The goal that wasn't

[Bernard Shakey]

It was clearly a point, juggled mark. End of argument. Anyway who cares?

[stinger]

It was clearly a point, juggled mark. End of argument. Anyway who cares?

it was clearly a goal...and i care wobbleboy....

[ozrulestrace]

"can you tell me why you think it was a goal"

pmsl

well theres this big white line see
between the posts
and he was over the line in the air when he marked it
hence
we think

it was a goal
numpty

Correct both of his feet were well behind the line and unless he has 50 inch double D jugs he was no where near the line.

[plugger66]

"can you tell me why you think it was a goal"

pmsl

well theres this big white line see
between the posts
and he was over the line in the air when he marked it
hence
we think

it was a goal
numpty

Correct both of his feet were well behind the line and unless he has 50 inch double D jugs he was no where near the line.

One foot was over the line by about 6 inches and unless you are falling backwards when you mark your hands are always in front of your feet. The more i look at it, and its only guess work because there is no cmaera on the line, the more the decision is correct.

[ozrulestrace]

Ever heard of an overhead mark Plugger?

Not that this is the case, both feet were behind the line and so was the rest of his body as I don't recall him sticking his arse backwards at right angles so his torso would thrust forward over the line to take the ball.

[plugger66]

Ever heard of an overhead mark Plugger?

Not that this is the case, both feet were behind the line and so was the rest of his body as I don't recall him sticking his arse backwards at right angles so his torso would thrust forward over the line to take the ball.

I have heard of an overhead but even then your hands would usually be ahead of your feet. But like you said it wasnt the case this time. Stand up and pretend to mark like he did and you will see your fingertips would be well over a foot in front of your body. Its impossible for them not to be. He then lands and one foot is no more than 6 inches from the line which suggests to me the ball was initially touched either before the line or on the line.

[snowdelisaint]

In the video it is clear there were two umpires on the boundary line that were not consulted at all. Both had a clear view.

Goal umpire got contact from Roo and didn't see it.

Main umpire should have asked boundary umpire.

Called for score review, understandable

Because this is a new ground there is no sufficient camera angle. Nothing conclusive therefore mark paid.

Makes the AFL look very stupid.

[plugger66]

In the video it is clear there were two umpires on the boundary line that were not consulted at all. Both had a clear view.

Goal umpire got contact from Roo and didn't see it.

Main umpire should have asked boundary umpire.

Called for score review, understandable

Because this is a new ground there is no sufficient camera angle. Nothing conclusive therefore mark paid.

Makes the AFL look very stupid.

Nothing to do with being a new ground. Most grounds dont have a camera on the line. They do need to get one though.

[stinger]

In the video it is clear there were two umpires on the boundary line that were not consulted at all. Both had a clear view.

Goal umpire got contact from Roo and didn't see it.

Main umpire should have asked boundary umpire.

Called for score review, understandable

Because this is a new ground there is no sufficient camera angle. Nothing conclusive therefore mark paid.

Makes the AFL look very stupid.

after marking the ball....


he takes a very short step then a longer step off the other foot which lands still behind the goal line...must have been clearly behind the line..maybe a metre when he landed....the third ump and a couple of wannabes on here clearly have no depth perception.....

[Sainternist]

I'm with you, Stinger.

We were robbed of a goal. Or at least a point. The officials made a meal of it. I can't wait for the day these clowns have to decide a GF winner from this sort of scenario. Just as so long we aren't the team who is given the wrong end of the stick, which no doubt, will be the case

[snowdelisaint]

I do think it was a goal but with the review you have to be 100% sure. I am only about 99% sure.

[Schillaci]

I was sure sitting on the wing.

[BringBackMadDog]

As I stated in the OP. I was sitting in the forward pocket directly in line with the goal line and there is absolutely 100% no doubt that the whole ball was over the line. Everyone in the crowd that I asked including Sydney supporters agreed that it as a goal and couldn't believe that it wasn't paid.

There are two glaring issues, why weren't the boundary umpires consulted, I thought that as standard practice, and secondly you cannot have a review system without cameras on the goal line, it's just dumb

[samuraisaint]

I don't know whether it is down to our poorer form this year or not but the umpiring in the past couple of weeks has been majorly inconsistent from where I have been sitting - and that goes for the game in Perth last night too.

[plugger66]

I don't know whether it is down to our poorer form this year or not but the umpiring in the past couple of weeks has been majorly inconsistent from where I have been sitting - and that goes for the game in Perth last night too.

Can I ask you this question. Has there been a year since you started following footy where people havent said the umpiring this year is worse then ever because I have followed the game for 44 years and reckon I have heard that comment every year. I amazed they can tie up their own boot laces. And you know when I think people think it is even worse. When you are a struggling side. In the 80's we got dudded in every match IMO back then. The problem was we were losing matches by 100 points but i would always find decision that changed how the match was played.

And now when I watch games in the 60 and 70's I realise how bad the umpiring was then considering the lack of packs that we have today.

[Saintlester]

I was at the game with my wife who is not an AFL follower and her brother and his partner who live in Wellington and know little or nothing about the game. We were sitting in virtuall a straight line to that goal line. The ball was clearly over the line. Thethree I was with could not believe the goal wasn't paid either by the ump to begin with or on review. And this from people who don't know the game. Also we have seen in the past the field ump run around prissily running about consulting with the boundary boys as to whether they had seen it. Not in this case though. Straight referral. Don't blame the video ump really bit hard to see on those camera angles. AFL must scrap this rule or have goal line cameras AT EVERY GAME PLAYED. Appears Richmond may have also copped a howler last night which actually cost them a win.

As far as the overall umpiring well I never think its that good anyway. I remember the decision not to ward Reiwoldt a fifty when the Swans clearly kept playing and kicked the ball down field after the free was paid. I said at the time to my wife that Roo should have got a fifty. Also agree that a couple of those incorrect disposals appeared to go against us. But that could be just looking through a Saints set of eyes.

Kosi clearly had a brain fade with the interchange gate. Easy to see he ran off in wrong place and decision was correct. Kosi's fault.

By the way loved Wellington. Great to see so much Red, White and Black as we strolled around the harbour side on Thursday afternoon. And the city seemed to have a buzz about it pre game. Stadium pretty good but weird only 1 way in and out. Everybody leaving through same exit post match was interesting. Still hope to go back in next couple of years.

[perfectionist]

In the video it is clear there were two umpires on the boundary line that were not consulted at all. Both had a clear view.

Goal umpire got contact from Roo and didn't see it.

Main umpire should have asked boundary umpire.

Called for score review, understandable

Because this is a new ground there is no sufficient camera angle. Nothing conclusive therefore mark paid.

Makes the AFL look very stupid.

Fair summary. At least two umpires made errors. First, the goal umpired erred. He said to the filed umpire that it was not over the line but that he was unsure whether the mark had been taken cleanly - hence the review. He was certainly wrong about his certainty of the first point and should have said so to the field umpire, especially since he was part obstructed by Nick. Second, the field umpire was wrong not to consult the boundary umpires, if only to see if they had anything to add. Third, if either of the boundary umps had seen anything, then without being asked, they should have told the field umpire. If neither saw anything then neither is at fault.

There is no point having a video review system until and unless the cameras are available to make the calls required. If not, this will only bring about inconsistencies.

[oh when the]

for a professional sport the afl can be quite amateurish
goal review, the uneven fixture are 2 examples

[matrix]

yup
and schultzy marked that ball in play the other week for port as well

christ he landed on some chicks lap in the second row.....paid the mark

[stinger]

yup
and schultzy marked that ball in play the other week for port as well

christ he landed on some chicks lap in the second row.....paid the mark

...i'm still laughing as i post....

[R. Harvey 3 votes!]

The thing is, what's the point of having goal review decisions if you can't actually put the cameras in the right position to begin with?
Either do it properly or scrap the whole thing and be done with it???

[BigMart]

Player Over the line by at least a foot, marked on chest.... Upright when he marked it

Goal.... Poor call

Not as bad as the complete incompetence at Subiaco last night. That decision was a match decider.... That can influence a season for a club.

[plugger66]

Its funny one because onr foot was no more than 6 inches over the line and was probably 2 foot over the line and he was leaning forward and he obviously touched it with his hands at least a foot in fron of his feet.

[BringBackMadDog]

Its funny one because onr foot was no more than 6 inches over the line and was probably 2 foot over the line and he was leaning forward and he obviously touched it with his hands at least a foot in fron of his feet.

Again, I was there and in the perfect position to see it. It was a goal. If it wa a Sydney player kicking it I would say the same thing. The posts are so thick with all the padding but I could still see the entire ball behind the posts when it first touch his hands

The goal ump missed it because of the collision with Roo, the problem is the replays were from the wrong angle

[Bernard Shakey]

Player Over the line by at least a foot, marked on chest.... Upright when he marked it

Goal.... Poor call

Not as bad as the complete incompetence at Subiaco last night. That decision was a match decider.... That can influence a season for a club.

Both clearly Behinds and had no influence on either result.