What was with that goal umpire!
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
What was with that goal umpire!
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.
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 rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
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?
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?
Feature article: KFC's "Double Down" burger!
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: What was with that goal umpire!
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.Enrico_Misso wrote: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.
Re: What was with that goal umpire!
Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.degruch wrote: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.Enrico_Misso wrote: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.
No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.
Last edited by plugger66 on Tue 01 Jun 2010 3:02pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
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.
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.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
- Moccha
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4528
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 3:33pm
- Location: Two Pronged Attack
- Contact:
Re: What was with that goal umpire!
It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.plugger66 wrote:Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.degruch wrote: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.Enrico_Misso wrote: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.
No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.
It's quite clear on the TV replay
Are you Jeff Geishen?
Another opportunity awaits!
Re: What was with that goal umpire!
And your point is?Moccha wrote:It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.plugger66 wrote:Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.degruch wrote: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.Enrico_Misso wrote: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.
No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.
It's quite clear on the TV replay
Are you Jeff Geishen?
- mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7077
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 12:29am
- Location: everywhere
- Has thanked: 47 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Looked on the line to me but who would know.derby Street wrote: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.
- Moccha
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4528
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 3:33pm
- Location: Two Pronged Attack
- Contact:
Re: What was with that goal umpire!
My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.plugger66 wrote:And your point is?Moccha wrote:It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.plugger66 wrote:Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.degruch wrote: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.Enrico_Misso wrote: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.
No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.
It's quite clear on the TV replay
Are you Jeff Geishen?
Another opportunity awaits!
Re: What was with that goal umpire!
So what was wrong with the final decision?Moccha wrote:My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.plugger66 wrote:And your point is?Moccha wrote:It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.plugger66 wrote:Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.degruch wrote: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.Enrico_Misso wrote: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.
No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.
It's quite clear on the TV replay
Are you Jeff Geishen?
- bobmurray
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7908
- Joined: Mon 03 Oct 2005 11:08pm
- Location: In the stand at RSEA Park.
- Has thanked: 537 times
- Been thanked: 244 times
Re: What was with that goal umpire!
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...plugger66 wrote:So what was wrong with the final decision?Moccha wrote:My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.plugger66 wrote:And your point is?Moccha wrote:It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.plugger66 wrote:Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.degruch wrote:Enrico_Misso wrote: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.
No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.
It's quite clear on the TV replay
Are you Jeff Geishen?
Will we pick up a player in the SSP window
At the very least it should have been a behind, as I think it did rolled into the post after hitting the umpire.
Feature article: KFC's "Double Down" burger!
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
Re: What was with that goal umpire!
May have been a point if it hit the post but if the umpire didnt see that it is no score.bobmurray wrote: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...plugger66 wrote:So what was wrong with the final decision?Moccha wrote:My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.plugger66 wrote:And your point is?Moccha wrote:It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.plugger66 wrote:Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.degruch wrote:Enrico_Misso wrote: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.
No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.
It's quite clear on the TV replay
Are you Jeff Geishen?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1497
- Joined: Wed 24 Mar 2004 11:45am
Re: What was with that goal umpire!
Lol, thanks for that, any other pearls of wisdom...?plugger66 wrote:May have been a point if it hit the post but if the umpire didnt see that it is no score.bobmurray wrote: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...plugger66 wrote:So what was wrong with the final decision?Moccha wrote:My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.plugger66 wrote:And your point is?Moccha wrote:It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.plugger66 wrote:Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.degruch wrote:Enrico_Misso wrote: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.
No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.
It's quite clear on the TV replay
Are you Jeff Geishen?
Re: What was with that goal umpire!
Sainterman wrote:plugger66 wrote:May have been a point if it hit the post but if the umpire didnt see that it is no score.bobmurray wrote: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...plugger66 wrote:So what was wrong with the final decision?Moccha wrote:My point is that you are wrong and only Jeff Geishen could support the umpires like you do. So do the maths.plugger66 wrote:And your point is?Moccha wrote:It wasn't quite fully over the line because the goal umpires leg stopped it.plugger66 wrote:Wrong. Not quite fully over the line so even though very unlucky was nevera goal. Was a point because it hit the post.degruch wrote:Enrico_Misso wrote: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.
No doubt very unlucky but that is the rule.
It's quite clear on the TV replay
Are you Jeff Geishen?
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...?
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
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
Forget the past, Saints footy, One better in 2010
- Schillaci
- Club Player
- Posts: 1353
- Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008 7:00pm
- Location: Auckland
- Been thanked: 12 times
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.
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.
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6338
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 1123 times
Aside from the question of Stanley's knee etc - Plugger - tell us why it did not cross the line?plugger66 wrote: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.
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.
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
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 wrote:Aside from the question of Stanley's knee etc - Plugger - tell us why it did not cross the line?plugger66 wrote: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.
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.
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6338
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 1123 times
lol - I think thats all the baying mob wants to hear!plugger66 wrote: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 wrote:Aside from the question of Stanley's knee etc - Plugger - tell us why it did not cross the line?plugger66 wrote: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.
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.
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
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)
Imagine if that stuff up happened in the grand final (whoops, something similar already has)
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5109
- Joined: Wed 04 Aug 2004 3:18pm
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
And Tom Hawkins confirmed that this morningSolar wrote: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)