Video review problems to persist

Reports this week that The Giesch is spruiking up the video referral system don't fill AussieRulesBlog with optimism.

 

Data published with a story by Rohan Connolly in The Age clearly shows the extent of the continuing problem. Of 81 video referrals during the 2012 season,  only 13 resulted in a decision that would not have been made anyway. That's 13 instances out of 10,466 scoring shots — and it seems shots that don't score aren't tracked.

 

For this wonderful benefit, we endured the equivalent of 81 stoppages of 41 seconds each — that's 55 and a bit minutes of dead and wasted time for only 13 decisions that would not have been made anyway.

 

If we're talking value for money, this just doesn't cut the mustard. And these figures are the AFL's own analysis. They're not going to be telling us about the cock-ups where the 'system' either didn't help or caused an error.

 

And the 'solutions' being proffered to make the system better? Hotspot, the data analysis suggests, may have improved the accuracy of the system in another 13 instances. Hotspot? Have these people learned nothing from the 2012 video balls-up? Hotspot worksin cricket because batsman is in a more-or-less consistent positionthat can be covered fairly comprehensively by two (very expensive) cameras for each end of the pitch. Since the AFL won't spring for simple goal line cameras, nominating hotspot as a 'solution' doesn't make a lot of sense. Curiously, another of the solutions offered is in-padding (goal line) cameras. Seriously!

 

The biggest bug in the AFL's video referral system is the lack of goal-line cameras. Thus umpires refer decisions which the broadcast cameras have almost no chance of making a meaningful contribution to, unless through sheer coincidence. Some 30 incidents of inconclusive footage are noted. That's a disturbingly high proportion of the total number of referrals where the system set up to aid reaching the correct decision hasn't been able to make a contribution.

 

The Giesch's reason for the system being better?His umpires are more experienced with the process now. It remains to be seen whether that means fewer of what might charitably be termed 'vanity' referrals.