Video village

The AFL appears determined to embrace video-assisted decision-making technology in some way, shape or form. The ‘goal’ awarded to Geelong’s Tom Hawkins during the Grand Final — an exceptionally close Grand Final, it’s worth noting — has provided a context.

In the widespread discussion of the issue across many fora, there appear to be two ‘camps’: the We must use all available resources to ensure we have the correct result EVERY time camp; and the It doesn’t happen often enough to worry about it camp.

Let me say at the outset that I think video-assisted decision-making, even if only for balls in close proximity to the goal posts, is applying a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.

Who will decide when a video decision is required, and on what basis? Would Darren Milburn's claim in the grand Final that he'd touched the ball be prima facie context for a video decision, for instance?

Will the game cease while a video decision is sought? For NFL, NRL and cricket, there are natural pauses in the game that lend themselves to extension for examination of crucial on-field decisions. But who has not endured the countless indeterminate replays required for such a decision to be made and bayed at the officials (even via the TV screen) to “Get on with it!”

In the NFL, head coaches have two opportunities per game to query on-field decisions and a sanction — loss of a time-out — attaches to an unsuccessful challenge. There's no applicability of these concepts to Aussie rules.

In NRL, the referee chooses when to refer a touchdown decision to the video official. Which official on the AFL field will decide to refer to the video official? The goal umpire is hardly going to query his own decision, but might be pressured by circumstance into making a non-decision, i.e. I don't know, so refer it. For the field umpires, it will depend on positioning whether they have an appropriate context to decide whether a decision be referred or not. Or will the video official or (gasp!) media people alert the field umpire that a decision is questionable? If the latter, who will judge their independance and impartiality?

Cricket, even with it natural breaks in play and general slow pace anyway, is transformed into a funereal spectacle by the slow-mo replay. The looming opportunity for teams to query 2 decisions in a Test innings, a la the NFL challenge situation, only adds to the problem. There's little synergy here with AFL either.

Finally, and the clincher in my view, a video-assisted goal umpiring decision presumably will stop the game. In today's game, the loss of the chance to bring the ball back in from a point as quickly as possible disadvantages the defending team to an astonishing degree. We've seen, in 2009 at least, the spectacle of opposition cheer squads hurling a ‘lost’ ball back onto the field of play, disrupting a kick-in, allowing the defending forwards to set up or adjust their defensive zone.

The AFL have gone to astonishing lengths in recent seasons to speed the game up and remove unnatural breaks — immediate kick-ins from points without waiting for the flags to be waved, 50-metre penalties for time wasting — yet are now considering a process that will bring the free-flowing game to a screeching, shuddering halt.

It just doesn’t make sense!