The AFL’s technology debate has kicked off once again after a blunder in North Melbourne’s clash with the Giants, with a costly indecision resulting in GWS defeating the Kangaroos by seven-points.

The AFL has come out and stated the goal which was kicked in a close last quarter shouldn’t have been awarded to the Giants, admitting the ball was touched by Griffin Logue.

ARC was already in the spotlight on Sunday with a mark awarded to St Kilda’s Rowan Marshall a minute after the ball had been back in play, giving the Saints another major.

The controversial mark looked like it had been taken over the line, and both the boundary and goal umpire called it a point, but the free kick wasn’t given until the ball had been in play for 55 seconds after the kick out from full back.

Although the error wasn’t as costly as Logue’s missed touch, debate has raged over the use of the technology and whether it should be used at all if it isn’t perfect.

Former Essendon President and Ch10 Director of Sport Dave Barham joined Sports Breakfast this morning.

“Sometimes in sport you get a bad decision and you have to live with it. It’s part of your education as a kid, education as a person, it happens in all walks of life. What’s wrong with that? What is wrong with that being a feature of sport – that you accept the umpire’s decision whether it’s good or bad and you treat it with respect?” he said.

“What we’re trying to do with imperfect technology is make everything perfect, when I actually think it would be better for the game and the participants and the fans and everybody, if everybody just accepted the umpire’s decision.”

Ron Barassi long upheld the idea of having two goal umpires at each end of the ground as a solution – one that Barham thinks is a cost-efficient and reliable change the AFL can make to avoid incidents like this moving forward.

“The incident [Rowan Marshall] on the weekend couldn’t have been better adjudicated, in my view, by the goal umpire and the boundary umpire who both said it was a point.”

“The big one is the ball going over the top of the goal post… you can’t actually see whether the ball is over the post or whether it’s behind it or before it. So the only way to solve that is to have a guy standing at the bottom of the post looking up. If you had a goal umpire on each post, you’re going to solve the ones that go through the points, the ones that go through the goals, and the ones that go above the posts – and it’s not going to cost anywhere near as much as the ARC.”

The issue ARC faces in finding solutions is the costly nature of fixing these errors.

Relying on cameras from multiple angles and the impossible task of placing them at angles where they think they will be most efficient in picking up mistakes means the only remedy would be installing more cameras.

“I think the problem is the technology is not good enough and that’s the main issue, you’re trying to make decisions with 2D images when you really need 3D images.”

“Who knows where the ball is going to be touched? Who knows what angle it’s going to hit the post? You would have to put so many cameras in to cover for all alternatives, I imagine it would be frighteningly expensive.”

Since its introduction in 2019, the AFL Review Centre has constantly been in hot water with fans the same way umpires have since the dawn of time.

The difference between the two is an umpires’ decision is supposed to be treated with respect and heard with integrity, and it is the ability to review and look back on an inconclusive decision that is the reason so much debate is sparked.

Regardless of what the solution is to the AFL’s technology issue, debate will always be part of the game and it is nothing more than a show of passion from supporters of the game.

IMAGE: Fox Sports