Coaches and Fans Complain as Technology Use Increases

The topic is the AFL.

St Kilda got a mark after the ARC helped during a Sunday game at Docklands.

Sports want to be correct as much as possible.

For many fans, close enough is not good enough. Seeing your team lose unfairly is very sad.

Last weekend, the idea of what is correct was tested. On Sunday, 60 seconds of football were forgotten at Docklands.

This was the time between Rowan Marshall's mark and the umpire blowing the whistle for a score review.

A few hours later, another score review stopped the game at Canberra's Manuka Oval.

GWS' Xavier O'Halloran kicked what seemed like the winning goal before people doubted it.

Was it the winning goal? Let's check.

85 seconds passed before the ball was bounced again.

Unlike the earlier game, O'Halloran's goal was allowed.

The AFL reacted quickly to these incidents.

The AFL said the decision was correct but took too long.

The AFL football boss said most feedback from clubs is positive despite some controversial reviews.

The AFL will change how it uses the ARC in the future.

The change is the latest in many adjustments to the score review system.

When the system started, it was meant to correct obvious errors.

The goal was to improve decision-making where possible.

At first, there would be only one or two reviews per game, each taking no more than a minute.

Since then, the system has changed a lot.

Now, marginal decisions are being reviewed, not just obvious errors.

Changes to the system have been made during the season, often before the finals.

These changes often react to recent events but don't look at the system's overall value.

People criticize video reviews in sports, focusing on the technology or its need.

Two coaches, Alastair Clarkson and Adam Kingsley, talked about these issues after a game.

Kingsley said the technology is not up to speed yet.

Clarkson prefers no technology and just lets the umpires decide.

There is growing skepticism about video reviews in sports.

It's human to make mistakes.

Umpires and players will always disagree on some calls.

Sports can be complex, with many rules and decisions made quickly.

Some decisions are difficult, controversial, or incorrect.

These decisions are why sports use technology to help umpires.

The justification for video reviews is to correct obvious errors.

But how many errors do umpires really make?

Research showed AFL umpires got about 78% of calls right in the 2016 season.

This accuracy rate is similar to other sports and has been stable over time.

The use of technology aims to reduce this error rate.

But the identification of errors is often given to players or coaches, who are not much better at it.

Review systems are about playing the percentages, not just fixing clear errors.

West Coast coach Andrew McQualter had a view on this after his game.

He thinks reviews should only be used for clear-cut decisions.

There is also data showing that video officials sometimes make wrong decisions or intervene unnecessarily.

In the English Premier League, there were 13 errors by the video assistant referee in the first half of the season.

Referees are under more pressure due to poor VAR decisions.

A survey showed 81% of EPL fans prefer to watch games without VAR.

Academic research shows sports officials are skilled at making easy, objective calls.

But close calls are more likely to be reviewed than obvious decisions.

This has led some to question the value of review systems.

Clarkson's comments after a game led to this type of thinking.

He said there are mistakes by players and umpires, and it's not a big deal.

Coaches are starting to wish umpires would stick with their original calls.

Other coaches, like Luke Beveridge and Damien Hardwick, agree.

Some fans, players, and coaches want no technology or a reduced use of it.

In 2018, the AFL chief executive was sympathetic to these feelings.

He suggested finessing the system rather than scrapping it.

There's also a question about whether the technology is right for the job.

Fans are frustrated with the use of technology.

Watching sports can be complex, and video footage can create illusions.

Lens zoom and camera angles can be misleading.

Australian football has its own version of this with out-of-bounds judgments.

Viewers try to judge if a ball crossed an imaginary plane, which can be impossible.

Video frame rates and shutter speed also present issues.

A football flying towards goal can be hard to adjudicate.

Standard frame rates can render balls and arms into a blur.

Even high-speed cameras can struggle to capture the precise moment.

Australian football is unique, with a fast-moving ball and no offside rule.

Kingsley touched on issues with technology after a game.

He questioned the current implementation of technology.

The AFL is looking to introduce more high-frame rate cameras.

There are new cameras that are six times better, which the AFL is considering.

Other sports use advanced tracking systems, like Hawk-Eye.

The Hawk-Eye system measures to the millimeter but has its own limitations.

It works by statistically estimating a ball's position or trajectory.

But it can create a false sense of accuracy and precision.

The system shows a single location, but it's actually a statistical tie.

Weather conditions can affect the accuracy of these systems.

Cricket's DRS system accounts for some of these errors.

But few other sports have followed this lead.

Soccer's VAR renders margins of error into visual certainty.

The EPL has introduced a five-centimeter buffer to account for errors.

Other technologies have been tested, like microchipped balls and positioning systems.

Many of these efforts have shown limited success.

The use of embedded microphones has been more accepted and successful.

Technological advancements are rarely removed once introduced.

But their use can be constrained or expanded further.

There is a sizeable cohort of fans and officials calling for further review of video review.

Is all the extra noise around umpire reviews worth it?

The game is chaotic, and it's not black and white.

Some coaches think the game should be decided on the field without technology.

There's a serious argument for letting uncertainty be part of the experience.

Doubting on-field umpires' judgment has flow-on effects to their non-reviewable decisions.

Some players feel frustration and anxiety due to constant monitoring by VAR.

Players mentioned that referees have been disempowered by technology.

There are real questions about the scope of video review and the problems it's trying to resolve.

The AFL will have to find a middle ground to placate all stakeholders.

The ABC of SPORT

Sport

Topic: Soccer

Analysis by Dean Bilton

Topic: NRL

Topic: Golf

Analysis by Nick Campton

Top Stories

LIVE

Analysis by Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop

Topic: Construction and Real Estate Industry

Topic: Child Abuse

Topic: Public Health

Top Stories

LIVE

Analysis by Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop

Topic: Construction and Real Estate Industry

Topic: Child Abuse

Topic: Public Health

Just In

Topic: Television Industry

Analysis by Sean Lawson

Topic: NRL

Topic: Soccer

Coaches and Fans Complain as Technology Use Increases

The topic is the AFL.

St Kilda got a mark after the ARC helped during a Sunday game at Docklands.

Sports want to be correct as much as possible.

For many fans, close enough is not good enough. Seeing your team lose unfairly is very sad.

Last weekend, the idea of what is correct was tested. On Sunday, 60 seconds of football were forgotten at Docklands.

This was the time between Rowan Marshall's mark and the umpire blowing the whistle for a score review.

A few hours later, another score review stopped the game at Canberra's Manuka Oval.

GWS' Xavier O'Halloran kicked what seemed like the winning goal before people doubted it.

Was it the winning goal? Let's check.

85 seconds passed before the ball was bounced again.

Unlike the earlier game, O'Halloran's goal was allowed.

The AFL reacted quickly to these incidents.

The AFL said the decision was correct but took too long.

The AFL football boss said most feedback from clubs is positive despite some controversial reviews.

The AFL will change how it uses the ARC in the future.

The change is the latest in many adjustments to the score review system.

When the system started, it was meant to correct obvious errors.

The goal was to improve decision-making where possible.

At first, there would be only one or two reviews per game, each taking no more than a minute.

Since then, the system has changed a lot.

Now, marginal decisions are being reviewed, not just obvious errors.

Changes to the system have been made during the season, often before the finals.

These changes often react to recent events but don't look at the system's overall value.

People criticize video reviews in sports, focusing on the technology or its need.

Two coaches, Alastair Clarkson and Adam Kingsley, talked about these issues after a game.

Kingsley said the technology is not up to speed yet.

Clarkson prefers no technology and just lets the umpires decide.

There is growing skepticism about video reviews in sports.

It's human to make mistakes.

Umpires and players will always disagree on some calls.

Sports can be complex, with many rules and decisions made quickly.

Some decisions are difficult, controversial, or incorrect.

These decisions are why sports use technology to help umpires.

The justification for video reviews is to correct obvious errors.

But how many errors do umpires really make?

Research showed AFL umpires got about 78% of calls right in the 2016 season.

This accuracy rate is similar to other sports and has been stable over time.

The use of technology aims to reduce this error rate.

But the identification of errors is often given to players or coaches, who are not much better at it.

Review systems are about playing the percentages, not just fixing clear errors.

West Coast coach Andrew McQualter had a view on this after his game.

He thinks reviews should only be used for clear-cut decisions.

There is also data showing that video officials sometimes make wrong decisions or intervene unnecessarily.

In the English Premier League, there were 13 errors by the video assistant referee in the first half of the season.

Referees are under more pressure due to poor VAR decisions.

A survey showed 81% of EPL fans prefer to watch games without VAR.

Academic research shows sports officials are skilled at making easy, objective calls.

But close calls are more likely to be reviewed than obvious decisions.

This has led some to question the value of review systems.

Clarkson's comments after a game led to this type of thinking.

He said there are mistakes by players and umpires, and it's not a big deal.

Coaches are starting to wish umpires would stick with their original calls.

Other coaches, like Luke Beveridge and Damien Hardwick, agree.

Some fans, players, and coaches want no technology or a reduced use of it.

In 2018, the AFL chief executive was sympathetic to these feelings.

He suggested finessing the system rather than scrapping it.

There's also a question about whether the technology is right for the job.

Fans are frustrated with the use of technology.

Watching sports can be complex, and video footage can create illusions.

Lens zoom and camera angles can be misleading.

Australian football has its own version of this with out-of-bounds judgments.

Viewers try to judge if a ball crossed an imaginary plane, which can be impossible.

Video frame rates and shutter speed also present issues.

A football flying towards goal can be hard to adjudicate.

Standard frame rates can render balls and arms into a blur.

Even high-speed cameras can struggle to capture the precise moment.

Australian football is unique, with a fast-moving ball and no offside rule.

Kingsley touched on issues with technology after a game.

He questioned the current implementation of technology.

The AFL is looking to introduce more high-frame rate cameras.

There are new cameras that are six times better, which the AFL is considering.

Other sports use advanced tracking systems, like Hawk-Eye.

The Hawk-Eye system measures to the millimeter but has its own limitations.

It works by statistically estimating a ball's position or trajectory.

But it can create a false sense of accuracy and precision.

The system shows a single location, but it's actually a statistical tie.

Weather conditions can affect the accuracy of these systems.

Cricket's DRS system accounts for some of these errors.

But few other sports have followed this lead.

Soccer's VAR renders margins of error into visual certainty.

The EPL has introduced a five-centimeter buffer to account for errors.

Other technologies have been tested, like microchipped balls and positioning systems.

Many of these efforts have shown limited success.

The use of embedded microphones has been more accepted and successful.

Technological advancements are rarely removed once introduced.

But their use can be constrained or expanded further.

There is a sizeable cohort of fans and officials calling for further review of video review.

Is all the extra noise around umpire reviews worth it?

The game is chaotic, and it's not black and white.

Some coaches think the game should be decided on the field without technology.

There's a serious argument for letting uncertainty be part of the experience.

Doubting on-field umpires' judgment has flow-on effects to their non-reviewable decisions.

Some players feel frustration and anxiety due to constant monitoring by VAR.

Players mentioned that referees have been disempowered by technology.

There are real questions about the scope of video review and the problems it's trying to resolve.

The AFL will have to find a middle ground to placate all stakeholders.

The ABC of SPORT

Sport

Topic: Soccer

Analysis by Dean Bilton

Topic: NRL

Topic: Golf

Analysis by Nick Campton

Top Stories

LIVE

Analysis by Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop

Topic: Construction and Real Estate Industry

Topic: Child Abuse

Topic: Public Health

Top Stories

LIVE

Analysis by Sean Rubinsztein-Dunlop

Topic: Construction and Real Estate Industry

Topic: Child Abuse

Topic: Public Health

Just In

Topic: Television Industry

Analysis by Sean Lawson

Topic: NRL

Topic: Soccer