Well, it's official. Adrian Anderson's goal line video decision assist trial has descended past farce and it's only the second week of the pre-season.
During the Saints-Swans-Cats triple-header tonight, the video replay was called into play twice. What became abundantly clear on the second occasion is that there are no goal line cameras. This for goal line decisions and there're no goal line cameras! Monty Python didn't dare write scripts as ridiculous as this situation.
For those without payTV, this second video referral concerned an attempt by Brendan Goddard to touch a ball otherwise going through for a goal. The goal umpire was perfectly positioned, astride the goal line. His vision was unobstructed. The goal umpire indicated, unofficially, a goal. It's not clear from the TV coverage who decided to refer to the video official, The game commentary suggested that Goddard may have encouraged the field umpire to refer it — players are not entitled to challenge decisions under the rules published.
Regardless of who initiated the decision, it was quickly obvious that only game camera footage was available. That is, the camera views were at a substantial angle to the goal line!! At a significant angle!!! For making goal line adjudications!!!!! The video referral was, unsurprisingly in the circumstances, “inconclusive”. What an understatement.
We jokingly called for Adrian Anderson's resignation after video cock-up #1. We're not joking any longer. Video cock-up #3 is nothing short of incompetent.
Video cock-up #2 was a field umpire's decision to review a decision the goal umpire was, again, perfectly placed to judge and had got right. The ball had flown over a contest, was possibly touched by a Saint (McEvoy we think), and fell onto the foot of young Swan Cunningham, from where it crossed the goal line.
The goal umpire clearly saw that the ball touched the Swans player's foot and crossed the goal line without being touched by a Saint. It was a goal and the goal umpire was certain. Nevertheless, the field umpire, whose view was markedly inferior to the goal umpire's on any analysis, elected to refer the decision.
We have two problems with this. It wasn't a "goal line" decision. The goal umpire clearly indicated his firm conviction that it was a goal and his view was unobstructed.
Video cock-ups #2 and #3 may have delivered the correct decisions, eventually, but it wasn't the technology that was decisive.
This video referral trial can only be regarded as laughable.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Goal line video assist debacle
Labels:
experimental rules,
Video referral
Well, it's official. Adrian Anderson's goal line video decision assist trial has descended past farce and it's only the second week of the pre-season. During the Saints-Swans-Cats triple-header tonight, the video replay was called into play twice. What became abundantly clear on the second occasion is that there are no goal line cameras. This for goal line decisions and there're no goal line cameras! Monty Python didn't dare write scripts as ridiculous as this situation.
For those without payTV, this second video referral concerned an attempt by Brendan Goddard to touch a ball otherwise going through for a goal. The goal umpire was perfectly positioned, astride the goal line. His vision was unobstructed. The goal umpire indicated, unofficially, a goal. It's not clear from the TV coverage who decided to refer to the video official, The game commentary suggested that Goddard may have encouraged the field umpire to refer it — players are not entitled to challenge decisions under the rules published.
Regardless of who initiated the decision, it was quickly obvious that only game camera footage was available. That is, the camera views were at a substantial angle to the goal line!! At a significant angle!!! For making goal line adjudications!!!!! The video referral was, unsurprisingly in the circumstances, “inconclusive”. What an understatement.
We jokingly called for Adrian Anderson's resignation after video cock-up #1. We're not joking any longer. Video cock-up #3 is nothing short of incompetent.
Video cock-up #2 was a field umpire's decision to review a decision the goal umpire was, again, perfectly placed to judge and had got right. The ball had flown over a contest, was possibly touched by a Saint (McEvoy we think), and fell onto the foot of young Swan Cunningham, from where it crossed the goal line.
The goal umpire clearly saw that the ball touched the Swans player's foot and crossed the goal line without being touched by a Saint. It was a goal and the goal umpire was certain. Nevertheless, the field umpire, whose view was markedly inferior to the goal umpire's on any analysis, elected to refer the decision.
We have two problems with this. It wasn't a "goal line" decision. The goal umpire clearly indicated his firm conviction that it was a goal and his view was unobstructed.
Video cock-ups #2 and #3 may have delivered the correct decisions, eventually, but it wasn't the technology that was decisive.
This video referral trial can only be regarded as laughable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment