(07-03-2023, 12:17 AM)kruddler link Wrote:He said she said.
If the umpires word is all they've got to go on, i don't think thats enough.
What happens if they report him and then there is late evidence that showed there is nothing in it at all. AFL, and that umpire (our favourite - #22 Nathan Williamson?) become a laughing stock.
The whole MRO-Report system has become a bit of a joke.
Either throw it back to the umpire and get rid of the MRO...or umpires don't report and if there's no vision, no incident.
It really doesn't matter what we think.
If the best evidence at the time is that it was reportable incident in the umpire's eyes, and there is no clearer vision available what position does that put the AFL in.
Do they back the umpire's call, and suspend or fine, or do they say ..."oh well we really don't have a clearer picture of what happened so you're probably mistaken umpire."