The goal that wasn't
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Re: The goal that wasn't
Cousin of Mav, please tell em to back off next time.maverick wrote:Goal umpire thought it was a goal, he was overruled, know for a fact.
he's my cousin.
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9024
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8375
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 137 times
- Been thanked: 1169 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
Bit unsure anyone can say they absolute knew that the umpires were certain the ball was touchedplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:Yet the goal umpire was shaping up to award a goal as has been suggested by many on this forumplugger66 wrote: The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.
I am unsure anyone can say that unless they look through one eye. It looked like he wanted to look at it immediately.
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: The goal that wasn't
Devilhead wrote:Bit unsure anyone can say they absolute knew that the umpires were certain the ball was touchedplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:
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.
Who said that?
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8375
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 137 times
- Been thanked: 1169 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
Maybe you shouldn't look at it through your umpire eyeplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:Yet the goal umpire was shaping up to award a goal as has been suggested by many on this forumplugger66 wrote: The field umpire said we think it wa touched. Pretty good guess suggests he was going by the person closest to the ball.
I am unsure anyone can say that unless they look through one eye. It looked like he wanted to look at it immediately.
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8375
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 137 times
- Been thanked: 1169 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
plugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:Bit unsure anyone can say they absolute knew that the umpires were certain the ball was touchedplugger66 wrote: I am unsure anyone can say that unless they look through one eye. It looked like he wanted to look at it immediately.
Who said that?
plugger66 wrote: the goal umpire thought it was a point.
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8375
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 137 times
- Been thanked: 1169 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
The silence is deafening
Let's hope the AFL can get their act together and sort the referral system
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Let's hope the AFL can get their act together and sort the referral system
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: The goal that wasn't
Devilhead wrote: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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8375
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 137 times
- Been thanked: 1169 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
Keep digging that hole Plug!!!plugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote: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.
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
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- ralphsmith
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Sat 25 Jul 2009 10:36pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 17 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
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.
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.
What is dead may never die, but rises again harder and stronger.
![Image](http://users.tpg.com.au/prothall//merlin.jpg)
![Image](http://users.tpg.com.au/prothall//merlin.jpg)
Re: The goal that wasn't
the commentary was crazy. they were concentrating if it was touched or not without any thought of the lineralphsmith wrote: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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6582
- Joined: Sat 11 Jun 2011 4:52pm
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 1276 times
- Been thanked: 464 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
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.
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.
As ex-president Peter Summers said:
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”
St Kilda - At least we have a Crest!
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”
St Kilda - At least we have a Crest!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
Re: The goal that wasn't
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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
So you are implying the umpires are either a bit slow or have NFI then?Sainterman wrote: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.
Surely they shouldve checked that.
Amateur hour to the extreme.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
Re: The goal that wasn't
saintspremiers wrote:So you are implying the umpires are either a bit slow or have NFI then?Sainterman wrote: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.
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.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
Re: The goal that wasn't
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.plugger66 wrote:saintspremiers wrote:So you are implying the umpires are either a bit slow or have NFI then?Sainterman wrote: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.
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.
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.
Re: The goal that wasn't
Sainterman wrote: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.plugger66 wrote:saintspremiers wrote: 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.
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18838
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1568 times
- Been thanked: 1962 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
No, you're right but it is still unclear weather the goal umpire believed it was touched or not...plugger66 wrote:
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.
this thread proves that the current system is very confusing and probably isn't working...
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
The system is faarked.SaintPav wrote:No, you're right but it is still unclear weather the goal umpire believed it was touched or not...plugger66 wrote:
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.
this thread proves that the current system is very confusing and probably isn't working...
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!
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
Re: The goal that wasn't
saintspremiers wrote:The system is faarked.SaintPav wrote:No, you're right but it is still unclear weather the goal umpire believed it was touched or not...plugger66 wrote:
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.
this thread proves that the current system is very confusing and probably isn't working...
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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4304
- Joined: Fri 17 Nov 2006 1:05am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 240 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
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 !
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 !
In red white and black from 73
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5212
- Joined: Mon 07 Aug 2006 9:50pm
- Location: Queensland - Beautiful one day ... you know the rest
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 318 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
I would never have admitted to being related to an umpiremaverick wrote:Goal umpire thought it was a goal, he was overruled, know for a fact.
he's my cousin.
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
Seeya
*************
*************
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18838
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1568 times
- Been thanked: 1962 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
two goal umpires would make it even worse...they couldn't agree so they would still go to the video...mr six o'clock wrote: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 !
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.