Process, not technology, the answer to scoring misses

Another Grand Final scoring blunder and the football community has to, yet again, endure the nonsense proposition that technology must be used to assist umpires in scoring decisions.

 

Let’s start by getting the situation straight on the Wellingham “goal”. This was not a goal umpiring error per se. It was an error of process in that the goal umpire was too influenced by a field umpire.

 

The goal umpire was in the correct position to make a decision. The field umpire was not. We see, week in and week out, goal umpires relying on boundary umpires to assist with set shot scoring decisions. The goal umpire looks to the boundary umpire who signals whether the ball passed inside or outside the behind post. This works because the boundary umpire is standing right at the behind post.

 

And yet, the AFL umpiring department has field umpires — not standing at the posts and not at the goal line — directing goal umpires. Incredible.

 

Two years ago, the Tom Hawkins “goal” was a different matter. Hawkins’ snapshot didn’t allow any time for boundary umpires to be in position at the behind posts. The goal umpire was attempting to make ground to get into position to see the ball and, understandably, did not see the deflection from the goal post. Had the broadcaster not had a camera trained at the incident from the angle they did, it’s quite possible that only a few fans at the game would have been aware that the ball had hit the post.

 

In both instances then, detecting an error relied very heavily on there being a camera with a view from an appropriate angle. So, what technology are we going to employ? Instant replay from the broadcaster. And with every angle covered? Of course not.

 

And if that replay is inconclusive? Current practice is that the lesser score option is awarded. Is that more right than the current decision-making process?

 

There are three simple points to a solution to this “problem”.

1. Goal umpire’s decisions are the prime scoring decision unless some other umpire is 100% certain that the decision is incorrect.
2. Employ four goal umpires per game.
3. Australian rules football has uncertainties built in — the shape of the ball not the least of them. There is no absolutely certain process for making these decisions, so let’s accept that the current error rate of something less than one tenth of one percent is a pretty damned good result.

There is some justification for goal line cameras, but even these offer less than conclusive evidence given the speed of the ball and the often slight touches players may get on the ball.

 

As we’ve noted on many occasions, the negatives of video decision-assist outweigh any positives to an extraordinary degree.

• In the event of a “behind” decision, the defending team loses the advantage of a quick kick out while a video review is conducted.
• The game’s rhythm is upset by the break for video review.
• Video review doesn’t guarantee certainty.