By Ben Somerford
October 3rd 2009 @ 1:48am
Related coverage
Grand Final gaffe shows AFL needs to improve umpire accuracy
The Collingwood cheer squad berate the boundary umpire during the AFL Round 15 match between the Geelong Cats and Colingwood Magpies at the MCG. Slattery Images
The AFL’s umpiring department claim they made just 6 mistakes from 10,000 scoring shots last year, yet in the sport’s showcase event, the Grand Final, there was a glaring error for Tom Hawkins’ 2nd quarter ‘goal’. It begs the question does the AFL need video replays?
You often hear people say, “this or that could one day cost a team a Grand Final!”
Well, last Saturday, Geelong forward Hawkins quickly snapped a goal which gave the Cats a handy lead in the second term of the 2009 Grand Final. The thing was replays showed the goal was actually a point, as the ball had brushed the post on its way through.
In the grand scheme of things, Hawkins’ goal probably didn’t cost St Kilda the Grand Final, but it was influential on the flow of the game.
And as it would happen, the karma gods seemed to even things out with St Kilda’s double-goal just before the half-time siren after Darren Milburn spent too long debating with the goal umpire, whether or not he’d touched Justin Koschitzke’s soccered six-pointer.
In hindsight, video replays would’ve cleared up both problems. Hawkins’ poster would’ve been found out and Milburn wouldn’t have needed to argue so much, as he could’ve simply appealed for a video replay, which I doubt he would have because he clearly didn’t touch the ball.
Nevertheless, it would have resolved an ugly incident which saw Milburn punished way too harshly for the crime he committed. There’s no doubt nobody wants to see these nonsense double-goals in Grand Finals.
So with all that in mind, why not employ video replays for AFL matches, especially the important finals games?
Indeed, the use of technology is something the AFL has considered in the past.
A similar incident to Hawkins’ ‘goal’ occurred in Round 2 of this year, when Brisbane’s Jonathon Brown had a shot which seemed to brush the post against Carlton awarded as a six-pointer by the goal umpire.
After the game and after some pressure from the angry Blues (who incidentally won the game anyway), AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said, “We are always open to looking at any technological advances that may assist umpires in their role or create greater interest for our fans.
“At the moment you can see in tennis how Hawk-Eye can adapt to that. We remain open-minded to any technological enhancements that are put forward.”
But that’s just the problem for the introduction of technology. There simply hasn’t been an ideal proposal put forward for its use in AFL.
The argument is video replays would interrupt the game and slow it down. And as the Brown incident showed too, the video replays don’t always come up with a solution.
As well, there’s the question of how it would work? Indeed, in the heat of the battle Hawkins’ goal seemed a goal. The goal umpire didn’t seem to have much hesitation in whipping out the twin fingers.
So if the goal umpire had little doubt, who decides to call for a video replay? The opposition, the field umpires, Hawkins?
It’s all a bit confusing but the problem is these situations do happen, albeit rarely.
A North Melbourne-Sydney clash in April 2008 ended up a draw after Brett Kirk was denied a late match-winning goal by a dubious decision where the goal umpire claimed the ball was touched on the line. Replays showed it was touched behind the line.
So, despite the umpiring department claiming these errors are rare, which they are, they do occur and they can be crucial. Sure, the goal umpires are human like the players and coaches, so they make mistakes. But when there’s a more accurate alternative, why not use it?
Again, it’s all about finding an ideal system whereby technology doesn’t interrupt the game and that’s a difficult problem to find a solution for.
So if technology isn’t on the cards just yet, perhaps the AFL should seriously look into employing two more goal umpires to improve the accuracy of decisions.
A goal umpire on each post would have avoided the situation with Hawkins’ goal. And as that situation shows, a quick switch of play or interception can catch the goal umpire out.
Incredibly in the past, the idea of introducing two more goal umpires has been baulked at by the AFL and clubs due to cost.
So with costs and the rarity of the event in mind, perhaps simply employing 4 goal umpires during the finals, when the stakes are high, would be an apt solution.
After all, one day a goal umpiring mistake could cost a team a Grand Final and we’d hate to see that happen.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(23)
It is rare, in my knowledge, for home supporters in a football match to...
Pippinu said | October 3rd 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
If it’s only six errors in 10,000 decisions, to be honest, that’s about as good as it gets.
So no, we need neither goal line technology or a 2nd goal umpire – especially the latter – there are already 7 officials on the field!!
Atawhai Drive said | October 3rd 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Here’s a better idea: change this ludicrous rule.
In rugby league, rugby union and soccer, an “in-off” shot is a goal. Of course it is . . . the ball has gone between the posts, so what difference does it make if it brushes a post on the way through?
The AFL gets almost everything right. Why is it so stubborn about this silly rule?
James said | October 3rd 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Because it is a game based on traditions…
Melbourne Rules 1859….#3. A Goal must be kicked fairly between the posts, without touching either of them, or a portion of the person of any player on either side.
AFL has enough rule changes every year anyway…no need to chage something based on extremely isolated incidents.
And this can not justify the use of video technology either. I can assure you that supporters get much more frustrated with umpires interpretations of the play the ball rules, then on occasions such as tom harleys “goal”
Cattledog said | October 4th 2009 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
James, open your mind, mate. Rules are for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men! AD’s point about changing the rule is valid and pertinent and something that would make life so much easier for the goal umpires. In a game where you get rewarded for missing, then a simple change such as a goal being scored regardless of hitting the uprights is logical and makes a lot of sense.
WA said | October 5th 2009 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
LOL at non-AFL fans comments.
Cattledog said | October 5th 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
WA, you’re right, I wouldn’t consider myself a ‘fan’, but I have achieved something if I make you LOL! However, I enjoy most sports and really enjoyed the grand final, which I watched live on a South African chanel in Afghanistan. I lived near Geelong for some time and also watched young Gilbert from St Kilda grow up, in fact we used to play cricket in their backyard most boxing days. Always showed advanced skills, even as a youngster. However, that said, I believe, like in most sports, there is always room for change, not for change sake, but to make the game better, especially for spectators and to take any ambiguity out of the equation.
I’m sorry, but there is just no logic whatsoever in calling a score a behind if it goes through the uprights, but touched a post on the way through. I wander how many goals are either scored or not scored because the ball was so close to an upright it may or may not have grazed it and the goal umpire makes a ‘group 9er’, goal, no goal.
Clearly, if someone can pinpoint a finite reason as to why this rule should not be changed, I will listen and learn. However, I’m not at all interested in tradition or the like…it makes no logical sense in the current scheme of the game, unless you want technology to take over, and that’s ridiculous for something so easily fixed. My above point on ‘rules’ stands.
Redb said | October 5th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Cattledog,
The problem is you can pick all sports apart and say why dont they do this or that. The essence of the game does not need to change they are the rules.
One rule that was changed this year was the ‘rushed behind’. For years it was never really exploited, but in 2008 several teams deliberately rushed a behind through as a way of providing more time for the fullback when teams started using zone defences. The AFL changed the rule and the game was the better for it.
That is the test.
Redb
Cattledog said | October 5th 2009 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Redb,
Agreed. The test is does it make the game better. I couldn’t see too much wingeing about such a change, but sure make it easier for all concerned, especially the goal umpires. I note you also enjoy rugby…good on ya mate!
Michael C said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
It is interesting, if you look at the various codes and what is defined as ‘in’ or ‘out’, based on touching the line, bodily being over but ball in, ball being on the line or entirely over the line etc etc. The easy logic is that the posts always adopt the lesser value of the adjoining boundaries, i.e. The goal posts adopt the value of a behind, and the ‘point posts’ adopt the value of the boundary line. Thus, a ball deflecting off each post is deemed to have crossed that boundary…no matter the trajectory on approach or subsequent to the ‘contact’.
In Australian football, the ball must be ENTIRELY over the line, and this is illustrated by the regard of the back of the post thickness of the goal pads now being deemed as the ‘line’ past which the ball must pass to be counted a ‘goal’,
the notion that the ball needs to do so without any deflection other than the technical definitions of a kick by an attacking player holds. This is important – it helps clearly define the value of a kick above all other ‘propulsion’…..along with awarding marks only from a kick – it helps clearly define the game as a kicking game.
To reduce the technical definition of a goal would be to lessen the skill requirement in KICKING a goal, as, we hardly want something as loosely defined as a soccer ’scored’ goal. The danger is to lessen it a little opens the door to lessen it further…..we don’t want a Gaelic style of game allowing goals to be ‘knocked’ through.
However, re ‘behind’ : a ‘behind’ should travel ‘behind’ the post??? Perhaps, but, a ‘behind’ has effectively been made to be a ‘name’ or label to incorporate all 1 pt scores including a ‘touched’ or ‘poster’ or ‘rushed’. The name isn’t all that important. Just like in Rugby a ‘try’ is now worth points and worth MORE points than a goal?!?!?!? go figure.
Michael C said | October 5th 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
in simple terms,
the post is part of the boundary, the ball must completely ‘clear the boundary’ for example to be out on the full, or to be a registered score,
if the ball strikes any of the goal/point posts, it is deemed to have clearly crossed the LESSER of the two connected ‘boundaries’
So, quite simply, a ball striking the goal post MUST be considered a ‘behind’.
To change it now would be inconsistant.
However, look at Rugby where the ball need not be over the sidelines, just, part of the body, which then becomes inconsistant with scoring a try where the ball MUST touch the ground – - – why not just part of the body of the bloke holding the ball????
Cattledog said | October 5th 2009 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
G’day Michael C, I’m still not convinced. Probably the closest analogy to rugby would be the corner post, which was also an extension of the touch line (boundary). If you dived for a try, and placed the ball down but hit the corner post (not the ground beyond) before grounding the ball, you were deemed to be in touch so no try. Clealy, the corner posts, like the goal posts, are an aid to all playing and watching the game. It was argued that although the corner posts were an extension of the touch line, they are an aid and logically should not be seen in the true sense as an extension of the touch line. So, sanity prevailed and the law was changed so as if you hit the corner post but ground the ball before contacting the ground outside the playing area, then the try is awarded.
No big deal, just that logic dictated the change, as I see logic will eventually dictate a goal in Aust Rules will be scored if it passes between the main uprights whether it hits one of them or not. Probably similar to when an opposing player touches the ball and it goes between the posts. This should also be a goal IMO. But that’s another argument! LOL
Michael C said | October 3rd 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
I was pondering this as most probably were during and after the GF last Saturday,…..then I watched the Storm on Saturday night, and even WITH the benefit of video referees adjudicating, they ended up with a disallowed try that from another angle looked a definite try and only for a subsequent try to be allowed that the commentators were sure was far less a try than the first disallowed one.
So – - perhaps video ref’s are a tad over rated, and perhaps, more so in a game of fast and constant action – such as AFL – let’s just leave it all to the ‘hand’ of humans.
Umpiring CAN annoy the heck out of us at times, – but, as Darren Milburn showed, arguing does no good (especially if you happen to be wrong!!). As soon as people focus on things they can’t control (the irrelevant things) – then they lose focus on the things they can (the relevant things). Sports (AFL very much so) teaches us this…..that you just get on with it and redemption can often be right around the corner.
sheek said | October 3rd 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
No, in fact, I would get rid of the technology. It only confuses the issue in rugby union & rugby league.
However, the problem is not the technology, but the human factor. And you need humans to operate the technology. Put a guy in front of a TV replay monitor, place him under pressure to make a decision in less than a minute, & it’s amazing how his brain goes to mush, & he begins seeing things that no-one else can see!
Quite often the first instinct is the correct one, so let’s go back to the good old days of the ref/umpire making the decision on the spot.
hazey.the.bear said | October 3rd 2009 @ 11:25am | Report comment
sheek,
I’d also add that I hate when they replay the same three frames, over and over and over and over and over and over again…
Surely if you can’t make a decision the first two times you see a slow-motion replay, the batsman should be given the benefit of the doubt? Or, in the case of State of Origin, Jarrad Hayne’s try should be awarded (with the same benefit of the doubt ruling)?
The whole replay thing can cause the same division among the fans as the human possibility of error – so what’s the point, especially since it takes more time?
hazey.the.bear said | October 3rd 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
I remember a game a while back now between the West Coast Eagles and St. Kilda (back in the days when Spida Everett had dreadlocks and was playing for the Saints). Spida kicked a “goal” which replays revealed clearly going over the top of the post, which of course should have resulted in a point. And if my memory serves me right, I think the Eagles lost by less than a goal. As a young Eagles fan, I was absolutely gutted, but at the same time philosophical about it. Admittedly though, it wasn’t a Grand Final…
But I’d have say that I’m with you Pip,
It’s really a toss-up – Do we accept the human element of possible error in judgment, or do we come up with a system of never-ending replays whenever there’s the slightest bit of doubt? I’d say keep the current system, and allow the field umpires to have a quick word to the goal umpires if they disagree with their outcome. This was probably my only concern for the result in the Grand Final – that the field umpires should have seen it and overruled the decision. Maybe when they have their yearly pow-wow, they’ll discuss the matter and make it a bit more definite.
gazz said | October 3rd 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Thing is Pip, despite that amazing stat (6 errors in 10000), the Hawkins ghost-goal highlighted the fact that when they do make one of these rare errors, it can be majorly costly.
If 4 goal umps improves the accuracy of decisions, then why not introduce them for finals. Especially if costs is the only reason agst it. Im sure the big-business AFL can afford a few more goal umps for the crucial finals. Makes sense yeah?
gazz said | October 3rd 2009 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
And Pippinu, I suppose if the argument against extra umps is there’s already too many on the field, then that’s something which we need to re-think. I cant see why thats more important than accuracy of decision-making. UEFA have recently introduced 2 officials for Europa League matches. These things need to change.
bever fever said | October 3rd 2009 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
No more umpires, gives people something to whinge about, which is very important around the water cooler.
BigAl said | October 3rd 2009 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
Definately not ! – I mean how many goals have been scored from dodgy free kicks !
leeby said | October 4th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
in the case of the hawkins goal, you could put 10 goal umpires on the line and they would not be able to see the ball brush the post from their position. especially after the sudden swithch of play.
i think its the feild umpires error who called the ‘all clear’ to the goal ump before he signalled a goal. the feild ump has a much better position on the park to adjudicate this particular incident. a bloke standing on the line would have no chance seeing a deflection off the post from point blank range after the switch in play. its the feild umpires fault.
anyway, the game is already fucked with too many rules and umpires and changes etc. i dont think we need video replays. even if the saints had lost by 1 point i dont think the coach or players would complain or want the introduction of video replay.
the umpires make a million mistakes every game. it just so happens that this instance is very rare and directly cost a team 5 points. but there are bad umpiring decisions all around the ground that indirectly result in goals and behinds, but everyone gets on with it, just like the saints did with the hawkins decision.
Michael C said | October 4th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
“the umpires make a million mistakes every game”
a good point really – - – and in reality, at least half of those ‘mistakes’ were absolutely correct from the umpires perspective, but, quite wrong from over the fence.
The Hawkins kick – - ideally one of the field umpires should’ve been able to pick up on it, but, if they weren’t in position, then…..really, it’s just one of those things.
cuzybro said | October 4th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
I think they should do an exchange programme with the European based umpires to help mix up the experience
Ben Somerford said | October 15th 2009 @ 8:34pm | Report comment
Interesting development a few weeks on here, with the AFL looking at implementing technology in these instances. I’m not to sure, though, how it wouldn’t affect the game’s flow.
Here’s the link;
http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=86079