The Monday Soap Box - Round Five

[GVGjr]

Have a rant about something that annoyed you for this round.
It could be the AFL, umpiring, Kane Cornes, Channel 7 commentary, Rules or even opposition players etc

[chef]

My rant is about the surface, really was substandard for our game. So many players slipping over.

[GVGjr]

My rant is about the surface, really was substandard for our game. So many players slipping over.

It's the same for me.
When we played West Coast the venue was fill of smog that got worse as the game drew on.
Now playing Essendon we witnessed multiple players slipping over.
Haven't heard anyone explain why it happend

[Grantysghost]

Bevo's press conference.

One of the most unintelligible streams of diatribe from Luke at a time when supporters are looking for the leader of the team to relay some reason.

I've felt something off with him i cant put my finger on since RohanSmithgate. I think he died on that hill.

[Grantysghost]

It's the same for me.
When we played West Coast the venue was fill of smog that got worse as the game drew on.
Now playing Essendon we witnessed multiple players slipping over.
Haven't heard anyone explain why it happend

The ground where i was standing for the guard of honour had loads of stop marks in it (think a centre square in April/May when it soften) and it was slightly damp. Not wet, more like a very light dew.

I think the VFL game maybe was to blame, it's possible they watered it more to accommodate the two games but that's a theory I have 0 evidence to support.
The soil under the grass feels very compact too. Doesnt give.

[The bulldog tragician]

I guess the dollar prevails and this is irrational but the “members, sell your seats back” policy meant plenty of the obnoxious red and black sitting in our area where I like to feel protected from other fans. On a dirty night for our club this was very unwelcome.

[angelopetraglia]

I guess the dollar prevails and this is irrational but the “members, sell your seats back” policy meant plenty of the obnoxious red and black sitting in our area where I like to feel protected from other fans. On a dirty night for our club this was very unwelcome.

I think it is OK, to have a few of the opposition blended in, when we were still the overwhelming majority. What I diskliked is a few of them carrying on and over celebrating and getting lippy. I get it, your club has done nothing for over 20 years and you get excited by small things. But read the room, when you are out numbered 1 to 100 and are sitting in the Bulldogs area, maybe just hold back a little and have some self control.

[SquirrelGrip]

I think the VFL game maybe was to blame, it's possible they watered it more to accommodate the two games but that's a theory I have 0 evidence to support.
The soil under the grass feels very compact too. Doesnt give.

It definitely wasn't the VFL game's fault, as plenty of the players were slipping and falling in the VFL game. Three ankles in that game too.

I don't think I've seen as many umpires slip and fall over in a game as I did on Friday night.

[westdog54]

There's been a lot of commentary this week about score reviews. Specifically, the large number of them in each game.

There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that the umpires should back themselves more and not call for so many reviews, as it ruins the spectacle and slows the game down. There's even the conspiracy theory emerge that the increase in reviews is intended to drive exposure to crypto.com's sponsorship of the arc and increase ad revenue.

Now for what it's worth, I agree that the umpires should back themselves more, that constant reviews ruin the spectacle and slow the game down unnecessarily.

BUT...

All we heard about after the final round last year was that Adelaide had been robbed of a finals spot due to a score that should have been reviewed, but wasn't.

Lets be clear here, the wrong decision was made. The umpire made a mistake.

But off the back of that commentary, whether because the umpires are gun shy or whether its a directive from the league (and I lean toward the latter), the umpires are checking to make absolutely sure they have made the correct decision.

You can't be angry at both scenarios. You can't say that the umpires should back themselves more and make a decision, only to produce howls of derision when this approach leads to inevitable errors being made. I say inevitable, because, like the players, who might shank a kick, miss a handball, not stick a tackle or tackle poorly resulting in a costly free, the umpires are human, and humans are susceptible to errors. And when you have a score review system dependent on a human interpreting information to make a decision, errors cannot be ruled out.

You either accept that reviews are necessary to minimise errors, or you accept that errors will occur and back the humans involved to make the right decision, to the best of their ability with the tools and training provided to them.

Step one of this approach of backing the umpires is to put a second goal umpire at each end.

One of the many tasks I've performed over my working life is as a firearms instructor. When teaching to shoot with a firearm, you tell the student to line up the target behind the sights of the firearm. Your focus is entirely on the front sight. It is the only thing you should see clearly. Your target is blurred, your sights are not.

Putting this in the context of goal umpiring, we are asking one person to simultaneously:

a) Has been kicked by the foot of the attacking player
b) Watch the flight of the ball to make sure it is not touched;
c) Ensure it has not hit a post;
d) Has completely crossed the line; and
e) Do all of this, potentially with a number of large, athletic bodies in your line of sight.

I can tell you without hesitation that this can be at the best of times a difficult task. You add the pace, pressure and scrutiny of an AFL game to that, you couldn't pay me enough to be a goal umpire.

Put two goal umpires at each end, do away with reviews altogether, back them to get it right, and accept that they will, regrettably, on occasion, make mistakes. Those mistakes might cost games, they might cost finals, they might even cost a premiership one day. Bad luck. We're adults, lets accept it like adults, accept humanity of the game over robotising everything.

Now if you'll excuse me, that's the most continuous typing I've done in a long time. I need to rest my fingers.

[chef]

There's been a lot of commentary this week about score reviews. Specifically, the large number of them in each game.

There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that the umpires should back themselves more and not call for so many reviews, as it ruins the spectacle and slows the game down. There's even the conspiracy theory emerge that the increase in reviews is intended to drive exposure to crypto.com's sponsorship of the arc and increase ad revenue.

Now for what it's worth, I agree that the umpires should back themselves more, that constant reviews ruin the spectacle and slow the game down unnecessarily.

BUT...

All we heard about after the final round last year was that Adelaide had been robbed of a finals spot due to a score that should have been reviewed, but wasn't.

Lets be clear here, the wrong decision was made. The umpire made a mistake.

But off the back of that commentary, whether because the umpires are gun shy or whether its a directive from the league (and I lean toward the latter), the umpires are checking to make absolutely sure they have made the correct decision.

You can't be angry at both scenarios. You can't say that the umpires should back themselves more and make a decision, only to produce howls of derision when this approach leads to inevitable errors being made. I say inevitable, because, like the players, who might shank a kick, miss a handball, not stick a tackle or tackle poorly resulting in a costly free, the umpires are human, and humans are susceptible to errors. And when you have a score review system dependent on a human interpreting information to make a decision, errors cannot be ruled out.

You either accept that reviews are necessary to minimise errors, or you accept that errors will occur and back the humans involved to make the right decision, to the best of their ability with the tools and training provided to them.

Step one of this approach of backing the umpires is to put a second goal umpire at each end.

One of the many tasks I've performed over my working life is as a firearms instructor. When teaching to shoot with a firearm, you tell the student to line up the target behind the sights of the firearm. Your focus is entirely on the front sight. It is the only thing you should see clearly. Your target is blurred, your sights are not.

Putting this in the context of goal umpiring, we are asking one person to simultaneously:

a) Has been kicked by the foot of the attacking player
b) Watch the flight of the ball to make sure it is not touched;
c) Ensure it has not hit a post;
d) Has completely crossed the line; and
e) Do all of this, potentially with a number of large, athletic bodies in your line of sight.

I can tell you without hesitation that this can be at the best of times a difficult task. You add the pace, pressure and scrutiny of an AFL game to that, you couldn't pay me enough to be a goal umpire.

Put two goal umpires at each end, do away with reviews altogether, back them to get it right, and accept that they will, regrettably, on occasion, make mistakes. Those mistakes might cost games, they might cost finals, they might even cost a premiership one day. Bad luck. We're adults, lets accept it like adults, accept humanity of the game over robotising everything.

Now if you'll excuse me, that's the most continuous typing I've done in a long time. I need to rest my fingers.

The way I see it the league is pushing the umps to review more so they can get a sponsor for it and make more cash, 10 reviews a game will get plenty of exposure. I'm pretty cynical nowadays about the AFEL.

[westdog54]

The way I see it the league is pushing the umps to review more so they can get a sponsor for it and make more cash, 10 reviews a game will get plenty of exposure. I'm pretty cynical nowadays about the AFEL.

I know you're being partly facetious there, but again, therein lies part of the problem. We're all so cynical about the goings on at city hall that a claim that ought to be dismissed as patently absurd is actually given credibility.

[SonofScray]

I guess the dollar prevails and this is irrational but the “members, sell your seats back” policy meant plenty of the obnoxious red and black sitting in our area where I like to feel protected from other fans. On a dirty night for our club this was very unwelcome.

Fans should be fully segregated. It’d be much more pleasant.

[ledge]

My turn and it’s about umpire reviews. I’m confused because they tell us every goal is reviewed while the ball goes back to the middle , if that’s the case why are umpires asking for reviews ?
One or the other don’t need both.

[Flamethrower]

Good luck to Charlie Cameron getting his suspension reduced to a fine last night BUT how can it be because he has a "GOOD RECORD" and is a good bloke who helps out in the community.

He has been found guilty 5 times in the past, with 3 of those for rough conduct. Whether he has suspended or fined for those offences is irrelevant - he was found guilty. That is a "BAD RECORD" - he is a serial offender who has been very lucky to not cop a suspension in the past. He is well overdue.

[westdog54]

Good luck to Charlie Cameron getting his suspension reduced to a fine last night BUT how can it be because he has a "GOOD RECORD" and is a good bloke who helps out in the community.

He has been found guilty 5 times in the past, with 3 of those for rough conduct. Whether he has suspended or fined for those offences is irrelevant - he was found guilty. That is a "BAD RECORD" - he is a serial offender who has been very lucky to not cop a suspension in the past. He is well overdue.

The thing that frustrated me is that when you include the rest of Brisbane's submissions (lack of force, clear medical report, Lever having an arm free/being able to protect himself), and leave out the 'Good Citizen' submissions, that SHOULD, in theory, have been enough to downgrade the suspension to a fine.

Instead, by accepting Brisbane's submissions in full, the Tribunal has just kicked over a MASSIVE hornets nest, and in doing so, created ANOTHER problem that Laura Kane now has to try and sort out.

I feel sorry for Laura. So much of the work she's doing at the moment seems to be sorting out the messes her predecessors left for her to clean up. In this case, the Tribunal guidelines that Adrian Anderson drew up while he was Football Operations Manager have now been exploited by none other than Adrian himself.