In the fast-paced world of Australian Rules Football (AFL), the score review system was implemented with the noble intention of ensuring fair outcomes.
However, as the seasons have progressed, it has become increasingly evident that the system is plagued with issues, ranging from inconclusive calls to momentum-killing delays.
It’s time for a serious reconsideration of its role in the game.
One of the primary grievances with the AFL score review system is the frequency of inconclusive calls.
Despite the advancements in technology, the angles provided for review often fail to deliver the clarity needed to make definitive rulings.
This leaves players, coaches, and fans frustrated and questioning the reliability of the system. In a sport where split-second decisions can alter the course of a match, the inability to confidently determine the correct call undermines the integrity of the game.
Furthermore, the constant reliance on the score review system disrupts the flow and momentum of matches. What should be a seamless transition between plays is interrupted by lengthy stoppages as officials consult the technology.
This not only detracts from the spectator experience but also impacts the rhythm of the game for players on the field.
Momentum is a precious commodity in AFL, and the frequent interruptions caused by the score review system can disrupt the natural ebb and flow of a match, potentially altering its outcome.
Moreover, the presence of four officials on the field should instil a level of confidence in their ability to make accurate decisions without constant reliance on technology.
While the human element of officiating will inevitably lead to errors, the over-reliance on the score review system suggests a lack of trust in the judgment of those tasked with enforcing the rules of the game.
It begs the question: if four trained officials cannot make a conclusive decision without the aid of technology, then what purpose do they serve on the field?
In light of these issues, it’s clear that the current AFL score review system is failing to fulfil its intended purpose. Rather than enhancing the fairness and integrity of the game, it has become a source of frustration and controversy.
As such, it’s imperative that the AFL takes proactive steps to address these concerns and explore alternative solutions.
One potential avenue for improvement could involve refining the technology used for review, perhaps incorporating more advanced camera angles or real-time tracking systems to provide officials with clearer and more decisive information.
Additionally, establishing stricter criteria for when the score review system can be utilized may help to reduce its disruptive impact on matches, allowing the flow of play to remain uninterrupted whenever possible.
Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance between ensuring accurate decision-making and preserving the natural rhythm of the game.
The AFL owes it to players, coaches, and fans alike to reevaluate the role of the score review system and implement changes that uphold the integrity of Australian Rules Football while minimizing unnecessary disruptions.
Only then we can truly say that the spirit of the game has been upheld.
RT
Roar Rookie
What people are narky about is the constant frivolous reviews, not the extremely rare case where a review or lack of has cost a team victory.
Dibbs
Roar Rookie
Exactly, it's the field umpires call whether or not it's a mark, and the third umpires call whether it happened before or after crossing the line, but the way they're doing it now involves the third umpire deciding whether it's a mark or not. This is incorrect use of the score review, but since they're doing it that way, there's no reason it can't be used to decide marks that aren't on the line.
junk
Roar Rookie
No. Send the reviews to the tribunal and they can announce mid week who won the game.
Blink
Roar Rookie
I reckon its working really well. Of course when you lose a game because a decision has been corrected you get narky, and the writer as heaps of that. In fact when everyone commentating called a goal on the weekend the review showed it was a clear behind. Probably cost the article writer a weeks wages by his hard done by response. Tough bikkies!
Knoxy
Roar Rookie
Maybe we should untroduce a second review system to review the score reviewers in the middle of a score review. :silly:
RT
Roar Rookie
Edit: really think it is NOT necessary.
RT
Roar Rookie
2 umpires woukd be better than the technology but I still really think it is necessary. There is nothing wrong with the umpires, it is just that the AFL have overreacted to one missed review last year and now it is a shambles.
Cinderella's Big Score
Roar Rookie
I used to think that a better, low-tech solution would be to have two goal umpires at each end. A goal umpire could be stationed at each goal post. They would barely have to move, just concentrate on their post and observe which side of it the ball crosses. But based on some of the non-decisions that I have seen this year, it appears that even goal umpires that are well positioned are racked with uncertainty about where the ball has travelled. What are the criteria for selecting goal umpires? Is good eyesight a part of it? Maybe get back to basics and seek out goal umpires with sharp reflexes and observational skills.
RT
Roar Rookie
The mark decision should only be, did he control it before it crossed the line or was it juggled and therefore a point? Ie it is still judging a score. The Carlton one was not crossing the line, so it is not the same thing.
Dibbs
Roar Rookie
As for inconclusive calls, that will always happen, but better technology, so long as it doesn't make the decision time slower, would be welcome. As for the flow of the game, a better balance would be to only use the review if the goal umpires soft call is a behind. That's needed so we don't get situations like Adelaide's non-goal last year. When the soft call is a goal, there's no need for a review, as it can be reviewed anyway as the ball is brought back to the middle. A problem I have with the reviews now, and it seems to be a new thing, is that that the reviewers are deciding whether or not a mark has been taken, and then putting it up on the screen as 'MARK'. The review is supposed to be for whether or not it's a score, not for marks. If the review is now being used to determine marks, then why wasn't Carlton's goal against Fremantle reviewed and overturned? This needs to be fixed, as it currently doesn't make sense.
junk
Roar Rookie
you are right. The goal ump errors are insignificant compared the FOUR field umpires. Get rid of the system and spend the money on goal umpires and training for the goal umps.
RT
Roar Rookie
Scrap it. All this time wasted because one decision probably cost a team a place in the finals. Ok that sounds bad, but what are the chances? It is only an issue when it almost the last play of the day. Any mistake earlier by any type of umpire can be countered by a decent team. Why does a missed fingertip on a goal matter more than a missed free kick in front of goal? There are more field umpire mistakes a quarter than goal umpire mistakes a round. We can handle it. Why can’t the AFL? When the technology takes something away from the game then it is the wrong solution.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
We’re now seeing reviews where the ball has missed the post by a full metre. It’s beyond ridiculous. Get rid of them. The umpires are now too scared to make a decision.
junk
Roar Rookie
Hear hear. The delays are getting ridiculous.