new rule
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5518
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 481 times
- Contact:
Re: new rule
I think they made up a few...
Free against Milera for not getting out the way quick enough when a player run with his head down straight at him...
No mark to Wilkes for a clear one grab mark near the boundary. Boundary ump threw it in.
Free against Milera for not getting out the way quick enough when a player run with his head down straight at him...
No mark to Wilkes for a clear one grab mark near the boundary. Boundary ump threw it in.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12789
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 801 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
Re: new rule
It was a practice match for the umpires as well as the players.
BUT the best one for me was the disputed 9 point goal to Geelong.
What's the point of hving a video referral system when teh video cannot possbily show anything resembling accurate vision?
and I have no idea if the call was correct/wrong.
Merely that it seems nonsensical to use down the ground vision for a goal-line decision.
BUT the best one for me was the disputed 9 point goal to Geelong.
What's the point of hving a video referral system when teh video cannot possbily show anything resembling accurate vision?
and I have no idea if the call was correct/wrong.
Merely that it seems nonsensical to use down the ground vision for a goal-line decision.
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
Re: new rule
was it the former player that called that one- his sense of' 'is he ok' kicking in...thesaint3 wrote:Did the umpire on friday make up a rule.Free kick to goddard he plays on and the umpire calls him back because the man on the mark was still on the ground.???
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Re: new rule
One would think Anderscum would've been aware of this eh?Mr Magic wrote:It was a practice match for the umpires as well as the players.
BUT the best one for me was the disputed 9 point goal to Geelong.
What's the point of hving a video referral system when teh video cannot possbily show anything resembling accurate vision?
and I have no idea if the call was correct/wrong.
Merely that it seems nonsensical to use down the ground vision for a goal-line decision.
Nah, not likely.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
Re: new rule
Did the umpires decide that the footage was inconclusive? If it was then I was under the impression that they take the lesser score which would have been a point. The footage they showed hardly proved anything either way.Mr Magic wrote:It was a practice match for the umpires as well as the players.
BUT the best one for me was the disputed 9 point goal to Geelong.
What's the point of hving a video referral system when teh video cannot possbily show anything resembling accurate vision?
and I have no idea if the call was correct/wrong.
Merely that it seems nonsensical to use down the ground vision for a goal-line decision.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
Re: new rule
I would say (because of the result of that video referral being 9 points) that they go with the original decision (which was 9 points), if it proves inconclusive. At the game I was sure that if he touched it, it was not over the line and having seen it several times since, I'm still almost certain it wasn't over the line/behind the padding of the post, as his body looked well inside the post and his arm wasn't reaching back that far.
The video replay was useful for that accidental soccer off the ground that bounced through for a goal at the other end, though. If they bring it in for the regular season, I imagine they will have a camera between the posts, to give a far better view. They're probably just trialling the rule, to see how much time it takes and how much it slows the game up and so on.
The video replay was useful for that accidental soccer off the ground that bounced through for a goal at the other end, though. If they bring it in for the regular season, I imagine they will have a camera between the posts, to give a far better view. They're probably just trialling the rule, to see how much time it takes and how much it slows the game up and so on.
YOU GET WHAT YOU SETTLE FOR.
Re: new rule
saintspremiers wrote:One would think Anderscum would've been aware of this eh?Mr Magic wrote:It was a practice match for the umpires as well as the players.
BUT the best one for me was the disputed 9 point goal to Geelong.
What's the point of hving a video referral system when teh video cannot possbily show anything resembling accurate vision?
and I have no idea if the call was correct/wrong.
Merely that it seems nonsensical to use down the ground vision for a goal-line decision.
Nah, not likely.
You are a fantastic guy. I am due to bash my grandmother. Are you going to Wangaratta?