The AFL will launch an investigation into the latest score review system controversy that occurred during Geelong’s big win over Richmond.
The AFL has been forced into damage control after yet another score review system debacle, this time Richmond appearing to be robbed of a goal in their clash with Geelong at the MCG.
The system came in for widespread criticism after the league admitted to two errors in round 11, Fremantle’s Michael Walters wrongly credited a goal in a four-point win over Collingwood at the MCG and a major to West Coast’s Oscar Allen incorrectly paid.
Jack Higgins looked to have booted a much-needed goal on Friday night to stop a run of five unanswered majors by the Cats, but a score review was called for when the goal umpire asked for confirmation the ball had hit the post.
One camera angle looked to show a clear gap between the post and the ball but the score reviewer’s decision was to definitively award a behind instead of throwing it back to the umpire’s call.
Tigers coach Damien Hardwick has been a vocal critic of the system in the past, labelling its technology deplorable last year, but he had greater concerns following the 16.8 (104) to 5.7 (37) drubbing by the Cats.
“I was on the bench and I couldn’t see anything,” Hardwick said.
“It is what it is.”
Pressed on whether he thought the mooted central AFL review bunker would help alleviate issues with the system, the coach was more forthright.
“I think we can spend our money better … just let the umpires make the decision,” he said.
“It’s been happening for 150 years … more.
“I don’t know, I don’t care.”
An AFL spokesperson at the game said the findings of a review into the incident would be made public on Saturday.
Former Richmond champion Matthew Richardson called the situation embarrassing on the Channel Seven broadcast.
Carlton’s Sam Docherty and Collingwood’s Jeremy Howe both tweeted “Not again” in response to the second-quarter incident.
Cats coach Chris Scott was more forgiving.
“I think it’s better than the previous system, which was allowing the howlers through,” Scott said.
“Let’s accept as a competition that mistakes will happen. I know it’s easier for me to say when we’ve won the game.
“To think that these things are going to be perfect is naive in the extreme.
“Let’s not make it a bigger issue than it is. Mistakes will happen, sometimes it helps you and sometimes it hurts you.
“Let’s move on.”
The AFL blamed a technical issue for the error in the Dockers-Magpies game, but admitted the reviewer in the Eagles-Western Bulldogs game at Optus Stadium got it wrong.
Alfred
Guest
Well Dr you're clearly a Cats supporter. Clear space between ball and post. Only an imbecile would think that it wasn't conclusively a goal...hence why the AFL is investigating the score review system. Incorrect decision
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
My understanding was umpires call. If the review umpire did call it a point, then that’s incorrect use of the technology in my opinion, since it didn’t look to be conclusive. Either way, the right outcome resulted. But yes, if the umpire determined a point based on that vision, then it was a poor one. Equally so, if it was a goal, I would have had no issue with umpires call. It would have got ugly if it was a goal and the review umpire overruled it with a point but that’s not we’re debating in this instance. The goal umpire thought it hit the post. The review umpire thought it hit the post. The commentators, in all their wisdom, felt it didn’t, based a long angle shot. Correct decision.
Ditto
Roar Rookie
I'm no expert on the review process, but the review system made a decision that it was a point, not umpire's call. To me that indicates that it did find the evidence conclusive. In a similar instance in the Adelaide/GWS game the umpire called hit the post, but didn't call for a review, after lengthy conjecture by the commentators, they suddenly found snicko, or was that just a joke?
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
No, the goal umpire thought it hit the goal post. Vision is inconclusive (irrespective of what our silly commentators say), hence the right outcome. I’ll take the word of a trained umpire one metre away, and in perfect position, over a long angle shot.
Ditto
Roar Rookie
I'm a little confused. Did the umpire call it a goal, but wanted to check if it hit the post, or did he call it a point, because he thought that it had hit the post, but he wanted to make sure?
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
I'm not sure that last angle definitively proved anything? I certainly wouldn't have overturned the goal umpire based on a long-angle shot like that. Correct decision.
Kevin
Guest
Funny how the commentators melt down and cry “ what if it were to happen in a grand final “....... What they fail to recall is that it did ..ask the saints about Tom Hawkins goal in the GF
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
Spot on, Matt. Same as cricket and tennis, It's the broadcaster highlighting umpire mistakes that's the problem. If they put as much effort into highlighting player mistakes, there'd be nothing else on TV!
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
Disagree with Scott. These are howlers too. We've just replaced one lot of howlers with another.
Kane
Guest
Couldn't agree with you more. If they can't cover 100% of the angles then just don't bother, that's what the umpires are paid for
User
Roar Rookie
It was a better without broadcasters highlighting every half called missed, should be umpires only, video umpiring is ruining most sports.