100% goal a step too far

The goal umpiring furore erupting after Friday night’s Richmond-Fremantle game has shone yet another light on the AFL’s attempt to approach 100% correctness on scoring decisions — and what we see isn’t pretty.

 

For those who haven’t seen it, here’s the scenario:

 

 

 

The ball has been kicked toward goal from the left-hand pocket and has closely tracked the goal line as it travels toward the goal umpire. Richmond player #29, Ty Vickery, has just tried to nudge the ball through for a goal with his foot — but taken an air swing.

 

The ball proceeds on its way and strikes the goal umpire in the area close to his “family jewels”.

 

So, to the controversies.

 

Damien Hardwick claims the result should have been a goal to Richmond. Quite how this can be the case when the goal umpire is hit in the gonads as he stands against the post mystifies us. Yes, it was close. Yes, it would be preferable that the umpire wasn’t in such an immediate vicinity. But a goal? No.

 

Controversy number two has various commentators calling for the goal umpire to be standing back from the line, out of the way of the players. Once again, quite how the umpire would be in a position to make a judgement in this case were he standing a metre or two back from the line mystifies us.

 

Stand by for a shock! AussieRulesBlog thinks The Giesch’s bloke got this one spot on and was, in the circumstances and with the tools available, in EXACTLY the right position to make a judgement.

 

Let’s just revisit this whole goal umpiring area. When the video review notion was first raised, the departed and unlamented Adrian Anderson told us that goal umpiring errors were less than one-tenth of one percent of all goal umpiring decisions across a season. BUT, despite that laudable statistic, the AFL decided to make a kneejerk response to a couple of high-profile errors and introduce a remarkably-flawed goal line video decision assistance ‘system’.

 

In this system, the umpires would rely on broadcast TV camera footage to assist the decision-making process. The AFL decided they wouldn’t foot the bill for cameras in the goal posts to monitor the goal line, instead relying on the broadcasters’ cameras set at a significant angle to the goal line.

 

What has followed has been the longest series of cock-ups the game has ever seen. A small number of decisions have been shown to be wrong and been corrected, but at the cost of interminable furore and the regular intonation of “Inconclusive, goal umpire’s decision.”

 

This experiment in technology has been an unmitigated disaster. The logical decision, right at the start of the process, was to employ two goal umpires at either end of the ground. With responsibility for a roughly seven-metre stretch of goal-line plane each, there’s a much-reduced likelihood of error. It’s not eliminated completely, but, as we’ve seen in recent years, technology as it is currently employed doesn’t get us any nearer that goal.

 

The sticking point here is money. The AFL won’t open its wallet to fund goal-line cameras, and it won’t open its wallet to fund an extra two goal umpires per game.

 

It’s not that long ago that it was the AFL defending the antiquated notion that one boundary umpire could effectively cover 200 metres of boundary in a fast-moving game of football. Would anyone now countenance going back to a single boundary umpire?

 

Come on Andrew. Time to step up to the mark. Either fund the video review system properly, or spring for some extra umpires. It’s not like the AFL is poor.