AFL Umpiring boss Jeff Gieschen has been rolled out after the Grand Final to perform his verbal pirouettes again, this time over the goal/behind to the Barcodes’ Sharrod Wellingham. Once more, the spectre of video referrals of goal umpiring decisions has been raised, even though the 2010 pre-season trial of the process was, in AussieRulesBlog’s view, an unmitigated waste of time.
But the big issue we should be focussing on is buried at the end of Gieschen’s statement on the matter. Discussing the process the on-field umpires went through in coming to the decision, he says:
"Our field umpire (Shaun Ryan) actually asked the two boundary umpires, who were both on the posts, what they thought [and] they couldn't add anything.
"He then asked the other field umpires.
"It would have been probably nice if we had gone back to the goal umpire as well."
So, was the decision made by the field umpire or the goal umpire? Why would it have been nice to go back to the goal umpire? Did the field umpire signal All Clear with two hands, suggesting a goal? Did the goal umpire change his decision on that basis?
Regardless, AussieRulesBlog thinks there’s far too much emphasis on mistakes by goal umpires. The error rate is minute. Both Chris Dawes and Tom Hawkins had gimme opportunities to score goals — and missed. Why aren’t we focussing on those incidents?
And if Gieschen is so damned worried about getting it as right as it can possibly be, what about looking at a consistent interpretation and application of the laws of the game from the first bounce of pre-season to the final siren of the Grand Final? Now THAT would be a step forward!
Release the Giesch!!!!!
Posts
4 comments:
What do Dawes's and Hawkins's misses have to do with Wellingham's kick brushing the posts?
For the life of me, I don't understand what Gieschen was saying about it being 'nice to go back to the goal umpire'? What would that have achieved? If he signalled that it was a goal in the first place, then it's not like he's going to magically switch his view on being asked a second time.
Re Dawes and hawkins, I just wanted to highlioght that there's an over-concentration on the goal umpiring error, because we don't spend any time analysiing the players' skill errors.
The implication of Giesch's statement is that the filed umpire signalled "All clear Goal" right at the point where the goal umpire began to signal a behind (which he'd seen), leading the goal umpire to change his decision.
The field umpire then asked opinions from the two boundary umpires and the other two field umpires, but, crucially, not the goal umpire. The goal umpire, if he thought the ball had hit the post, should have immediately run out to the field umpire and said, "The ball hit the post, so it's a behind."
Whenever there's an umpiring conference over a score, if there's ANY doubt expressed, the lesser score option alwways results. BUT, in this case, the goal umpire wasn't involved in that discussion.
I suspect it's not a goal umpiring error, but a field umpiring process error.
I see - I was under the impression that the goal umpire had signalled a goal and the field umpire (Shaun Ryan, I think) had called it back to review. I'm not sure why the field umpire is allowed to overrule a decision by the goal umpire in such a situation, and especially not confer with him.
As a Pies' supporter, I'm not too unhappy with the decision in this specific instance (had it been Geelong, especially Hawkins, I would have been quite incensed), not that it did us much good in the end.
Commiserations on the Pies' Grand Final, Navaneethan. Although not playing their normal efficient brand of footy, they were right in the contest until deep into the last quarter.
Post a Comment