The goal that wasn't

[maverick]

Goal umpire thought it was a goal, he was overruled, know for a fact.
he's my cousin.

[SainterK]

Goal umpire thought it was a goal, he was overruled, know for a fact.
he's my cousin.

Cousin of Mav, please tell em to back off next time.

[perfectionist]

The goal umpire initially thought it was a goal. If he thought it was touched, he would have given the touched signal. If he was unsure, he would have approached the field umpire. But, it was the field umpire, Shane McInerney, who came in after complaints from Adam Goodes, who was nowhere near it, and who talked the goal ump into changing his mind after discussion with the boundary umps.

[Devilhead]

The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.

Yet the goal umpire was shaping up to award a goal as has been suggested by many on this forum

I am unsure anyone can say that unless they look through one eye. It looked like he wanted to look at it immediately.

Bit unsure anyone can say they absolute knew that the umpires were certain the ball was touched

[plugger66]

Yet the goal umpire was shaping up to award a goal as has been suggested by many on this forum

I am unsure anyone can say that unless they look through one eye. It looked like he wanted to look at it immediately.

Bit unsure anyone can say they absolute knew that the umpires were certain the ball was touched

Who said that?

[Devilhead]

The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.

Yet the goal umpire was shaping up to award a goal as has been suggested by many on this forum

I am unsure anyone can say that unless they look through one eye. It looked like he wanted to look at it immediately.

Maybe you shouldn't look at it through your umpire eye

[Devilhead]

I am unsure anyone can say that unless they look through one eye. It looked like he wanted to look at it immediately.

Bit unsure anyone can say they absolute knew that the umpires were certain the ball was touched

Who said that?

the goal umpire thought it was a point.

[Devilhead]

The silence is deafening

Let's hope the AFL can get their act together and sort the referral system

[plugger66]

The silence is deafening

Let's hope the AFL can get their act together and sort the referral system

Wasnt worth commenting. You mentioned the word certain, I said thought. Pretty big difference and that is why I asked who said it.

[Devilhead]

The silence is deafening

Let's hope the AFL can get their act together and sort the referral system

Wasnt worth commenting. You mentioned the word certain, I said thought. Pretty big difference and that is why I asked who said it.

Keep digging that hole Plug!!!

In the end it is plain obvious that the AFL need to clarify and clear the confusion surrounding the referral system

For a sport body that apparently prides itself on professionalism the AFL haven fallen miserably short with regards to the current referral system and they way it is conveyed.

One area they could improve is the way the umpire conveys as to why the decision is being referred - take a leaf out the way the refs in the NFL convey their decisions - clear and concise using a standard system

At the moment we are getting - "We think it was a behind" - like some some social under 12 field umpire

It's amateurish and not good enough

The pre referral decision should be conveyed clearly and concisely

We would like to refer the decision as to ascertain whether the ball was touched and if so whether it was touched before or after the line - the field of play umpires have decided that a goal will be awarded if the video evidence is inconclusive

Or

The field of play umpires have decided that a behind will be awarded if the video evidence is inconclusive

Or

The field of play umpires cannot reach an agreement as to whether a goal or behind should be awarded (obviously this is when the lowest score is given if the video evidence is inconclusive)

As said the communication used to refer the decision which we hear on TV is not uniform if an interim decision has been made by the umpire pre referral it should be made concisely clear as to what it is and also the reason as to why it is being referred

Also with all the money the AFL are raking in surely they could devise a camera system whereby inconclusive decisions can be made conclusive - the technology is surely there unfortunately the AFL's referral system is all a bit half hearted in it's approach to deeming the inconclusive conclusive

At the moment at some grounds we have a couple of cameras in the stands at others we have double the cameras in the stands and even cameras in the posts - surely the camera system being used (even if it is shite) should be standard across all grounds

[ralphsmith]

I was at the game with a very good view angle.

It was goal.

Touched behind the line
Game changing decision. Shocking.

Just till this happens to the pies or hawks in a big final. The blow torch will really be put on it.

The AFL can get away with shafting us on it though.

[defacto]

I was at the game with a very good view angle.

It was goal.

Touched behind the line
Game changing decision. Shocking.

Just till this happens to the pies or hawks in a big final. The blow torch will really be put on it.

The AFL can get away with shafting us on it though.

the commentary was crazy. they were concentrating if it was touched or not without any thought of the line

[Jacks Back]

Put cameras in the goal posts at all grounds. Cut the costs by putting them in the padding and flying them around the country for the games. They would need 5 sets all up as there are 5 games on a Saturday. The cameras then can be shipped around to the other games.

Combine this with 2 goal umpires at each end for the hitting the post decisions (where the goal umpires can stand behind each goal post or one behind the post in question and the other seeing if the ball is touched) and, hey presto, you have a referral system.

[Sainterman]

I was at the game and sitting about 5 rows back from the fence directly behind the goals. The ball was definitely touched. The problem here was that it was touched behind the line. If they were checking whether it was touched then fine, but they should have been checking if it crossed the line. Everyone, including Swans supporters around me saw it the same way...over the line when it was touched.

[saintspremiers]

I was at the game and sitting about 5 rows back from the fence directly behind the goals. The ball was definitely touched. The problem here was that it was touched behind the line. If they were checking whether it was touched then fine, but they should have been checking if it crossed the line. Everyone, including Swans supporters around me saw it the same way...over the line when it was touched.

So you are implying the umpires are either a bit slow or have NFI then?

Surely they shouldve checked that.

Amateur hour to the extreme.

[plugger66]

I was at the game and sitting about 5 rows back from the fence directly behind the goals. The ball was definitely touched. The problem here was that it was touched behind the line. If they were checking whether it was touched then fine, but they should have been checking if it crossed the line. Everyone, including Swans supporters around me saw it the same way...over the line when it was touched.

So you are implying the umpires are either a bit slow or have NFI then?

Surely they shouldve checked that.

Amateur hour to the extreme.

The boundary umpires are on the line. Surely they would see if it was touched over the line. Not sure anyone directly behind the goals would have a better view than that.

[Sainterman]

I was at the game and sitting about 5 rows back from the fence directly behind the goals. The ball was definitely touched. The problem here was that it was touched behind the line. If they were checking whether it was touched then fine, but they should have been checking if it crossed the line. Everyone, including Swans supporters around me saw it the same way...over the line when it was touched.

So you are implying the umpires are either a bit slow or have NFI then?

Surely they shouldve checked that.

Amateur hour to the extreme.

The boundary umpires are on the line. Surely they would see if it was touched over the line. Not sure anyone directly behind the goals would have a better view than that.

Plugger, wasn't just me who thought it was across the line, a number of people around me did to. It was pretty clear to everyone in the area. I think the goal umpire thought as such too until the field umpire came running over. Looked to me that they simply checked the wrong thing, should have looked at whether it was over the line, not whether it was touched.

I'm happy to accept it was a mistake, not sure why you are not. I am also not sure if it would have changed the outcome, in fact I very much doubt it.

[plugger66]

So you are implying the umpires are either a bit slow or have NFI then?

Surely they shouldve checked that.

Amateur hour to the extreme.

The boundary umpires are on the line. Surely they would see if it was touched over the line. Not sure anyone directly behind the goals would have a better view than that.

Plugger, wasn't just me who thought it was across the line, a number of people around me did to. It was pretty clear to everyone in the area. I think the goal umpire thought as such too until the field umpire came running over. Looked to me that they simply checked the wrong thing, should have looked at whether it was over the line, not whether it was touched.

I'm happy to accept it was a mistake, not sure why you are not. I am also not sure if it would have changed the outcome, in fact I very much doubt it.

Im saying the boundary umpires have a better view than you and I also would think there were no cameras to check that otherwise they would have. By the way i didnt think it wwas touched at all so I was obviously wrong.

[SaintPav]

Im saying the boundary umpires have a better view than you and I also would think there were no cameras to check that otherwise they would have. By the way i didnt think it wwas touched at all so I was obviously wrong.

No, you're right but it is still unclear weather the goal umpire believed it was touched or not...

this thread proves that the current system is very confusing and probably isn't working...

[saintspremiers]

Im saying the boundary umpires have a better view than you and I also would think there were no cameras to check that otherwise they would have. By the way i didnt think it wwas touched at all so I was obviously wrong.

No, you're right but it is still unclear weather the goal umpire believed it was touched or not...

this thread proves that the current system is very confusing and probably isn't working...

The system is faarked.

Imagine if the third umpire was allowed to use his brain and says to the field umpire: "Yes it was touched but it was over the line so it's a goal!".

Once referred, the 3rd umpire should say either goal, no goal, or inconclusive, in which case it's the
Umps call. Simple!

[plugger66]

Im saying the boundary umpires have a better view than you and I also would think there were no cameras to check that otherwise they would have. By the way i didnt think it wwas touched at all so I was obviously wrong.

No, you're right but it is still unclear weather the goal umpire believed it was touched or not...

this thread proves that the current system is very confusing and probably isn't working...

The system is faarked.

Imagine if the third umpire was allowed to use his brain and says to the field umpire: "Yes it was touched but it was over the line so it's a goal!".

Once referred, the 3rd umpire should say either goal, no goal, or inconclusive, in which case it's the
Umps call. Simple!

Thats what they say now.

[mr six o'clock]

All this arguing proves one thing !

Once again the afl is there infinite wisdom have made a grey area of the game , GREYER !!!!

It would be far to simple just to have two goal umpires at each end !

[sunsaint]

Goal umpire thought it was a goal, he was overruled, know for a fact.
he's my cousin.

I would never have admitted to being related to an umpire
you will be banned for life from saintsational
found guilty by genetic association for crimes of blatant corruption and victimisation against stkilda players and supporters

[SaintPav]

All this arguing proves one thing !

Once again the afl is there infinite wisdom have made a grey area of the game , GREYER !!!!

It would be far to simple just to have two goal umpires at each end !

two goal umpires would make it even worse...they couldn't agree so they would still go to the video...