Sunday, September 23, 2012

Video not up to the job

Tim Lane makes some very valid points about video decision assistance in general and the AFL’s system specifically.

 

The Toovey decision, where the camera positioning was serendipitously perfect to deliver a conclusive amendment to what the goal umpire had perceived, seems to prove the case that using video technology makes the game better by helping to get the decisions as right as they can be.

 

And the goal called by goal umpire Chelsea Roffey where the ball may have been touched as it crossed the line proves yet again, if such proof were needed, just how imperfect the AFL’s system is and how there may never be anything that approaches perfect.

 

There’s a common factor between these two decisions, surprising as that may seem. In both cases, the TV camera was placed at an angle to the goal line. In the Toovey case, that camera happened to be at pretty much exactly the right angle to show clearly that the ball came off Toovey’s upper leg. In the Roffey decision, a camera at an angle to the goal line wasn’t able to show where the ball was, two metres above the ground, in relation to a line marked on the ground, as it was touched by a Sydney player’s hand.

 

It’s the angles that are the problem! In the Toovey case, the angle worked, but for almost every other case, it simply doesn’t allow a definitive judgement.

 

goalline video

When the camera is positioned right on the line, as in the left-hand illustration, there’s a reasonable chance of determining where the ball is in relation to the goal line (unless obscured by the goal post). In the right-hand illustration, that relationship between the ball and the line is changed by the angle. there can no longer by any certainty about where the ball is in relation to the line.

 

What’s the upshot of all this as we careen toward the end of the first video review season? Well, it’s obvious. The system as it is currently, works in a small percentage of cases but is useless for the majority. If the broadcaster or the AFL were to spring for sixteen or more, high-speed, high-definition, constantly-monitored goal line cameras, there’s a fair chance they’d eliminate about 90% of potential errors. That’s it.

 

Bring out the canvas curtain and administer the lead aspro before 2013. We were all much happier when Adrian and The Giesch thought there were only about six goal umpiring errors per season. Now we know there are more, but we can’t do a damned thing to remove them. Thanks for nothing, guys.

No comments:

Video not up to the job

Tim Lane makes some very valid points about video decision assistance in general and the AFL’s system specifically.

 

The Toovey decision, where the camera positioning was serendipitously perfect to deliver a conclusive amendment to what the goal umpire had perceived, seems to prove the case that using video technology makes the game better by helping to get the decisions as right as they can be.

 

And the goal called by goal umpire Chelsea Roffey where the ball may have been touched as it crossed the line proves yet again, if such proof were needed, just how imperfect the AFL’s system is and how there may never be anything that approaches perfect.

 

There’s a common factor between these two decisions, surprising as that may seem. In both cases, the TV camera was placed at an angle to the goal line. In the Toovey case, that camera happened to be at pretty much exactly the right angle to show clearly that the ball came off Toovey’s upper leg. In the Roffey decision, a camera at an angle to the goal line wasn’t able to show where the ball was, two metres above the ground, in relation to a line marked on the ground, as it was touched by a Sydney player’s hand.

 

It’s the angles that are the problem! In the Toovey case, the angle worked, but for almost every other case, it simply doesn’t allow a definitive judgement.

 

goalline video

When the camera is positioned right on the line, as in the left-hand illustration, there’s a reasonable chance of determining where the ball is in relation to the goal line (unless obscured by the goal post). In the right-hand illustration, that relationship between the ball and the line is changed by the angle. there can no longer by any certainty about where the ball is in relation to the line.

 

What’s the upshot of all this as we careen toward the end of the first video review season? Well, it’s obvious. The system as it is currently, works in a small percentage of cases but is useless for the majority. If the broadcaster or the AFL were to spring for sixteen or more, high-speed, high-definition, constantly-monitored goal line cameras, there’s a fair chance they’d eliminate about 90% of potential errors. That’s it.

 

Bring out the canvas curtain and administer the lead aspro before 2013. We were all much happier when Adrian and The Giesch thought there were only about six goal umpiring errors per season. Now we know there are more, but we can’t do a damned thing to remove them. Thanks for nothing, guys.

0 comments: