At what point in this AFL season will the focus be on what’s happening on-field, rather than off it?
It seems to me that week in, week out we are discussing what amateur series of events took place at AFL HQ.
This week’s topic: the score review system.
When Essendon met the Giants on Thursday night at Marvel, the entertaining encounter was overshadowed by a questionable score review decision.
Late in the fourth quarter, Essendon’s Shaun McKernan kicked a goal that levelled the scores against the Giants with just over two minutes remaining.
The problem? The Giants’ Adam Kennedy just touched the ball as it sailed through.
That was clearly picked up by viewers at home immediately after, in vision replayed by Channel Seven and Fox Footy.
But the professional behind the score review gave it the all clear, and the ball returned to the centre.
It found its way forward for Essendon again, into the hands of Cale Hooker who kicked the winner.
Which leads us to this point. Another week discussing the flaws of the AFL’s systems and one we spoke about in depth just a few weeks ago.
This was the second time in three weeks the Giants had been involved in the controversy surrounding the score review system.
Against North Melbourne in Round 13, a Ben Brown goal was overturned by the score review that determined it was touch.
It was in fact, untouched and a goal.
And now the roles are reversed and unfortunately for the Giants, it might have cost them the game.
We’ll never know.
But we do know if the goal had been overturned, the Giants would’ve been five points up and had possession with about two and a half minutes to go.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that the Bombers would’ve still been a certainty to win from that position.
They did, however, deserve the win.
Coming back from 19 points down early in the last to claim victory against one of the best teams in the competition is everything to boast about.
Especially because the last meeting between these two saw the Bombers on the receiving end of a 72-point thrashing.
While the Giants have been the focus of yet another score review debacle, it’s ridiculous to say this is “karma” for what happened a few weeks earlier in Tasmania.
Nor is this “good karma” for Essendon after the Dane Rampe goalpost incident.
None of this is about luck or karma…it’s about a system that was put into place for accuracy that is constantly failing us.
This was the eighth blunder made by the score review system this season alone.
Sure, we’ve been delivered timely responses but that shouldn’t be at the expense of an accurate reading on the play.
Amazingly, the NRL, football and tennis all have a score review system that is filled with professionals that almost never fails us.
What was worse (and often is) was the response that followed by AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan.
Speaking to 3AW Mornings on Friday he said, “They (the score reviewers) had to make a decision on whether the ball was touched beyond reasonable doubt – that’s the standard to overturn a decision,” he explained.
“They had specific training this week, had gone through vision about what reasonable doubt was.”
This is the first time I’ve ever heard that the ball must be touched to a certain degree to be judged a goal or behind.
Sorry, but what sort of explanation is that?
I would’ve thought it is pretty black and white.
Ball is touched = a behind.
Ball is not touched = a goal.
But now, in order to cover yet another blunder made by the AFL, the CEO has just randomly decided to introduce a “how much was this balled touched” metre?
Why has no one mentioned that before? Is it only relevant now that the score review is coming under fire?
Then, to add further insult, AFL football operations boss Steve Hocking told SEN’s Crunch Time, “Not in my view, not in the vision that I’ve seen (was the ball touched).”
“The operator on the night felt that wasn’t the case. They had about 50 seconds to review that and their view is and the review since is that it wasn’t the case.”
So now you have one AFL official saying the ball was touched but no enough to have an impact and another who says it wasn’t touched at all?
You can’t script this stuff.
And those comments were just the beginning.
Gillion assured Morning’s host Neil Mitchell the decision was made by one of the AFL’s “best” in the game.
Later on Friday, Fox Footy’s Tom Morris revealed that “the rushed call was made by two of the league’s most inexperienced operators”.
I guess it’s up to you who to believe.
But regardless of which side you’re on, everyone can agree that the system needs reviewing and the “training” that the reviewers apparently undertook during the week is not sufficient.
The system must be fixed but not done with altogether as TV stations have access to the vision that they will replay again and again and again.
And it is worth pointing out that many commentators questioned the touch ball within seconds of viewing the replay.
It’s simply something that must be fixed.
Start with taking this seriously.
Employ professionals in every state who are up for the job.
There are existing procedures to test attention to detail…find them and implement them in the recruitment stages.
Then, give the score reviewers comprehensive training over a number of months – not just over between rounds.
Finally, don’t hide these people away in the dark. Bring them to light and hold them accountable for mistakes made.
Not for the purpose of them being slaughtered week in, week out, but so we can hear from them, like we do the MRO and the umpires, why there was one decision made over another.
Rather than having Gillon and Hocking scrambling to cover their tracks once again.
And while you’re spending so much time and effort investing in the right personnel, invest in better cameras or proper technology to get a timely, more accurate reading.
At the present time, we are judging these split-second decisions on terrible frame rates and 2D footage.
There is certainly better technology out there that will make this job a lot easier and more accurate.
Because here we are, once again with the professional Aussie Rules competition looking amateurish compared to the others in Australia.
Acknowledge that this current system isn’t working, instead of trying to cover it up with bizarre justifications and then get on with fixing it.
Because what is the point of a score review if we aren’t reviewing goals properly?
Don’t get rid of the review, just review it.
Peter Warrington
Guest
thanks attacking hand - behind off post - agree. it goes in, or misses. off goal and rebound into field of play -rebound hit a post twice in the same quarter - 2 minute multiball period!
Sam
Guest
That's a great suggestion. It would stop rushed behinds but it becomes problematic if the ball comes of the hand of an attacking player- is it a point or a goal? I'd like to see balls touching the post also be permitted like in the Rugby codes. In off the woodwork from shots at goal in rugby league and rugby union are deemed successful and off the post and back onto play being play on.
Peter Warrington
Guest
what if we just change the rule and a smother or spoil that still goes thru despite the opposition's touch is a goal? it's still a goal in soccer if the goalie gets a touch in rugby league a field goal still counts if touched? it would eliminate that aspect of the review completely. can't see how it would change the game, other than taking another "deliberate out of bounds" option off the table, consistent with recent changes???
Jakarta Fan
Roar Rookie
If the Score Review eliminate the howlers then it is a valuable tool. In comparison, there are many marks that were finger touched by an opposition player in a marking contest which are allowed and subsequently a goal followed. Where's the weekly uproar? How many "advantage, advantage" calls have we witnessed after everyone stopped then some player decides to test "advantage" and races in to an uncontested goal. Where's the weekly uproar? The problem with fingernail touches, "Oh, I saw the finger move" - well is it not possible the finger moved for some other reason? Escpecially when the image is all blurred? Was the finger, [erhaps, already moving in that direction? Possibly. Let's not over react. Put it in an overall context where obvious touches and deviations impact the decision ratjher that 45 seconds of a very blurred vision of a maybe or maybe not decision.
Jimbob
Guest
This conversation is going on in every sport. If you want players (and fans) to "get on with the game", then the main thing you need to eliminate is not the review system but the endless replays on TV and on the big screen at the ground. Review systems of one sort and another have been brought in to nearly every professional sport, as a response to increased scrutiny through TV replays. Problem is, the review systems have led to MORE replays on TV and at the ground. The only sport where mostly everyone seems satisfied with the review system is Tennis.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
It would be nice if the person doing goal review actually let the tape go forward enough to see if the ball actually crossed the line before it was touched. Ports 1st goal was awarded after checking the video to see whether the ball was touched before it crossed the line. The review kept rewinding before reaching the critical moment, without actually showing the ball cross the line and yet a bulldog defender's hand was right next to it. Bizarre incompetence (or maybe it was a Port supporter). Maybe it was a legitimate goal - but it was never checked properly.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I don't think Gil was talking about the degree to which the ball was touched. He was saying that the reviewers need to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the ball was touched (and the decision should therefore be overturned). Although that is the first time I've head 'beyond reasonable doubt' in this context. Normally it seems to be 'conclusive evidence', which sounds a bit stronger to me. On balance of probabilities it was probably touched. One of the frames seemed to show Kennedy's finger bent back, which is indicative of a touch. The difficulties, though, is that there aren't enough frames per second in these reviews. We're talking about something that happens in a tiny faction of a second and there aren't any frames showing the finger actually being pushed back by the ball. In one frame there's a finger sticking out and that's it. In that sense I understand the decision not to overturn the umpire's call, even if I think it was incorrect. On the whole I'm happy to keep the score review system because I think (frames aside) most of the errors we've seen are caused by humans letting technology down, not vice versa. The biggest farce has been where the reviewers haven't actually looked at all available camera angles or even at the right incident. This should be fixable with a proper bunker setup. In saying that, the fact that the score review system still has problems seems to be part of a broader issue plaguing the AFL at the moment; that is, a lack of transparency and accountability. The AFL is never wrong and the umpires never make mistakes. Everything is going along swimmingly because they have lots of money and TV ratings are strong.
Grand-Dag
Guest
G'day Slane I wasn't defending the propriety of the system, I was pushing the fact that once a decision has been made the players have to get on with the game no matter how inflamed they may feel about that adjudication. When 'Bluey' McKenna retired from the Eagles he was asked how he felt about the plethora of umpires wrong calls he had to swallow. His response was "You don't even think about it. You just try to get to the best position on the field for your team. And that there may have been, maybe three times in 250 games that he felt aggrieved.
Davico
Roar Pro
Can't agree that the NRL review hardly ever fails. It fails plenty and did so in fact on the weekend
Wayne
Roar Guru
Penrith/Warriors game; Try scored when hand was in touch. So they still make mistakes too
Slane
Guest
Just 3 weeks ago Jack Higgins was robbed of a clear goal. The goal umpire believed the ball touched the post. The replay showed at least 6 inches of daylight between the ball and post. The goal umpires 'howler' was not overturned. So no, the goal review system has not eliminated the 'howler'. It's done nothing but ruin the aesthetic of the game and encourage even greater questioning of the umpires.
XI
Roar Guru
The League should invest in some high-speed cameras. They aren't that expensive and I'm sure there's plenty of companies who'd give them cheaply as a sponsorship arrangement. At least then they wouldn't be trying to see between frames
RT
Roar Rookie
It was easy for the commentators at the time to immediately question if it was touched because the players were appealing. So I wouldn't read anything in that. I haven't followed all the responses by Gill and Hocking, but on face value it doesn't look good. However I wouldn't say Gill has introduced anything new by saying beyond a reasonable doubt. It has always had to be certain to overturn the umpires on the field. I was watching the game and I thought it was too hard to call, so I agree with Gill (for once).
Grand-Dag
Guest
As many have said 'The score review was introduced to get rid of the howlers' - it is doing this. The complaints now are about minute infractions of the rules - finger nail touching the ball or the ball scrapping the back of the padding on a goal post etc. These adjudications have been a part of footy forever and whether they were right or wrong, they were accepted as the umpires ruling. So keep the review system, existing or improved, but just get on with the game once a decision has been made.