The goal that wasn't
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11237
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 120 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
It was clearly a point, juggled mark. End of argument. Anyway who cares?
Old enough to repaint, but young enough to sell
Re: The goal that wasn't
Bernard Shakey wrote:It was clearly a point, juggled mark. End of argument. Anyway who cares?
it was clearly a goal...and i care wobbleboy....
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2358
- Joined: Mon 09 Jun 2008 6:58pm
- Location: East of Bentleigh
Re: The goal that wasn't
Correct both of his feet were well behind the line and unless he has 50 inch double D jugs he was no where near the line.matrix wrote:"can you tell me why you think it was a goal"
pmsl
well theres this big white line see
between the posts
and he was over the line in the air when he marked it
hence
we think
it was a goal
numpty
Re: The goal that wasn't
ozrulestrace wrote:Correct both of his feet were well behind the line and unless he has 50 inch double D jugs he was no where near the line.matrix wrote:"can you tell me why you think it was a goal"
pmsl
well theres this big white line see
between the posts
and he was over the line in the air when he marked it
hence
we think
it was a goal
numpty
One foot was over the line by about 6 inches and unless you are falling backwards when you mark your hands are always in front of your feet. The more i look at it, and its only guess work because there is no cmaera on the line, the more the decision is correct.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2358
- Joined: Mon 09 Jun 2008 6:58pm
- Location: East of Bentleigh
Re: The goal that wasn't
Ever heard of an overhead mark Plugger?
Not that this is the case, both feet were behind the line and so was the rest of his body as I don't recall him sticking his arse backwards at right angles so his torso would thrust forward over the line to take the ball.
Not that this is the case, both feet were behind the line and so was the rest of his body as I don't recall him sticking his arse backwards at right angles so his torso would thrust forward over the line to take the ball.
Re: The goal that wasn't
ozrulestrace wrote:Ever heard of an overhead mark Plugger?
Not that this is the case, both feet were behind the line and so was the rest of his body as I don't recall him sticking his arse backwards at right angles so his torso would thrust forward over the line to take the ball.
I have heard of an overhead but even then your hands would usually be ahead of your feet. But like you said it wasnt the case this time. Stand up and pretend to mark like he did and you will see your fingertips would be well over a foot in front of your body. Its impossible for them not to be. He then lands and one foot is no more than 6 inches from the line which suggests to me the ball was initially touched either before the line or on the line.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Wed 07 Oct 2009 8:51am
Re: The goal that wasn't
In the video it is clear there were two umpires on the boundary line that were not consulted at all. Both had a clear view.
Goal umpire got contact from Roo and didn't see it.
Main umpire should have asked boundary umpire.
Called for score review, understandable
Because this is a new ground there is no sufficient camera angle. Nothing conclusive therefore mark paid.
Makes the AFL look very stupid.
Goal umpire got contact from Roo and didn't see it.
Main umpire should have asked boundary umpire.
Called for score review, understandable
Because this is a new ground there is no sufficient camera angle. Nothing conclusive therefore mark paid.
Makes the AFL look very stupid.
Re: The goal that wasn't
snowdelisaint wrote:In the video it is clear there were two umpires on the boundary line that were not consulted at all. Both had a clear view.
Goal umpire got contact from Roo and didn't see it.
Main umpire should have asked boundary umpire.
Called for score review, understandable
Because this is a new ground there is no sufficient camera angle. Nothing conclusive therefore mark paid.
Makes the AFL look very stupid.
Nothing to do with being a new ground. Most grounds dont have a camera on the line. They do need to get one though.
Re: The goal that wasn't
snowdelisaint wrote:In the video it is clear there were two umpires on the boundary line that were not consulted at all. Both had a clear view.
Goal umpire got contact from Roo and didn't see it.
Main umpire should have asked boundary umpire.
Called for score review, understandable
Because this is a new ground there is no sufficient camera angle. Nothing conclusive therefore mark paid.
Makes the AFL look very stupid.
after marking the ball....
he takes a very short step then a longer step off the other foot which lands still behind the goal line...must have been clearly behind the line..maybe a metre when he landed....the third ump and a couple of wannabes on here clearly have no depth perception.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11322
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 12:57am
- Location: South of Heaven
- Has thanked: 1312 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
I'm with you, Stinger.
We were robbed of a goal. Or at least a point. The officials made a meal of it. I can't wait for the day these clowns have to decide a GF winner from this sort of scenario. Just as so long we aren't the team who is given the wrong end of the stick, which no doubt, will be the case![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
We were robbed of a goal. Or at least a point. The officials made a meal of it. I can't wait for the day these clowns have to decide a GF winner from this sort of scenario. Just as so long we aren't the team who is given the wrong end of the stick, which no doubt, will be the case
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Curb your enthusiasm - you’re a St.Kilda supporter!!
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/LkJcQq3.jpg?2)
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/LkJcQq3.jpg?2)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Wed 07 Oct 2009 8:51am
Re: The goal that wasn't
I do think it was a goal but with the review you have to be 100% sure. I am only about 99% sure. ![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1962
- Joined: Thu 05 Aug 2004 9:29am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
As I stated in the OP. I was sitting in the forward pocket directly in line with the goal line and there is absolutely 100% no doubt that the whole ball was over the line. Everyone in the crowd that I asked including Sydney supporters agreed that it as a goal and couldn't believe that it wasn't paid.
There are two glaring issues, why weren't the boundary umpires consulted, I thought that as standard practice, and secondly you cannot have a review system without cameras on the goal line, it's just dumb
There are two glaring issues, why weren't the boundary umpires consulted, I thought that as standard practice, and secondly you cannot have a review system without cameras on the goal line, it's just dumb
- samuraisaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5873
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2011 3:23pm
- Location: M32
- Has thanked: 837 times
- Been thanked: 785 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
I don't know whether it is down to our poorer form this year or not but the umpiring in the past couple of weeks has been majorly inconsistent from where I have been sitting - and that goes for the game in Perth last night too.
Your friendly neighbourhood samurai.
Re: The goal that wasn't
samuraisaint wrote:I don't know whether it is down to our poorer form this year or not but the umpiring in the past couple of weeks has been majorly inconsistent from where I have been sitting - and that goes for the game in Perth last night too.
Can I ask you this question. Has there been a year since you started following footy where people havent said the umpiring this year is worse then ever because I have followed the game for 44 years and reckon I have heard that comment every year. I amazed they can tie up their own boot laces. And you know when I think people think it is even worse. When you are a struggling side. In the 80's we got dudded in every match IMO back then. The problem was we were losing matches by 100 points but i would always find decision that changed how the match was played.
And now when I watch games in the 60 and 70's I realise how bad the umpiring was then considering the lack of packs that we have today.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 10:36pm
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
I was at the game with my wife who is not an AFL follower and her brother and his partner who live in Wellington and know little or nothing about the game. We were sitting in virtuall a straight line to that goal line. The ball was clearly over the line. Thethree I was with could not believe the goal wasn't paid either by the ump to begin with or on review. And this from people who don't know the game. Also we have seen in the past the field ump run around prissily running about consulting with the boundary boys as to whether they had seen it. Not in this case though. Straight referral. Don't blame the video ump really bit hard to see on those camera angles. AFL must scrap this rule or have goal line cameras AT EVERY GAME PLAYED. Appears Richmond may have also copped a howler last night which actually cost them a win.
As far as the overall umpiring well I never think its that good anyway. I remember the decision not to ward Reiwoldt a fifty when the Swans clearly kept playing and kicked the ball down field after the free was paid. I said at the time to my wife that Roo should have got a fifty. Also agree that a couple of those incorrect disposals appeared to go against us. But that could be just looking through a Saints set of eyes.
Kosi clearly had a brain fade with the interchange gate. Easy to see he ran off in wrong place and decision was correct. Kosi's fault.
By the way loved Wellington. Great to see so much Red, White and Black as we strolled around the harbour side on Thursday afternoon. And the city seemed to have a buzz about it pre game. Stadium pretty good but weird only 1 way in and out. Everybody leaving through same exit post match was interesting. Still hope to go back in next couple of years.
As far as the overall umpiring well I never think its that good anyway. I remember the decision not to ward Reiwoldt a fifty when the Swans clearly kept playing and kicked the ball down field after the free was paid. I said at the time to my wife that Roo should have got a fifty. Also agree that a couple of those incorrect disposals appeared to go against us. But that could be just looking through a Saints set of eyes.
Kosi clearly had a brain fade with the interchange gate. Easy to see he ran off in wrong place and decision was correct. Kosi's fault.
By the way loved Wellington. Great to see so much Red, White and Black as we strolled around the harbour side on Thursday afternoon. And the city seemed to have a buzz about it pre game. Stadium pretty good but weird only 1 way in and out. Everybody leaving through same exit post match was interesting. Still hope to go back in next couple of years.
- 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
Fair summary. At least two umpires made errors. First, the goal umpired erred. He said to the filed umpire that it was not over the line but that he was unsure whether the mark had been taken cleanly - hence the review. He was certainly wrong about his certainty of the first point and should have said so to the field umpire, especially since he was part obstructed by Nick. Second, the field umpire was wrong not to consult the boundary umpires, if only to see if they had anything to add. Third, if either of the boundary umps had seen anything, then without being asked, they should have told the field umpire. If neither saw anything then neither is at fault.snowdelisaint wrote:In the video it is clear there were two umpires on the boundary line that were not consulted at all. Both had a clear view.
Goal umpire got contact from Roo and didn't see it.
Main umpire should have asked boundary umpire.
Called for score review, understandable
Because this is a new ground there is no sufficient camera angle. Nothing conclusive therefore mark paid.
Makes the AFL look very stupid.
There is no point having a video review system until and unless the cameras are available to make the calls required. If not, this will only bring about inconsistencies.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 681
- Joined: Tue 07 Feb 2012 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
for a professional sport the afl can be quite amateurish
goal review, the uneven fixture are 2 examples
goal review, the uneven fixture are 2 examples
Re: The goal that wasn't
matrix wrote:yup
and schultzy marked that ball in play the other week for port as well
christ he landed on some chicks lap in the second row.....paid the mark
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 553
- Joined: Mon 04 Aug 2008 7:46pm
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
The thing is, what's the point of having goal review decisions if you can't actually put the cameras in the right position to begin with?
Either do it properly or scrap the whole thing and be done with it???
Either do it properly or scrap the whole thing and be done with it???
When Harvey played his first game in 1988, I was a 12yo wearing short pants and struggling with my readin', writin' and 'rithmetic in grade eight. Now, I'm a father of three and a retired AFL player. And he's still going. Amazing! - Michael Voss
Re: The goal that wasn't
Player Over the line by at least a foot, marked on chest.... Upright when he marked it
Goal.... Poor call
Not as bad as the complete incompetence at Subiaco last night. That decision was a match decider.... That can influence a season for a club.
Goal.... Poor call
Not as bad as the complete incompetence at Subiaco last night. That decision was a match decider.... That can influence a season for a club.
Re: The goal that wasn't
Its funny one because onr foot was no more than 6 inches over the line and was probably 2 foot over the line and he was leaning forward and he obviously touched it with his hands at least a foot in fron of his feet.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1962
- Joined: Thu 05 Aug 2004 9:29am
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
Again, I was there and in the perfect position to see it. It was a goal. If it wa a Sydney player kicking it I would say the same thing. The posts are so thick with all the padding but I could still see the entire ball behind the posts when it first touch his handsplugger66 wrote:Its funny one because onr foot was no more than 6 inches over the line and was probably 2 foot over the line and he was leaning forward and he obviously touched it with his hands at least a foot in fron of his feet.
The goal ump missed it because of the collision with Roo, the problem is the replays were from the wrong angle
- Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11237
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 120 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
Both clearly Behinds and had no influence on either result.BigMart wrote:Player Over the line by at least a foot, marked on chest.... Upright when he marked it
Goal.... Poor call
Not as bad as the complete incompetence at Subiaco last night. That decision was a match decider.... That can influence a season for a club.
Old enough to repaint, but young enough to sell