Footy media , love’m or hate’ m ? | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Footy media , love’m or hate’ m ?

Althom said:
Alternately, knowing the technology is rubbish he could have listened to the bloke on the spot who said it was touched - the Goal Umpire.
If it was only Vlastuin claiming it was touched you could argue that a review was justified.
Click to expand...

Now you want the field umpire to overrule the goal umpire's request to go to the score review. It's the goal ump that requested the review, not the field umpire. The field ump just relays the request to the review bloke. I do like this idea though - "ok you've requested a review but the technology is crap so I'm going to deny that request and we'll go with your initial feeling". Hilarious.

No argument the technology sucks, if I had my way they'd ditch it completely, but then fans would have to accept that the umpires' decisions are final even though they are human and therefore fallible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
antman said:
Now you want the field umpire to overrule the goal umpire's request to go to the score review. It's the goal ump that requested the review, not the field umpire. The field ump just relays the request to the review bloke. I do like this idea though - "ok you've requested a review but the technology is crap so I'm going to deny that request and we'll go with your initial feeling". Hilarious.

No argument the technology sucks, if I had my way they'd ditch it completely, but then fans would have to accept that the umpires' decisions are final even thought they are human and therefore fallible.
Click to expand...
Like it always was prior to this ARC system which still isn’t flawless.
Spend the money AFL or get rid of it altogether.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 2 users
The Big Richo said:
I'd like to see it used for only ones where the question is which part of the goals or behinds the ball passed through and only when the ball is below the height of the post. Reviews like that should take 10 seconds max.

No touched, no line calls, nothing above the posts. All of that stuff is fatally flawed anyway, the old finger moved back is a complete false positive.
Click to expand...
Yep simplify the game where we can, if the ump doesn’t call touched from the longer shots and snaps , no review needed. Though on the line I don’t mind if it is conclusive
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I remember seeing Peter Foster from the Dogs years ago have a shot for goal. It clearly went between the goal post and the point post. Foster was turning disappointed away from the goals when a team mate pointed out to him that it had been signalled as a goal. Foster ran up to the goal umpire and shook his hand! It was a brain fade, it was also very funny. The ARC technology would have corrected that.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 user
We dont need goalreviews or a better ARC.
We need a mindset change.
Its a game. Made-up rules. Accept the decision and move on.


Umpires make countless decisions based on arbitrary rules every game.
Some right, some iffy, some wrong. The decision stands because we accept that the appointed person, namely the white maggot, is responsible for making it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
At least it is a clear rule: the goal umpire makes their call and can ask for a review if in any doubt. If the review does not provide evidence that the original decision was wrong then the original decision stands. All reasonable.

The problem with getting rid of goal reviews is the same problem they ended up with in cricket: when there is a howler it is too obvious on the TV with all the slow motion replays from various angles they can show. They are stuck with having to use a review system so the obvious howlers can be overturned.

But the technology exists to make it a lot better and they should invest in much better technology.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
DavidSSS said:
At least it is a clear rule: the goal umpire makes their call and can ask for a review if in any doubt. If the review does not provide evidence that the original decision was wrong then the original decision stands. All reasonable.

The problem with getting rid of goal reviews is the same problem they ended up with in cricket: when there is a howler it is too obvious on the TV with all the slow motion replays from various angles they can show. They are stuck with having to use a review system so the obvious howlers can be overturned.

But the technology exists to make it a lot better and they should invest in much better technology.

DS
Click to expand...
Or just accept the umpire's decision good bad or howler. Its sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
The Big Richo said:
I'd like to see it used for only ones where the question is which part of the goals or behinds the ball passed through and only when the ball is below the height of the post. Reviews like that should take 10 seconds max.

No touched, no line calls, nothing above the posts. All of that stuff is fatally flawed anyway, the old finger moved back is a complete false positive.
Click to expand...

Agree just make it simple - it was designed to stop the howlers so lets use it for that

What are the stats where the umpire call is overturned - reckon it would be low
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I know this goes against traditions but if the ball hits the goal post and goes through the goals then call it a goal if it goes back into play call a point . That way minor knicks wont matter and the game wont have those delays.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
Whatley reminds me of a selfish little child at there birthday party , has to be in control and has to play silly little children’s game
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We do have the ability to avoid an obvious mistake. We don’t have the ability to see if a ball was 1mm away from a fist. We shouldn’t spend a long time looking for a millimetre of deviation, etc.

We should only use this technology when it can immediately reveal a clear umpire error.

Solution: 15-second limit on reviews. Just overturn the obvious mistakes.

Can’t tell after 15 seconds? Umpire’s call.

That’s still better than no review system. Imagine we kick a clear goal, the replay shows it’s a clear goal, but a Port-supporting goal umpire calls touched?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Mr Brightside said:
Whatley reminds me of a selfish little child at there birthday party , has to be in control and has to play silly little children’s game
Click to expand...
He's like that friend we all had as a kid, you'd play backyard Cricket & they'd have thier own little gimmicky rules like "grass on the full is out" etc
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: 3 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute! | Opposition discussion >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom