Back in December of 2009, AussieRulesBlog railed against the proposal for video-assisted goal umpiring decisions. Once again, the practical application of the rule has demonstrated how flawed that proposal, now implemented, was.
Past applications of the rule have, mostly, involved deciding whether the ball has passed completely over the goal line or struck a goal post (although an incident early in the 2011 pre-season competition followed a similar trajectory to this one — Ed.). These are quite finite, immoveable objects and, at least relatively, easy to judge the position of a ball at relatively low velocity against.
Not content with that scenario, Gieschen’s mob decided to up the ante on Friday night and query a ball being touched just as it left a player’s boot. Let’s just assume that the ball is travelling at about 40m/s in that initial instant. If the TV cameras are capturing the action at, say, 25 frames per second, simple arithmetic shows that the ball will have moved about 1.6 metres between two adjacent frames — 0.04 of a second. And we’re supposed to accept that the video judge was able to discern the ball being touched in a grainy, jerky sequence of video frames?
Come on Jeff, Adrian, Andrew. This is nonsense.
Not only is the premise that a decision can be made in this instance nonsense, but the interminable wait for a decision that we presume, in this instance, was to award the lesser result because the video was inconclusive compounded the problem. For the last 130 years that has been a goal and nothing was seen to indicate that it wasn’t a goal in this instance.
And let us just mention again that a team awarded a point has much less opportunity for a video referral since the game is restarted these days almost before the goal umpire has signalled his decision. And the team kicking out if a behind is awarded have lost any advantage of a quick exit from their defensive zone as their opponents have a couple of minutes to perfect their defensive zone.
When are you people going to grasp that, despite Hawkins’ glancing goal in the 2010 Grand Final, single incidents don’t win or lose games and so this futile attempt to reduce an estimated current error rate of 0.1% across a whole season is a turkey.
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
Video turkey gobbles again
Labels:
laws of the game,
Rules,
Video referral
Back in December of 2009, AussieRulesBlog railed against the proposal for video-assisted goal umpiring decisions. Once again, the practical application of the rule has demonstrated how flawed that proposal, now implemented, was.Past applications of the rule have, mostly, involved deciding whether the ball has passed completely over the goal line or struck a goal post (although an incident early in the 2011 pre-season competition followed a similar trajectory to this one — Ed.). These are quite finite, immoveable objects and, at least relatively, easy to judge the position of a ball at relatively low velocity against.
Not content with that scenario, Gieschen’s mob decided to up the ante on Friday night and query a ball being touched just as it left a player’s boot. Let’s just assume that the ball is travelling at about 40m/s in that initial instant. If the TV cameras are capturing the action at, say, 25 frames per second, simple arithmetic shows that the ball will have moved about 1.6 metres between two adjacent frames — 0.04 of a second. And we’re supposed to accept that the video judge was able to discern the ball being touched in a grainy, jerky sequence of video frames?
Come on Jeff, Adrian, Andrew. This is nonsense.
Not only is the premise that a decision can be made in this instance nonsense, but the interminable wait for a decision that we presume, in this instance, was to award the lesser result because the video was inconclusive compounded the problem. For the last 130 years that has been a goal and nothing was seen to indicate that it wasn’t a goal in this instance.
And let us just mention again that a team awarded a point has much less opportunity for a video referral since the game is restarted these days almost before the goal umpire has signalled his decision. And the team kicking out if a behind is awarded have lost any advantage of a quick exit from their defensive zone as their opponents have a couple of minutes to perfect their defensive zone.
When are you people going to grasp that, despite Hawkins’ glancing goal in the 2010 Grand Final, single incidents don’t win or lose games and so this futile attempt to reduce an estimated current error rate of 0.1% across a whole season is a turkey.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment