We can complain all we like but the decision stood and cannot be changed now. That it was wrong is immaterial
-
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.
Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
There’ll be an extra training session a week now in the upcoming season. The players will be trained to celebrate on cue every time anyone takes the ball over the goal line, whether it’s by hand or foot or through the points or goal. It’s an automatic celebration as if it’s a goal and the re will be club fines for anyone not automatically and enthusiastically going off their heads. That should give us an extra 10-15 goals a game
Last edited:
Quoting the actual rules won't cut it. The AFL just interprets them any way they feel like it at the time. Clearly, if a player chooses not to stand the mark and chooses to go 5m further away instead (not something they do when the mark is 10m from goal, but I digress), they cannot go within the 5m until play on is called. To be really clear, they cannot then choose to run towards the mark unless play on is called. Play on should not be called when a player is lining up for a goal unless the player kicking the ball plays on. So many players veer off their line it isn't called unless they go a long way off their line.
The AFL just makes it up as they are going along, and they just defend any decision be it the umpire or the ARC no matter the evidence. Some choose to defend this, it is their choice. If we accept this standard then we accept that sub-standard adjudication of what is supposed to be a professional sport is fine.
DS
We complain in a vain attempt to lift the standards. It seems the AFL don't care and I really don't know how the fans can make them care, but decisions such as this, clearly wrong and contrary to the AFL's own rules, need to be challenged if for no other reason than to try and prevent such incompetence from happening again.
DS
I think everyone complaining about it knows that. But that doesn't mean we should let the AFL tick off on it and move on without an explanation.
Take a look at the difference between the juvenile approach the AFL have and the mature response that the Premier League have.
Its ironic that its occurred on the same weekend, but the different responses of where technology has affected games negatively is clear to see.
The AFL go all, deny, deny, deny.
The Premier League own up to it and state they need to get better at interpreting the video.
Whilst we are at it, who is the guy behind the ARC? The person adjudicating is a mystery. VAR states who the referee is that is advising on VAR decisions, cricket names the umpire that is the 3rd umpire. Why is our "ARC reviewer" a complete mystery? Who is this person and what are their qualifications? Are they an umpire? It sounds like the same person in every game so I would assume that its not one of the official AFL umpires, so what level of umpiring qualifications has this person done to make them qualified to do the job. Why the secrecy of who is making those decisions?
The decisions are made by a bunch of people including ex umpires. I think the voice behind it is as much of a messenger as anything else.
Andrews did not go 5mts back. He stood on the mark one foot in front of other ready to run forward. As soon as Lynch step he moved forward. 1 ump then called play on, while another was still holding the guys at the side back.
Technically it probably should be 50, cos he moved before the ump had called play on, but common sense says play on.
But why is it secret. All the other sports clearly tell you who is making the decision. Shouldn't we as the public know who is making these decisions?
Common sense is not a rule if rules are in place apply them fullstop or your opening a can of worms. We seem to cop these common sense decisions that cost us games like the 50 not payed against the Swans.
Yeh, I've often wondered as the voice is alway the same. Unless they use some sort of software to obscure the real identity.
Intersting article earlier in the year in The Age. They do have names and are former goal umpires.
‘There are a couple of recidivists’: Inside the AFL’s review bunker
In a dark, windowless hub inside Marvel Stadium, scoring, umpiring, medical and match reviews take place. In July, The Age went inside the AFL Review Centre to see exactly how it works.
The bit that piqued my interest was this -
For every score, the analyst will give their opinion over a headset and the supervisor will ratify that decision or challenge it. They have 45 seconds to make a call, but they’ve managed to reduce that to an average of 21.6 seconds this season. If the analyst and the supervisor disagree, they will ultimately revert to the umpire’s call.
So that means on Thurs night both men agreed it was a definite point. And not within 45 seconds. And I would guess in even less time that the average of 21.6sec.
And yet, after 4 days and countless looks there is still no agreement on what the score was!!!! Yet these 2 agreed in about 15 seconds it was clearly a point?
The more I think about it the crazier it is.
And then this below from the article -
Do you see what I see?
The camera angles that the review centre has access to are contentious for the public. Does the AFL have access to secret angles that we don’t see on TV? The simple answer is no.
Aside from fixed cameras down the ground, and one on each goal post, the review centre receives only the camera angles that the broadcaster affords them in each game. At Optus Stadium for Fremantle v Sydney, Fox Footy had 11 cameras operating at any given time. For the marquee match at the MCG, free-to-air broadcaster Seven had 13.
If one camera happens to be searching for someone in the crowd at the time of a controversial incident, that’s one less angle the AFL has at its disposal.
Once an official review is taking place, the review centre controls exactly what viewers at home and at the ground can see. The broadcasters can only use the output being given to them by the review centre. It means there can be no confusion for fans.
So there are no extra cameras. And we are seeing what the reveiwer is seeing.
Once an official review is taking place, the review centre controls exactly what viewers at home and at the ground can see. The broadcasters can only use the output being given to them by the review centre. It means there can be no confusion for fans.
SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION FOR FANS!!!! FFS. It's even worse when you think about it. They haven't matched/spliced/time stamped footage as suggested by our resident rules/umpire expert. We see what they see.
This article was released in July so unless there has been a policy or procedure change it ius a complete farce. As snake suggested the AFL are saying nothing in the knowledge that it happened on a Thursday nioght, we've had 3 subsequent games to take the attention and the further we get away from the co0ck up the quieter the uproar becomes.
And finally, this from Brad Scott that basically sums up what a *smile* show the AFL run at times.
“We have the best technology available,” football boss Brad Scott says from inside the review centre. “Hopefully a lot of this stuff goes relatively unnoticed, but it’s a system where the umpires are still in control out on the ground and the club is still in control of all medical decisions on game day, but this function makes it a lot more efficient and minimises the risk of making a really poor decision.
I meant the voice is just someone messaging the result or outcome on behalf of a collective. Not that it’s digital or recorded or whatever. (That’d actually be impossible to apply.)
The other bit from the article -
More than one in three score reviews involve a ball that may or may not have been touched before it crosses the goal line. Trying to work out if a ball has been touched by looking for bent fingers or minuscule changes to the revolution of the ball are the toughest challenge, according to those inside the review centre.
“There are a couple of recidivists who claim they touch it when they haven’t ... I won’t name them,” chuckles Wenn. “Sometimes they’ll genuinely think they’ve touched it ... but in actual fact they’ve touched another player ... it can happen in the heat of the battle.”
This sort of statement indicates an inherent bias is being created and exists. Who it is should not come into it but clearly does. So did Lynch not jumping around influence them? Or if a player has celebrated in the past what turns out to be a point do they get put in the recidivist basket?
More than one in three score reviews involve a ball that may or may not have been touched before it crosses the goal line. Trying to work out if a ball has been touched by looking for bent fingers or minuscule changes to the revolution of the ball are the toughest challenge, according to those inside the review centre.
“There are a couple of recidivists who claim they touch it when they haven’t ... I won’t name them,” chuckles Wenn. “Sometimes they’ll genuinely think they’ve touched it ... but in actual fact they’ve touched another player ... it can happen in the heat of the battle.”
This sort of statement indicates an inherent bias is being created and exists. Who it is should not come into it but clearly does. So did Lynch not jumping around influence them? Or if a player has celebrated in the past what turns out to be a point do they get put in the recidivist basket?
‘There are a couple of recidivists’: Inside the AFL’s review bunker
In a dark, windowless hub inside Marvel Stadium, scoring, umpiring, medical and match reviews take place. In July, The Age went inside the AFL Review Centre to see exactly how it works.
They are mainly former umpires according to this article. But the main reviewer here doesn't even state his real name. You aren't The Stig pal...
Yeh, I've often wondered as the voice is alway the same. Unless they use some sort of software to obscure the real identity.
Intersting article earlier in the year in The Age. They do have names and are former goal umpires.
‘There are a couple of recidivists’: Inside the AFL’s review bunker
In a dark, windowless hub inside Marvel Stadium, scoring, umpiring, medical and match reviews take place. In July, The Age went inside the AFL Review Centre to see exactly how it works.www.theage.com.au
The bit that piqued my interest was this -
For every score, the analyst will give their opinion over a headset and the supervisor will ratify that decision or challenge it. They have 45 seconds to make a call, but they’ve managed to reduce that to an average of 21.6 seconds this season. If the analyst and the supervisor disagree, they will ultimately revert to the umpire’s call.
So that means on Thurs night both men agreed it was a definite point. And not within 45 seconds. And I would guess in even less time that the average of 21.6sec.
And yet, after 4 days and countless looks there is still no agreement on what the score was!!!! Yet these 2 agreed in about 15 seconds it was clearly a point?
The more I think about it the crazier it is.
And then this below from the article -
Do you see what I see?
The camera angles that the review centre has access to are contentious for the public. Does the AFL have access to secret angles that we don’t see on TV? The simple answer is no.
Aside from fixed cameras down the ground, and one on each goal post, the review centre receives only the camera angles that the broadcaster affords them in each game. At Optus Stadium for Fremantle v Sydney, Fox Footy had 11 cameras operating at any given time. For the marquee match at the MCG, free-to-air broadcaster Seven had 13.
If one camera happens to be searching for someone in the crowd at the time of a controversial incident, that’s one less angle the AFL has at its disposal.
Once an official review is taking place, the review centre controls exactly what viewers at home and at the ground can see. The broadcasters can only use the output being given to them by the review centre. It means there can be no confusion for fans.
So there are no extra cameras. And we are seeing what the reveiwer is seeing.
Once an official review is taking place, the review centre controls exactly what viewers at home and at the ground can see. The broadcasters can only use the output being given to them by the review centre. It means there can be no confusion for fans.
SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION FOR FANS!!!! FFS. It's even worse when you think about it. They haven't matched/spliced/time stamped footage as suggested by our resident rules/umpire expert. We see what they see.
This article was released in July so unless there has been a policy or procedure change it ius a complete farce. As snake suggested the AFL are saying nothing in the knowledge that it happened on a Thursday nioght, we've had 3 subsequent games to take the attention and the further we get away from the co0ck up the quieter the uproar becomes.
And finally, this from Brad Scott that basically sums up what a *smile* show the AFL run at times.
“We have the best technology available,” football boss Brad Scott says from inside the review centre. “Hopefully a lot of this stuff goes relatively unnoticed, but it’s a system where the umpires are still in control out on the ground and the club is still in control of all medical decisions on game day, but this function makes it a lot more efficient and minimises the risk of making a really poor decision.
You know what annoys me as well, they keep calling this technology like its something revolutionary. Goal line technology in soccer is revolutionary. This isn't even technology.
Its a guy, watching the same tv cameras we've always had. What have the AFL spent on this, a few TV monitors and the wages of a couple of people. Seriously, the game requires and deserves a lot more.
This is the AFLs version of the NBN. Go cheap and you get a cheap result.
<
Pick Three !!
|
Brendon Gale
>
