The goal that wasn't

[bergsone]

clear goal

[BigMart]

Not sure Damien Hardwick, the AFL and Ump department agree it was 'clearly a behind'

They have already admitted the clear error.

[MCG-Unit]

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.....

.....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.

This keeps getting brought up - but I think you will find it was Saad who caused the interchange infringement - not Koschitzke.
Kosi is an easy target, anyway I thought it was Saad.

"Yet an interchange infraction to Ahmed Saad gifted Josh Kennedy a long-rang goal and then Jarryn Geary's long bomb seemed to have crossed the goal line before video reviews from a shocking TV angle handed Ted Richards the mark"

http://live-footy.heraldsun.com.au/matc ... 0130140502

Edit: I've just seen images on BF - it was Kosi, not Saad

[Sainter_Dad]

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.

Both clearly Behinds and had no influence on either result.

The AFL has admitted that they got it wrong in Subi so how can you say that it was a behind and had no influence on the game?

[plugger66]

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.

Both clearly Behinds and had no influence on either result.

The AFL has admitted that they got it wrong in Subi so how can you say that it was a behind and had no influence on the game?

Did they say there should have been a review or the actually decision was wrong. I thought they said they got it wrong because there should have been a review. Still trying to work how in the Saints game it should have been a point. It was either a mark or a goal.

[BigMart]

It was a goal.

You can't physically be a foot behind the goal line, be vertical and take a chest mark in play. All of the ball has to be over the line, and looking at the distance his feet landed behind the line... It was.

Goal.... Strange call.

But no stranger than a lot of inconsistent decisions made. Still trying to work out the HTB decision against Gilbert a few weeks ago?!

[plugger66]

It was a goal.

You can't physically be a foot behind the goal line, be vertical and take a chest mark in play. All of the ball has to be over the line, and looking at the distance his feet landed behind the line... It was.

Goal.... Strange call.

But no stranger than a lot of inconsistent decisions made. Still trying to work out the HTB decision against Gilbert a few weeks ago?!

When you mark with your hands out in front as Richards was doing how far is your fingertips in front of your feet. Try it and look down at your feet and see where your hands are. i suggest they are good foot or more in front of your feet. Do it BM and be honest. Its nearly physically impossible that they are level with your feet.

By the way it wasnt a chest mark initially. It touched his hands and went through to his chest. He was trying to mark it with hands out and it did hit the hands first.

[Eastern]

The Goal Review System as it currently stands only serves to divide opinion even further. I believe it should be scrapped immediately with a view to trialling ALL the appropriate technology throughout the nab cup in 2014, and possibly 2015 and NOT re-introduce it until it can be a lot more conclusive.

If I wanted to argue against my statement above I would say that I know that it's expensive and YES, I do remember the 2009 Grand Final !!

[BigMart]

Watch the replay again!

The review was far from certain.... You're certain because your making excuses for fools.

Excepting mediocre umpiring standards too....

Theme perhaps

[plugger66]

I did...... Whatever that means.......

[Pwoit]

Why does the forum Numpty always have a differing opinion to at least 95% of the posters on this forum and yet still claims he is correct.

It was a goal - I believe the people who were actually at the game and had a direct line of sight view of the incident.

FFS

[plugger66]

Why does the forum Numpty always have a differing opinion to at least 95% of the posters on this forum and yet still claims he is correct.

It was a goal - I believe the people who were actually at the game and had a direct line of sight view of the incident.

FFS

Sorry moron but when did I say it was certainly a goal? Why can't you think for yourself instead of what posters say. My daughter was there and she hates umpires and had a good of it and wasn't sure. Could be time to think for yourself I reckon

[BigMart]

Your daughter was there, in the grandstand.... And couldn't tell

Well that clears it up then, no goal?!

Even though the Goal Umpire was on the line and was unsure???

I know even though cameras have zoom lenses, can slow motion the game, can freeze the game... You really can only tell of you're in the stands 50-100m away from the footy.... So really none of us can make comment?

[plugger66]

Your daughter was there, in the grandstand.... And couldn't tell

Well that clears it up then, no goal?!

Even though the Goal Umpire was on the line and was unsure???

I know even though cameras have zoom lenses, can slow motion the game, can freeze the game... You really can only tell of you're in the stands 50-100m away from the footy.... So really none of us can make comment?

One day you will read what is actually written...,., instead..... Of what you think is written. Can't ignore me even you tell everyone you will. By the way why didn't you comment on others who have mentioned they were there. That's right it wasn't me

[ozrulestrace]

It was a goal.

You can't physically be a foot behind the goal line, be vertical and take a chest mark in play. All of the ball has to be over the line, and looking at the distance his feet landed behind the line... It was.

Goal.... Strange call.

But no stranger than a lot of inconsistent decisions made. Still trying to work out the HTB decision against Gilbert a few weeks ago?!

Big Mart this has already been explained in very simple terms to P66 and he will not concede any of the above is correct, therefore he s incorrect.

We are all wasting our breath on that person.

[Freebird]

Why does the forum Numpty always have a differing opinion to at least 95% of the posters on this forum and yet still claims he is correct.

It was a goal - I believe the people who were actually at the game and had a direct line of sight view of the incident.

FFS

Sorry moron but when did I say it was certainly a goal? Why can't you think for yourself instead of what posters say. My daughter was there and she hates umpires and had a good of it and wasn't sure. Could be time to think for yourself I reckon

Of course 66 what coincidental luck you have...

Even the player played on quickly knowing it was a goal but trying to put some confusion into it.

Did the ump go for the most obvious or the lesser of the outcomes.

[bergsone]

everyone that was there and had a clear angle of it,say it was a clear goal,so they must be lying.....................strange

[saintsRrising]

i was watching it on tv in Melbourne and could see easily that it was a metre over the line.

A metre?

[gringo]

As I said SENs commentary team were in disbelief and looked over at what I assume was the MMM team and both were shocked. Said it was clearly a goal and the umpire seemed swayed by Ted Richards talking him round.

[plugger66]

everyone that was there and had a clear angle of it,say it was a clear goal,so they must be lying.....................strange

Yes considering my daughter didnt think it was a clear goal and she had the same sort of angle. She couldnt tell and if it hit the hands first as the goal umpire said it was a mark. If it didnt hit the hands first it may have been a goal. If anyone can tell from the vision if it missed the hands 100% then fine its goal. I cant see how anyone could say that though. Bernard Shakey for one said it was a point.

[bergsone]

everyone that was there and had a clear angle of it,say it was a clear goal,so they must be lying.....................strange

Yes considering my daughter didnt think it was a clear goal and she had the same sort of angle. She couldnt tell and if it hit the hands first as the goal umpire said it was a mark. If it didnt hit the hands first it may have been a goal. If anyone can tell from the vision if it missed the hands 100% then fine its goal. I cant see how anyone could say that though. Bernard Shakey for one said it was a point.

outnumbered

[plugger66]

everyone that was there and had a clear angle of it,say it was a clear goal,so they must be lying.....................strange

Yes considering my daughter didnt think it was a clear goal and she had the same sort of angle. She couldnt tell and if it hit the hands first as the goal umpire said it was a mark. If it didnt hit the hands first it may have been a goal. If anyone can tell from the vision if it missed the hands 100% then fine its goal. I cant see how anyone could say that though. Bernard Shakey for one said it was a point.

outnumbered

Yes i am and by saints supporters who go with the goal. Who would have thunk that? By the way I have never said it wasnt a goal. All I have said is there are reasons you couldnt pay it as a goal.

[matrix]

clear goal

[plugger66]

clear goal

Why wasnt it paid a goal then and dont say they hate us. An honest answer would be appreciated. Do you think it hit his hands first?

[matrix]

because i think it was a goal pluggsy
thats all that matters

calling the goal umpire a cheat would be numpty like