Video review. . . and review . . .

AFL Umpiring Director, Jeff Gieschen, was happy with the video review of the Barcodes’ Chris Dawes’ goal on Saturday night. All we can say to that is that Gieschen is easily pleased!

 

For those who missed the spectacle, Dawes snapped for goal and an opponent’s hand was in the same postcode. The field umpire, the closest official to the kick and attempted smother, called “All clear!”. At that point, the goal umpire ran out onto the field and suggested he wasn’t sure if the ball had been touched off the boot — despite a closer official ruling it all clear!

 

Next, we endured six or seven replays of varying speeds from a couple of different angles, none of which was conclusive. This process stretched over what felt like the best part of a minute.

 

Once again, AussieRulesBlog draws attention to the inequities of the initial process involved. Had the score been adjudicated as a behind, there is no opportunity for a video replay because the opposition will have grabbed a spare ball and kicked it into play. To deny them this capability, by holding up play to review the video, disadvantages them enormously.

 

Gieschen seems to think that getting the decision right is the acme of achievement.

 

Well, yes it is — in certain circumstances. Will we eventually fit high-powered lasers to the goal posts so that a ball that would brush an infinitely high post would be singed or burst, thus signifying a behind? We think there’s a point (no pun intended) where getting the decision right becomes less important than retaining basic fairness and keeping the momentum of the game.

 

In this implementation of the video review, teams awarded behinds incorrectly are disadvantaged and teams awarded goals are overly advantaged, because even if the original call of a goal is overturned they can set up their best defensive zone.

 

Thus far, we’ve only fleetingly mentioned the time involved in the review process. As we have pointed out previously, games like cricket and NFL have natural rhythms which facilitate video review. AFL does not.

 

In a lower-scoring game, where each score assumes much greater importance, there would be some justification for assistive technology being employed. In AFL, even if scores are within a few points at the final siren, there have generally been many scores and scoring chances, so that one error isn’t as critical.

 

“You wouldn't want to cut off the review without seeing all of the replays. If something bobbed up later then you'd look silly if you'd made the call on the first couple of replays,” Gieschen is quoted as saying.

 

If it’s so important to not look silly, Jeff, what about introducing video review of field umpiring gaffes. There are far more of these than goal umpiring errors. Adrian Anderson told us last year the goal umpiring error rate was less than ten in ten thousand, and yet we’re going to this ludicrous effort to reduce that rate?

 

The truth is, there’s just nowhere that this video review notion stacks up. In true AFL tradition, it’s using a bulldozer to knock over a single blade of grass.