AFL review system is flawed, subpar and successful

It is a little over a year since the AFL video review system was implemented and it is a big success.

Sure the technology is subpar and too many reviews are declared inconclusive but the standard of goal umpiring decisions has never been higher.

On Friday night the video review system was again front-and-centre following the decision to not review an incident where the goal umpire was hit with the ball on the goal-line late in Fremantle’s one point win over Richmond.

AFL spokesman Patrick Keane stated on Saturday the umpires had made an error.

“The AFL view is that a review should have been called by the goal umpire,” he said.

Despite the non-decision being a human error, it opened up the debate on the video review system yet again. The system currently has a number of flaws, including camera quality and camera positioning, which makes it more likely for a review to be declared inconclusive than is ideal.

Despite these limitations, the video review system has still improved the quality of goal umpiring decisions. Any reversed decision represents a real improvement to the quality of decisions made and reduces the number of errors.

The system works, just not as frequently or as well as we would like.

The review system has established how often goal umpires are uncertain regarding the decisions that they make. Over the entire history of the VFL/AFL there must be thousands of decisions where the umpire was unsure of their decision. Even if the video review system helps avoid a mere fraction of these situations it is a significant improvement.

Nevertheless the system must be improved, although it is unlikely for the review system to work perfectly regardless of the technology implemented.

It will always be difficult to assess movements when you are operating in a three dimensional space, particularly one that so often has hands, feet and other body parts obstructing the camera’s view.

But high definition cameras have become a must and they should operate at a far higher framerate to enable the video review to identify precise movements, rather than making decisions on blurry and jumpy video footage.

For example, the technology should be such that we can pinpoint beyond reasonable doubt whether a defender got a finger to the ball on the goal-line.

Channel Seven and the AFL must recognise superior technology is necessary, not simply to improve the sport’s television coverage but also to protect the integrity of the game.

Poor goal umpiring decisions are an indictment on the entire sport and the AFL must be willing to do more to improve the quality of decision-making.

Instead of focusing on knee-jerk rule changes, the AFL should place greater focus on the video review system. There are real improvements to the game that can be made via superior technology and these improvements will be appreciated by players, coaches and fans alike.

Finally, cost should not be a factor in light of the AFL’s $1.25 billion broadcasting deal agreed to in 2011.

Although the system will never work perfectly, the video review system is an absolute necessity. Given the uncertainty surrounding so many goal umpiring decisions it is unthinkable to go back to how things once were.

Players, coaches and fans should be pleased the quality of goal umpiring decisions has improved. The current system is certainly far preferable to no system at all and we probably do it a disservice by only focusing on its limitations.

Nevertheless, we all have a right to expect more from the AFL. Hopefully with time they will realise how important the video review system is, particularly with respect to protecting the integrity of the game.