The goal review system, a fiercely hot topic, has once again come under the spotlight for a baffling decision to award a goal for North Melbourne in the first quarter on Saturday.
After the AFL Football Chief repeatedly criticised the goal review panel for overstepping their mandate, and the time it takes to make decisions (often stalling play) it’s little surprise that something so controversial has happened.
“It’s there to support the umpires, it’s not there to intervene,” Steven Hocking said strongly on Monday.
“There’s no doubt that over the weekend there were a number of incidents that just took far too long to review.”
“It’s there to support the goal umpires and the on-field umpire decision making and only call out the obvious incorrect calls.”
“I’m a fan of the game and it is frustrating when you see half a dozen replays going on, that’s just too long.”
“It’s extending it out to 30 plus seconds, we need to pull that back to about 15-20.”
Despite the criticism openly directed at umpires over use of goal review, or the goal review panel overriding decisions when it hasn’t been called to use, use between goals has been widely applauded.
While overturning goals after they’ve been kicked is frustrating, especially for players once they’ve set up for a centre restart, it has generally been welcomed.
However, tonight’s goal review of Billy Hartung’s clearly touched goal will shine a spotlight so bright on a system that’s broken to its core.
Billy Hartung put the Roos in front with a clever snap, after hustling Jarrad McVeigh off the ball.
The Swans defender managed to get his fingers to the ball as Hartung snapped the ball over his shoulder, sailing through for a goal.
While the umpire in control said that all goals are reviewed, after McVeigh vehemently protested the contact, the central umpire restarted play before the review was completed.
Replays on television and the big screens at the ground, clearly showed the contact, with the Sydney crowd responding in a chorus of boos heard around the stadium.
As part of the review system, all goals are supposed to be reviewed, even if the umpires don’t ask for one.
The Roos ended up winning the match by two points, with the touched goal influencing the end result.
Swans coach John Longmire wouldn’t be drawn into talking about the review system after the match.
“If he touched it, he touched it, that’s what the review is for I would have thought, but anyway.”
Kangaroos coach Brad Scott said that he would be surprised if the umpires didn’t review the goal.
“They review every goal before the ball bounces for the next centre bounce, so I’d be staggered if they didn’t look at it,” Scott said.
Stephen
Guest
I am with Perry here. I would like to see a still at the exact point everyone reckons they can see a finger bent back. All I can see is a bit of a blur that definately shows the fingers in the vicinity of the ball, but I cannot see with any clarity fingers being bent. If it was touched, it is unlucky but it is impossible to know how the rest of the game would have played out if it was paid a behind. Maybe a goal from the kick out? Who knows.If it was a mistake it just goes with the "rub of the green" as they say in golf. Just add it to the list of mistakes made by umpires and players during the game. As for commentators.........They certainly make more than their fair share of mistakes.
Perry Bridge
Guest
I have watch the footage over and over and what is clear is that I need a HD feed of the footage!! I don't see it as clear cut. Certainly not conclusive enough to overturn the on field decision. If there was a touch - then it was minimal. As it is - as the ball spins, there are flashes of shadow, of logo spinning around - that give the impression of movement when viewed in one go. The other thing is that you need more than one angle. In this case - correct decision is to default to the on field call.
Paul D
Roar Guru
10 years ago that just would have been paid and no-one cares. No offence but I can't really pay much credence to an article written savaging the review system by a self-described passionate swans fan who writes about the swans daily after the swans were on the rough end of a line ball call. Your apprehended bias is overwhelming.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
And still less obvious.
Cam
Guest
I didn't see it as a 'clear touch' at all. I thought it was a line ball decision and in that case you need to give the benefit of the doubt to the goal kicker. North were the better team on the night anyway and thoroughly deserved the win.
Mick
Guest
Why have the review system if it clearly doesn’t work? Get rid of it and get on with the game, you’re killing our great game with your nonsense.
Justin Mitchell
Roar Guru
It was line ball, no different to the numerous non-paid 50m penalties against the Roos throughout the game. The replays showed Heeney was in his kicking motion when the umpire called the original free kick.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
It was a clear touch on replay but in a strangely crickety way they seem to have backed the umps. Alas for Sydney it may have been vital. However no one knows what may have occurred from the kick out. North missed a 7 point play as more than one wag pointed out. Was way less obvious than Heeney roosting the ball away for what should have been a 50m penalty that would have taken North to the goal square. Much as I enjoyed North's win that game was abysmal. The only thing Brissie vs Collies lacked was they ran out of time to pile on 20 goals + each. If they brought back the old 25 min quarter (before time on) there would be less talk about the state of the game and more goals.