What was with that goal umpire!

[Enrico_Misso]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

[battye]

Yes, it hit his (umpires) back leg so it actually did go through for a goal. Everyone stopped with the ball sitting on the line, then the Crows player got it and they eventually scored a goal I think.

Should have been a goal, for sure. Only question mark was where did Stanley kick it? It looked like it was off his leg, but it might have been off his knee-cap?

[degruch]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

The ball hit the umpire's right leg, inside the goals, and bounced back into play...there his no way it couldn't have been a goal, so should be called as such. If an umpire decides not to call a goal (for any reason), is it still not a goal? Should be added to our score, 47 points or not.

[plugger66]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

The ball hit the umpire's right leg, inside the goals, and bounced back into play...there his no way it couldn't have been a goal, so should be called as such. If an umpire decides not to call a goal (for any reason), is it still not a goal? Should be added to our score, 47 points or not.

Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.

No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.

[Enrico_Misso]

Agree under the rules it was probably the right call.

But it was a mistake by the umpire to put himself in the wrong position.
The goal ump should be behind the line unless he is trying to adjudicate if a ball has "carried" through for a goal.

Essentially he interfered with the play.
He made a vary bad mistake.
He'll definitely be up the bush next week.

I'd be ropeable if we lost by a couple of points.

[Moccha]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

The ball hit the umpire's right leg, inside the goals, and bounced back into play...there his no way it couldn't have been a goal, so should be called as such. If an umpire decides not to call a goal (for any reason), is it still not a goal? Should be added to our score, 47 points or not.

Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.

No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.

It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.

It's quite clear on the TV replay

Are you Jeff Geishen?

[plugger66]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

The ball hit the umpire's right leg, inside the goals, and bounced back into play...there his no way it couldn't have been a goal, so should be called as such. If an umpire decides not to call a goal (for any reason), is it still not a goal? Should be added to our score, 47 points or not.

Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.

No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.

It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.

It's quite clear on the TV replay

Are you Jeff Geishen?

And your point is?

[mad saint guy]

Shocking error but technically would have been a point anyway, since it came off Stanley's knee. I wouldn't expect to see that goal umpire near an AFL ground for a while.

[derby Street]

It was clearly across the goal line and hit the goal umpires back leg. Why he didn't signal a point is beyond me (It did come off Rhy's knee) You would think the umpire would have felt it hit him. A mistake but our team made plenty themselves.

[plugger66]

It was clearly across the goal line and hit the goal umpires back leg. Why he didn't signal a point is beyond me (It did come off Rhy's knee) You would think the umpire would have felt it hit him. A mistake but our team made plenty themselves.

Looked on the line to me but who would know.

[Moccha]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

The ball hit the umpire's right leg, inside the goals, and bounced back into play...there his no way it couldn't have been a goal, so should be called as such. If an umpire decides not to call a goal (for any reason), is it still not a goal? Should be added to our score, 47 points or not.

Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.

No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.

It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.

It's quite clear on the TV replay

Are you Jeff Geishen?

And your point is?

My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.

[plugger66]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

The ball hit the umpire's right leg, inside the goals, and bounced back into play...there his no way it couldn't have been a goal, so should be called as such. If an umpire decides not to call a goal (for any reason), is it still not a goal? Should be added to our score, 47 points or not.

Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.

No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.

It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.

It's quite clear on the TV replay

Are you Jeff Geishen?

And your point is?

My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.

So what was wrong with the final decision?

[bobmurray]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

The ball hit the umpire's right leg, inside the goals, and bounced back into play...there his no way it couldn't have been a goal, so should be called as such. If an umpire decides not to call a goal (for any reason), is it still not a goal? Should be added to our score, 47 points or not.

Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.

No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.

It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.

It's quite clear on the TV replay

Are you Jeff Geishen?

And your point is?

My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.

So what was wrong with the final decision?

A score should have been awarded,it shouldn't have been called "play on" ...but what score....i don't know...i thought it was a goal but i didn't have the best viewing position so i'll let others determine what it should have been but it definitely wasn't play on...

[battye]

At the very least it should have been a behind, as I think it did rolled into the post after hitting the umpire.

[plugger66]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

The ball hit the umpire's right leg, inside the goals, and bounced back into play...there his no way it couldn't have been a goal, so should be called as such. If an umpire decides not to call a goal (for any reason), is it still not a goal? Should be added to our score, 47 points or not.

Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.

No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.

It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.

It's quite clear on the TV replay

Are you Jeff Geishen?

And your point is?

My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.

So what was wrong with the final decision?

A score should have been awarded,it shouldn't have been called "play on" ...but what score....i don't know...i thought it was a goal but i didn't have the best viewing position so i'll let others determine what it should have been but it definitely wasn't play on...

May have been a point if it hit the post but if the umpire didnt see that it is no score.

[Sainterman]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

The ball hit the umpire's right leg, inside the goals, and bounced back into play...there his no way it couldn't have been a goal, so should be called as such. If an umpire decides not to call a goal (for any reason), is it still not a goal? Should be added to our score, 47 points or not.

Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.

No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.

It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.

It's quite clear on the TV replay

Are you Jeff Geishen?

And your point is?

My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.

So what was wrong with the final decision?

A score should have been awarded,it shouldn't have been called "play on" ...but what score....i don't know...i thought it was a goal but i didn't have the best viewing position so i'll let others determine what it should have been but it definitely wasn't play on...

May have been a point if it hit the post but if the umpire didnt see that it is no score.

Lol, thanks for that, any other pearls of wisdom...?

[plugger66]

At the Lockett end.
I think it was Rhys who swung a boot at the ball and it might have gone through for a goal (or might have hit the post).
But it seemed to hit the umpire who was standing on the line next to the post. He then stepped back implying the ball was still in play, and it was rushed through.

Has anyone seen the replay?
What actually happened and was it the right call?

It looked like the ump was hopelessly out of position and interfered with play.

The ball hit the umpire's right leg, inside the goals, and bounced back into play...there his no way it couldn't have been a goal, so should be called as such. If an umpire decides not to call a goal (for any reason), is it still not a goal? Should be added to our score, 47 points or not.

Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.

No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.

It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.

It's quite clear on the TV replay

Are you Jeff Geishen?

And your point is?

My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.

So what was wrong with the final decision?

A score should have been awarded,it shouldn't have been called "play on" ...but what score....i don't know...i thought it was a goal but i didn't have the best viewing position so i'll let others determine what it should have been but it definitely wasn't play on...

May have been a point if it hit the post but if the umpire didnt see that it is no score.

I dont what you mean. Just explaining that hitting the goal umpire means still in play. Always.
Lol, thanks for that, any other pearls of wisdom...?

[Saint Mik]

Goal, wrong desicion was made http://player.video.news.com.au/heraldsun/#1507599202

If this game went to the wire the AFL would look at it, but becuase we won so easy they will just over look it or say the right call was made

[Schillaci]

Saw it last night on Sky Sports News. Clearly a goal not paid. Fortunately we won so not such a biggie in the end but could've been...with instant replays a "fourth" umpire upstairs with a direct link to the field umpires ear is needed so cr@p like this doesn't happen.

It's not too hard to wait a minute like the old kick in days if it's a once in a while thing. Yes, it penalises the kicking in team if a behind occurs but commonsense should prevail and the rules will still be the same for everyone.

If play has already resumed/ continued it's still possible to...ascertain the time it happened and wind back the clock.

Ridiculous.

[plugger66]

Still dont think the whole ball went over the line but hey who cares and yes I know it could of mattered but it actually didnt. By the way it came off the knee so if anything it is a point.

[Sainter_Dad]

Still dont think the whole ball went over the line but hey who cares and yes I know it could of mattered but it actually didnt. By the way it came off the knee so if anything it is a point.

Aside from the question of Stanley's knee etc - Plugger - tell us why it did not cross the line?

Oh - and aside from quoting rules - answer this question - Did the umpire impeded the ball - If so - at this level the Umpire should have been better!

Up the bush for mine.

[plugger66]

Still dont think the whole ball went over the line but hey who cares and yes I know it could of mattered but it actually didnt. By the way it came off the knee so if anything it is a point.

Aside from the question of Stanley's knee etc - Plugger - tell us why it did not cross the line?

Oh - and aside from quoting rules - answer this question - Did the umpire impeded the ball - If so - at this level the Umpire should have been better!

Up the bush for mine.

Yes he may be up the bush. It is pretty obvious why it didnt cross the line. The stupid umpire got in the way.

[Sainter_Dad]

Still dont think the whole ball went over the line but hey who cares and yes I know it could of mattered but it actually didnt. By the way it came off the knee so if anything it is a point.

Aside from the question of Stanley's knee etc - Plugger - tell us why it did not cross the line?

Oh - and aside from quoting rules - answer this question - Did the umpire impeded the ball - If so - at this level the Umpire should have been better!

Up the bush for mine.

Yes he may be up the bush. It is pretty obvious why it didnt cross the line. The stupid umpire got in the way.

lol - I think thats all the baying mob wants to hear!

[Solar]

common sense dictates that a point should be added to our score. The rule needs to change because it's common sense that it was either a goal or rushed behind (off the knee).

Imagine if that stuff up happened in the grand final (whoops, something similar already has)

[mullet]

common sense dictates that a point should be added to our score. The rule needs to change because it's common sense that it was either a goal or rushed behind (off the knee).

Imagine if that stuff up happened in the grand final (whoops, something similar already has)

And Tom Hawkins confirmed that this morning