Phil Davis

If it was glancing the top of off or if it was just missing, I don't really care because that's not what we're doing because we don't mind a little bit of judgment.

And if we think we come across to the AFL and we go, what are we trying to stop?

Well, we're trying to stop Tom Hawkins kicking into the post in a grand final and counting six points.

That's what we're trying to stop.

And I think for me, when we review little instances that aren't significant, like a lasso on the wing, out of bounds on the full versus one point, like what to me are relatively trivial.

If you can't make the decision from footage within 10 seconds less, there's not a howler, then we just move on.

But what we do is we... Like, I saw the Griffin-Logue one and I thought it was touched.

But does it matter?

Yeah, it does in the situation of the game.

But if you go all the way back to Wayne Harms belting the ball in from the boundary line in the 1970s, there's an element of inconsistency that comes with the game that I think is part of the beauty of Aussie rules football.

And what I'm saying is...

We don't need to get the 99th percent little thing right.

But let's just take care of the first 97.

That's really easy.

And that doesn't make... Because we just open ourselves up when we just replay it, replay it.

And if it's a judgment call on 15 replays, just back it in that it was the umpire's call and we move on.

Because we've got to be careful, Jared.

And this has happened in cricket.

And it might happen here.

is umpires change their decision-making habits because they know they've got the backup.