Score Review

[Sainter_Dad]

Is the goal the back of the goal post or the line on the ground?

The Dogs just kicked a goal by Bont - the vision showed it was millimetres in it at the back of the goal post but the line is the back of the padding - the back of the padding is an inch behind the goal post.

They reviewed the thing and still got it wrong.

[bigcarl]

Is the goal the back of the goal post or the line on the ground?

The Dogs just kicked a goal by Bont - the vision showed it was millimetres in it at the back of the goal post but the line is the back of the padding - the back of the padding is an inch behind the goal post.

They reviewed the thing and still got it wrong.

Good point. I think it is the back of the post

[portosaint]

The goal line. The same as the boundary.

[Sainter_Dad]

The goal line. The same as the boundary.

So they reviewed it to the back of the goal post - not the goal line - major stuff up - and easy to see that the ball was still partially on the ground side of the line if you continue the line up from the padding.

Can they get nothing right - even on review?

[kosifantutti]

And the camera is not fixed to the back of the padding, so it’s not inline with the goal line to start with.

The second view seemed to show it was clearly touched.

[portosaint]

And the camera is not fixed to the back of the padding, so it’s not inline with the goal line to start with.

The second view seemed to show it was clearly touched.

Yep.

The opposite goal post camera showed it wasn't even past the post. It seems a flawed system in many ways. I guess the only consolation is the umpire would have awarded a goal with no review anyway. Doesn't make it right

[ace]

And the camera is not fixed to the back of the padding, so it’s not inline with the goal line to start with.

The second view seemed to show it was clearly touched.

The second view clearly showed the AFL is cheating.
Absolutely touched before the whole of the ball was through the goals.
Now we have to face an angry West Coast and a rival to play finals has been gifted four points.

[Sainter_Dad]

No review technology in the Melbourne Game
Incorrect Review in the Bulldogs v WCE Game

Calling it now - we WILL miss the finals

/Buying Aluminium Fool to make a hat!!!

[bangaulegend]

And the camera is not fixed to the back of the padding, so it’s not inline with the goal line to start with.

The second view seemed to show it was clearly touched.

Sorry Kosi but if it was clearly touched surely they would over rule.The vision I saw on the replay seemed to be clearly over the line so maybe I"m not looking at the second view I'm confused

[kosifantutti]

And the camera is not fixed to the back of the padding, so it’s not inline with the goal line to start with.

The second view seemed to show it was clearly touched.

Sorry Kosi but if it was clearly touched surely they would over rule.The vision I saw on the replay seemed to be clearly over the line so maybe I"m not looking at the second view I'm confused

We didn’t see the second view until after they paid the goal.

You must have seen something different if the ball was clearly over the line. Even the arc didn’t make a call.

[kosifantutti]

[bangaulegend]

And the camera is not fixed to the back of the padding, so it’s not inline with the goal line to start with.

The second view seemed to show it was clearly touched.

Sorry Kosi but if it was clearly touched surely they would over rule.The vision I saw on the replay seemed to be clearly over the line so maybe I"m not looking at the second view I'm confused

We didn’t see the second view until after they paid the goal.

You must have seen something different if the ball was clearly over the line. Even the arc didn’t make a call.

Fair enough mate still confused but that's not unusual

[Devilhead]

The umpire call is huge

If that umpire calls touched then the Eagles likely win that game

I know its a judgement call but should the umpire give benefit of the doubt to a behind instead of a goal if its mm close?

If that was an elimination final the Eagles would have been filthy

[CURLY]

You’d think theyed have learnt after the mistake that cost us the game last week.

[saintsRrising]

Is the goal the back of the goal post or the line on the ground?

I don't know what the rule is, but the goal umpire always is looking up and would check the ball against the back on the goalpost. This is the only way they can do it as it would be impossible fora goal umpire to check a ball many metres in the air against the line below.



Also a behind is always signalled even if the ball hits the back of the goalpost.

[magnifisaint]

It's a goal.

[StPeter]

That wrong call could cost us a place in the finals!

[ace]

Once upon a time the goal umpires call was all that mattered.
I remember being in the perfect position to observe a ball bisect and goal and behind posts.
The goal umpire no where the goal post, gave it as a goal.
Everyone around me was laughing at the error.

That was in a time when only the final quarter of one game would be shown on black & white TV.
But when the TV started showing full matches these goal umpiring errors were exposed.
The AFL was forced to introduce reviews to prevent these howlers when games and teams season were effected.

But then TV started to expose the goal umpires inability to judge closed touched decisions.
The AFL introduced goal line cameras.
But the cameras were and are not adequate, they are not fast enough or have sufficient resolution, so a soft call of the goal umpire had to be clearly wrong for an overturn.

As Kosi's still proves the ARC umpire did not do his job properly concentrating on one camera angle that was inclusive due the camera speed being too slow.
He clearly did not look at the second angle that shows the ball conclusively touched before all of the ball is behind all of the goal post.
The error occurred so close to the end of the game it did not just influence the result it DID decide the result of the game.

The inevitable AFL apology / excuse will not change the result.
The Bulldogs will keep 4 undeserved points.
It may prevent St Kilda playing finals and West Coast receiving the double chance.