which to review it. If the ball is bounced the moment has passed as they are then not able to recall it.

[Premium89]

There didn't seem to be too much remonstrating from the North players in either instance which you would expect if they had touched the ball.

I was at an Angels meeting a few weeks ago where the guest speaker was an ex VFL/AFL goal umpire who is now in charge of coaching the goal umpires & the review of all goals has been happening for a few years now. He did state it needs to be conclusive evidence for them to overturn the goal umpires decision & that they have very limited time in which to review it. If the ball is bounced the moment has passed as they are then not able to recall it.

Yeah I recall a lot of commentary teams mentioning this - every goal is reviewed if there could be some doubt. Has been the case since the review system came in if I remember correctly. Just glad we didn't lose by a goal!

[saintspremiers]

A couple of things, crazy no explanation as to why they were behinds at the game. I was confused but my 12 year old daughter was totally lost after that point whenever a goal was kicked! Think of the kids - if we have trouble understanding what's going on what hope do they have??

Also, with all the umps on the ground I'm surprised there were no goal reviews called for.

[kosifantutti]

Umpires make mistakes all the time but they don't get reviewed. I don't know why they feel the need to do it here.

At least when the umpires decide to review it, there's some drama but when the person in the box does it it's such an anti climax.

And what's with "result on the board"?. Haven't they delayed the game enough without slipping in a five second ad with the decision.

By the way, this review every decision rubbish has been in for a while. Kosi' last game when he came on in the last quarter and missed a couple of getable shots. Then went back and slotted one until someone with no feel for the game decided he hadn't.

[SaintPav]

Gears was great hey Lizzy...

Suck it up...


SUCK IT UP!!!

He was and I'm glad

I'm an Armo fan btw.

Love the Armo!

[CURLY]

First was touched the second you couldn't tell. Not that we got replay after replay of it.

[meher baba]

The first was pretty obviously touched, but that second one definitely was not conclusive. It was curious that the North players didn't seem to remonstrate on either occasion.

Having a game decided by something that neither the players or umpires can detect on the ground isn't what sport is about IMO.

Given that the AFL is constantly fiddling with the rules, I'm of the view that they might consider getting rid of the touched off the boot rule anyway, particularly when the ball is subsequently marked: the poor player marking the ball usually has no idea that it was touched and marks and holds on to the ball when it might have been more advantageous to handpass it or punch it over the line.

[SaintPav]

Gears was great hey Lizzy...

Suck it up...


SUCK IT UP!!!

He was and I'm glad

I'm an Armo fan btw.

Love the Armo!

[mullet]

If its inconclusive, isnt it the umpires call???

It may be the rule of the week, lets see if it happens for the rest of the round. Seems like the blocking rule has disappeared this week.

I actually feel for the umpires. Imagine trying to do your job and every week being told to concentrate on one thing, and that thing changes every week. Let em just do their job for god sake.

[Johnny Member]

The first one was clearly touched on the replay.

Good decision, if you're into that type of officiating. I'm not personally. I prefer the time old 'win some, lose some' approach to umpiring.


The second one had me puzzled. IT may have been touched - but I dispute that it was obvious enough to overrule the umpire.

[Joffa Burns]

You know the umpires cheat against us and their cheating is sanctioned by the AFL!

[ace]

On my 1920 x 1080 resolution plasma TV both looked like they might have been touched but I could not be certain either way.
However that does not mean the TV umpire did not have access to higher speed higher, to higher resolution 3840 x 2160, to frame by frame replay and to enlargement where he could examine the movement of fingers being bent backwards.
On TV we only get what Channel 7 or Foxtel provide us.
The resolution on those big screens at the ground is so poor that it is pointless showing anything on them other than the result.
You have to be watching to catch the BEHIND in amongst all the advertising.
They always run adverts whenever they think people will be looking to scoreboard to see the score, so annoying.

[Johnny Member]

On my 1920 x 1080 resolution plasma TV both looked like they might have been touched but I could not be certain either way.
However that does not mean the TV umpire did not have access to higher speed higher, to higher resolution 3840 x 2160, to frame by frame replay and to enlargement where he could examine the movement of fingers being bent backwards.
On TV we only get what Channel 7 or Foxtel provide us.
The resolution on those big screens at the ground is so poor that it is pointless showing anything on them other than the result.
You have to be watching to catch the BEHIND in amongst all the advertising.
They always run adverts whenever they think people will be looking to scoreboard to see the score, so annoying.

They don't have frame by frame.

[Sainter_Dad]

On my 1920 x 1080 resolution plasma TV both looked like they might have been touched but I could not be certain either way.
However that does not mean the TV umpire did not have access to higher speed higher, to higher resolution 3840 x 2160, to frame by frame replay and to enlargement where he could examine the movement of fingers being bent backwards.
On TV we only get what Channel 7 or Foxtel provide us.
The resolution on those big screens at the ground is so poor that it is pointless showing anything on them other than the result.
You have to be watching to catch the BEHIND in amongst all the advertising.
They always run adverts whenever they think people will be looking to scoreboard to see the score, so annoying.

They don't have frame by frame.

I believe that it was mentioned not that long ago, that the TV viewing audience get the same feed as the umpires (if they take that feed) so it is bizarre as to how they could determine that the second one was touched (maybe the coverage did not take the feed as it was too inconclusive)

I agree that the technology should be used, if, and only if the umpire is uncertain, and he did not appear to be uncertain last night. However putting that stipulation on the use of the technology will end up getting more non-decisions - like the cricket - unless a player is stranded half way up the pitch, they will still call for the 3rd umpire every time for a run out - even if it is clear that they should be able to make the decision.

[Linton Lodger]

First one definitely touched, second one possibly, but not conclusive enough to overturn the goal I thought.

[wasaintsfan]

I was really disappointed that both were overturned.

As far as I’m concerned

If all umpires being (Boundary, Field and Goal) are happy it’s a goal and the opposition aren’t trying to call for touched the goal should stand.
I thought the point of the review after each goal was to ensure they haven’t blatantly got it wrong. IE 2009 Grand final.

The reversal of the goals hurt us more than just on the scoreboard, in the first quarter it stopped our momentum dead.


In Saying that though the first one did look to be touched however wasn’t questioned by North, which could possibly be read as an indicator as to what happened. The 2nd one should never have been overturned.

[The_Dud]

Both were definitely touched, right decision made both times, those complaining here just show how biased supporters are and why their judgement and complaints with these matters should be taken with a grain of salt. If the shoe was on the other foot they would be filthy and accusing the AFL of cheating for not overturning them.

And every single goal is reviewed whether the umps on field call for it or not.

[Enrico_Misso]

Controversial call again tonight in the Crows v Adel game.
Replays show a likely Hawthorn goal with the ball deflecting off the defenders hand when behind the line on to the post instead of the poster the umpire guessed.
The goal was called by King Carey and Bwuuce - then the decision is paid as a point!
Of course Bwuuuce is too gutless to then call it as it is and instead makes excuses and reverts to "well it was a close one" waffle.
For Christ sake it was a shyte decision - have the guts to call it as it is!

[Yorkeys]

Future: train defenders in Thai hand dancing and exquisite figures back movement and then finger print the ball.

[stevie]

Controversial call again tonight in the Crows v Adel game.
Replays show a likely Hawthorn goal with the ball deflecting off the defenders hand when behind the line on to the post instead of the poster the umpire guessed.
The goal was called by King Carey and Bwuuce - then the decision is paid as a point!
Of course Bwuuuce is too gutless to then call it as it is and instead makes excuses and reverts to "well it was a close one" waffle.
For Christ sake it was a shyte decision - have the guts to call it as it is!

The Buddy one last night was even more of a goal than the Dawks one! someone in the review box should be sacked

[saynta]

Both were definitely touched, right decision made both times, those complaining here just show how biased supporters are and why their judgement and complaints with these matters should be taken with a grain of salt. If the shoe was on the other foot they would be filthy and accusing the AFL of cheating for not overturning them.

And every single goal is reviewed whether the umps on field call for it or not.

Billings said the second one wasn't touched. He was closer than you so I will take his word for it.

[bigcarl]

The technology isn't good enough and it's only a matter of time before a decision based on the dodgy evidence determines the result of a game. Then it will be overhauled.

[Enrico_Misso]

We need to remember the process WASN'T brought in to definitively decide on line ball calls.

It was brought in because in the AFL marquee event in 2009 watched by the world the biggest goal umpiring blunder in history occurred. Everyone at the ground and watching on TV saw the ball hit the post except one who made an international laughing stock of our game.
One side had a goal recorded when it should have been a point and then won the resulting centre clearance and kicked the next goal.
In a tight came it most likely impacted the result.

There will always be doubt on line-ball decisions but at least such travesties as per 2009 will not happen under the review system.

[bigcarl]

We need to remember the process WASN'T brought in to definitively decide on line ball calls.


There will always be doubt on line-ball decisions but at least such travesties as per 2009 will not happen under the review system.

I'm all for that, when it can be decided definitively.

But If there is any doubt, like Buddy's last night, it should be umpire's call ... until they introduce technology that is good enough.

Instead we're getting balls returned to the middle before they are overturned on video "evidence" as we saw twice last week.