• Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: Goal technology

Sunny Goal technology 1 month 4 days ago #1

Sunny
I know messing with the rules of the AFL is not very popular but.... the technology and time needed to decide about the ball touching the post or a finger is getting ridiculous.
How about - if it goes through the big sticks, it’s a goal whether it brushes the post and/or a finger.
Ditto point posts
If it hits any post and comes back into the field of play, then it’s play on.
I know this has been said many times before, but when they’re talking $100,000 for hotspot technology and all the time taken when reviewing touched goals, (sometimes still not decisive), I think it makes sense.
Login to reply,
jusdoit said You Beaut

shane Goal technology 1 month 4 days ago #2

shane
I agree on the first one. The goal umpires get it right the majority of the time and we should just accept that it's a game and if it brushes a finger or a post, so delicately that a person couldn't tell, then the attacker beat the defender.

And for the crucial ones in finals, whinging and arguing about it for the next 100 years is just part of the fun of following football.

But on the second, I would like to point out that it's not bloody pinball.
Login to reply,
Blue1red1, goodie, Raglan Matt, Sunny said You Beaut

demo1 Goal technology 1 month 4 days ago #3

demo1
I like it Sunny expect the ball hitting the post and coming back into play - that should still be a point..
Imagine GF 2022 - scores level - Tablich has the ball 55 metres out on the boundary line and it swings late and hits the goal post bouncing back into play.
That deserves to be a point.
Login to reply,
Sunny, Docker by the Sea said You Beaut

Walter the baker Goal technology 1 month 4 days ago #4

Walter the baker
The second idea, ie play on if the ball bounces back into play is silly. Here is the reason why:
Under that proposal imagine if your team is behind by one point and you have a kick after the siren. The kick hits the goal post and bounces back out onto the oval and you get no score. A less accurate kick would have given you a point.

I have no problem with scores for balls that brush the posts being given according to the opening they pass through (and ignore whether they hit the post or not) and anything that bounces back into play being given as a point (off the goal post) or out of bounds (off the point post)

Edit: Sorry Demo just saw your similar post - spot on.
Login to reply,
Sunny, Docker by the Sea said You Beaut

Sunny Goal technology 1 month 4 days ago #5

Sunny
OK - see your point. No play on after the ball bouncing back into the field of play. Thanks for that Dockerlanders.
Just saying too - Love the passion and the humour of all contributors. It’s a great site.
Login to reply,
Walter the baker said You Beaut

jusdoit Goal technology 1 month 3 days ago #6

jusdoit
This is a great idea, it would stop all those rediculous replays and still not always getting an accutate result. As far as the ball bouncing back into play it should be play on,if it happens after the siren then -- bad luck.
Login to reply,

hypen Goal technology 1 month 3 days ago #7

hypen
I can't stand technology being employed in sport. What needs to change is our expectation of fairness. And the need for everything to be black or white. Consider the inconsistency with the holding the ball rule, we tolerate that and then everyone just loses their mind when it may have been touched on the line.

And the bloody DRS in cricket. Now they whinge about not getting enough umpires calls, when LBWs are just hitting.

The answer lies in managing expectations not technology.
Login to reply,
cletus, shane, Gumby, Raglan Matt said You Beaut

Raglan Matt Goal technology 1 month 3 days ago #8

Raglan Matt
Dockerland will shut down if technology means there are no incorrect umpiring decisions.

What will Richmond (S) do then???
Login to reply,

cletus Goal technology 1 month 3 days ago #9

cletus
You are exactly right Hypen...agree with you completely.

But I' d go one step further - and, I am surprised that in this era of statistical analysis that this hasn,t been implemented - but, in both cricket and footy, make umps accountable with a ' clanger ' count...or ....a percentage of 'correct' decisions.

Put some accountability upon them ....or...provide statistics for 'aspiration' . We acknowledge everyo e makes ' mistakes ', but lets take conjecture out of that, and lets use umpires that have consistent, proven, and quantified 'good numbers'.

Ie Simon Taufel gets his decisions right 97% of the time and has had only one clanger in his last 10 matches.

Or...

Billy Bowden has a 41% chance of getting his decisions right, and , has had 17 clangers in his last 10 matches.

Stop rescuing them with camera technology, and force them to have some pride & accountability in the job that they do




.
Login to reply,
hypen, Raglan Matt said You Beaut

The_Yeti Goal technology 1 month 3 days ago #10

The_Yeti
That's crazy talk, cletus. Every decision ever made on field has always been 100% correct. Even the ones where there is a different decision for identical events.

All the decisions are reviewed and approved by AFL House.

Where are you ever going to find a clanger for those stats of yours.
Egurls Suck!
Login to reply,
rogerrocks said You Beaut

Raglan Matt Goal technology 1 month 3 days ago #11

Raglan Matt
Yeti, Clete is just making the point that the umps are never wrong, lay off him will ya.
Login to reply,

The_Yeti Goal technology 1 month 3 days ago #12

The_Yeti
That's what I said!!!
Egurls Suck!
Login to reply,

Raglan Matt Goal technology 1 month 3 days ago #13

Raglan Matt
Sorry, Yeti, didn't listen to the slow motion audio, the 5 different angles of the soundtrack, or the snicko video.
Login to reply,
The_Yeti said You Beaut

cletus Goal technology 1 month 3 days ago #14

cletus
Yeti, will the 27yr list that I've compiled in my loungeroom suffice ???.

It could be argued that it is 'a little one eyed'...but i reckon its pretty accurate, and it's certainly extensive....

But if its not 'up to scratch', I am sure RM could provide a pretty credible tome....
Login to reply,
The_Yeti, Raglan Matt said You Beaut
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2