State of Umpiring [merged]

[one-eyed]

Dimma gave them another rocket regarding the goal review. Good lol, but I hope the AFL don't respond with the only way they know how .....

 

Here's the vision of Higgins' goal review:

VIDEO: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/video/2018-05-26/round-10-higgins-goal-review-whats-your-call

[camboon]

Some frees are thee but others could go either way.there is a bias against Richmond these days.I note the umpires tried to even up after we had won the game

[lamington]

The non goal for Higgins was disgraceful

[Dougeytherichmondfan]

The non goal for Higgins was disgraceful

Arrant cheating from my point of view.

It was so clearly an obviously a goal - only blatant one sided adjudicating can explain that call. A howler is a bad decision in the moment which can be accepted as they happen often enough. This is a review which has the benefit of slow motion and pauses. The ball was so clearly and obviously a foot behind the line before it was touched I cannot fathom how any unbiased person could call that a point. The equivalent of an edge being taken at 2nd slip, called by the on-field umpire and snicko showing a filthy great edge being overturned.

The person upstairs should be immediately removed from their post, absolutely and without discussion.

But, ya know, soft draws and #freekickrichmond right?

[Tigeritis™©®]

What’s our luck on goal review in the last two years?

I think we’ve lost more than have gone our way.  Probably tracking just as bad as the free kicks differential.

[one-eyed]

Dim view: Hardwick slams review system

Callum Twomey
afl.com.au
May 26, 2018 5:45PM

RICHMOND coach Damien Hardwick has blasted the AFL's score review system as an "embarrassment" after a Jack Higgins shot at goal was confusingly ruled a behind in Saturday's win over St Kilda.

The first-year Tiger had a shot from 50 metres in the third term of his side's 28-point win.

The goal umpire is understood to have believed it was a goal before it was touched by Saints big man Tom Hickey, but it was referred to the goal review system, which ruled it a behind, despite replays not conclusively showing it was touched before fully passing the goal line.

Hardwick questioned why the game should stop despite the goal umpire's initial call Higgins' kick was a goal.

"So why do we wait? Why don't we just go back to the centre? He's called a goal. We're asked to trust and respect the umpires, how about the we back the goal umpire in and then we go back to the centre? And if you haven't figured it out by that stage just let the game go. Momentum in sport is a wonderful thing," Hardwick said post-game.

"I sit there and I still don't know how it got turned over. Seriously, it's an embarrassment to our game. I reckon it really is. The technology is deplorable.

"What do you reckon the technology is going to be like in Alice Springs this week [when Melbourne and Adelaide play on Sunday]? Might as well get the Hubble telescope to come and give us a snapshot."

The Hubble telescope is based in space and operated by NASA.

Higgins' goal would have put Richmond up by 19 points early in the third term, but after it was disallowed the Saints struck back with four quick goals to snatch the lead.

Another incident saw Dustin Martin snap a goal in the final term, with a review found to be inconclusive whether Logan Austin touched the football, so the decision was made to go with the umpire's call.

St Kilda coach Alan Richardson was unimpressed with that decision, although not to the degree that Hardwick was.

"They were confusing today. I thought we were probably a little bit lucky on one. It looked like the ball that Hickey touched had cleared the line," Richardson said.

"I thought that Logan Austin's looked like he'd clearly touched it.

"Today it didn't work. I'm not sure whether it's embarrassing or not, but it was ineffective today."

Richmond was good enough to restore its composure after the Higgins incident, take the advantage by the final change and then comfortably run out winners. Hardwick said the moment had "flattened" him in the coaches' box but wasn't a factor in the Saints' run at that stage.

"They were playing a great brand of footy then. We needed that goal then, there's no doubt about it, but it is what it is. There's not much we could do about it," he said.

A goal to Dustin Martin in the fourth term was also sent to the score review system before being given the all-clear.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-26/dim-view-hardwick-slams-review-system

[Lozza]

".....Hubble Telescope..." thats a classic swipe by Dimma, good on him, sick of being on the wrong end of these ludicrous goal reviews.

[mightytiges]

Looks like the video review ump pulled out the old 'the flags are part of the post' trick. So even if the ball is fully across the line it's still level with the flags that are sticking out backwards behind the post (sometimes half a foot depending on how the goal umpire puts the flags in the slot). It's a ridiculous and ambiguous "rule". Why have a goal line on the ground if it's not used for judging the goal line?!    

[Lozza]

I was always taught that the padding on the goal post only ever comes into play if the ball touches it on the way through the goal. Otherwise the white line is the defualt guide as to whether the entire ball has passed through the goal mouth, the rule must have been changed.

If thats not the case then have a 30cm wide line and be done with it. If the padding is going to be used as a guide then surely that extends in all directions so if a ball is kicked and ever so slightly just misses the post then you could say that the padding if extended up the goal post means that the ball would have touched it and therefore should be deemed a point, cant see how it can be applied in one instance but not in another.

Have seen countless times in the past when players have dived goalkeeper style to touch a ball when kicked along the ground through the goal and never once has the conversation  been about touching it before it went passed the line of the padding.

[georgies31]

Ball crossed the line end of story if umpire said it was a goal so why go to the video must be blind as a bat.

[Slipper]

I am waiting to here the AFL's explanation of the Higgins review.

Maybe it was touched of his boot, cause I sure as hell can't see how it wasn't a straight up goal. Even the Saints players thought it was.

[WilliamPowell]

I am still just trying to understand what happened to the 50 metre penalty after Jack was knocked out 

Umpire reported the thug so it is supposed to be an automatic 50

As a friend says alot during game "ump, get a rule book" 

[cub]

They seriously need to revisit this goal review crap, leave it for the howlers ffs
Don't start me on the umpires
Game is so over umpired it’s not stuffing funny any more
If you insignificant umpires want to be part of the game and make poofy decisions be consistent at the very least and then we can just bury the game we used to love

Let it stuffing go and leave it at that

Rant over

[one-eyed]

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/embarrassment-game-hardwick-slams-afl-goal-reviews-073129018.html

[dwaino]

When you look at the stills like that it's not even an issue of perspective, parallax or anything like that which may make it appear that the ball hasn't crossed the flag or the final single atom of the padding. It has clearly crossed the line, the goal umpire's decision was correct and it was nothing short of cheating to over turn it.