Sunday, April 01, 2012

Video application unclear

Notwithstanding the AFL’s scrimping on useful technology, AussieRulesBlog was reminded again last night at Docklands of another of Adrian Anderson’s scheme’s failings.

 

The announcements and stories about video referral generally label it as “goal line” decision assistance. That’s far from accurate. In fact it appears the system is scoring decision assistance, but the change of emphasis doesn’t mean it does the job any better.

 

Last night, Bombers’ skipper Jobe Watson snapped at goal through a veritable forest of hands. The goal umpire appeared ready to signal a goal and the controlling field umpire certainly hadn’t called the ball as “touched, play on”. Nevertheless, a video referral was called for — not for a goal line decision, but to determine whether the ball was touched off the boot.

 

AussieRulesBlog has made this point before, but a football just kicked might be travelling at 40 metres/sec off the boot. If the television footage is being captured at around 25 frames per second. There’s 0.04 seconds between frames. At 40m/s, a football would travel 1.6 metres in one frame. And these umpires think they can detect whether the ball has been touched off the boot? To borrow a line from The Castle, “Tell ‘em they’re dreamin’.”

 

So, the upshot is that even though the goal umpire was happy to signal a goal and the field umpire didn’t call the ball touched, video footage that could optimistically be called inconclusive means the decision is a behind under the “if there’s doubt let’s choose the lesser” dictum.

 

Nonsense. There’s no other word. Nonsense. If, and it’s a big if given the AFL won’t spring for goal line cameras, there were high-speed cameras capturing the action, it’s possible video footage could be used to determine a “touched” decision . . .  but it’s a very big if.

 

To take this incident to its logical conclusion, and broadcasters often do this of their own volition anyway, let’s have video review of contentious field umpiring decisions across the field. We imagine that suggestion will go down a treat at Gieschen House.

No comments:

Video application unclear

Notwithstanding the AFL’s scrimping on useful technology, AussieRulesBlog was reminded again last night at Docklands of another of Adrian Anderson’s scheme’s failings.

 

The announcements and stories about video referral generally label it as “goal line” decision assistance. That’s far from accurate. In fact it appears the system is scoring decision assistance, but the change of emphasis doesn’t mean it does the job any better.

 

Last night, Bombers’ skipper Jobe Watson snapped at goal through a veritable forest of hands. The goal umpire appeared ready to signal a goal and the controlling field umpire certainly hadn’t called the ball as “touched, play on”. Nevertheless, a video referral was called for — not for a goal line decision, but to determine whether the ball was touched off the boot.

 

AussieRulesBlog has made this point before, but a football just kicked might be travelling at 40 metres/sec off the boot. If the television footage is being captured at around 25 frames per second. There’s 0.04 seconds between frames. At 40m/s, a football would travel 1.6 metres in one frame. And these umpires think they can detect whether the ball has been touched off the boot? To borrow a line from The Castle, “Tell ‘em they’re dreamin’.”

 

So, the upshot is that even though the goal umpire was happy to signal a goal and the field umpire didn’t call the ball touched, video footage that could optimistically be called inconclusive means the decision is a behind under the “if there’s doubt let’s choose the lesser” dictum.

 

Nonsense. There’s no other word. Nonsense. If, and it’s a big if given the AFL won’t spring for goal line cameras, there were high-speed cameras capturing the action, it’s possible video footage could be used to determine a “touched” decision . . .  but it’s a very big if.

 

To take this incident to its logical conclusion, and broadcasters often do this of their own volition anyway, let’s have video review of contentious field umpiring decisions across the field. We imagine that suggestion will go down a treat at Gieschen House.

0 comments: