Mooney goal - touched by Dawson
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Gotta look at it from the ump's perspective too. He saw a swing of a boot and a ball being propelled towards him. We have the luxury of many camera angles and slow motion replays. The umpire on the other hand doesn't. He can't be blamed for his decision as he's only human.
Heck, even with camera angles and replays, there are still differences of opinions on whether it was touched or not.
Heck, even with camera angles and replays, there are still differences of opinions on whether it was touched or not.
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
Gilbert clearly DIDN'T touch that ball. And the Dawson one was just too close to call.Saint Bev wrote:Clearly, Zac touched it and deflected the ball. Then there was also another goal payed when Sammy G touched the ball. So they were awarded 2 goals that weren't there. So their luck run out in the end. Suck it up you poor loosers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDxEKMfY ... r_embedded
But I totally agree with this
Suck it up you poor losers
Furtius Quo Rdelious
- bigred
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 7:39am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 609 times
watched that replay about six times.
Dawson did really, really well there.
Should have been a behind.
Dawson touched it after it hit mooney's foot.
Umpire was lazy.
LAZY
Dawson did really, really well there.
Should have been a behind.
Dawson touched it after it hit mooney's foot.
Umpire was lazy.
LAZY
"Now the ball is loose, it gives St. Kilda a rough chance. Black. Good handpass. Voss. Schwarze now, the defender, can run and from a long way".....
Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.bigred wrote:watched that replay about six times.
Dawson did really, really well there.
Should have been a behind.
Dawson touched it after it hit mooney's foot.
Umpire was lazy.
LAZY
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18579
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1904 times
- Been thanked: 841 times
Agreed. Last night I was going from what I saw on the scoreboard when I was watching threw one eye. Today after we have actually won the game I watched it many times and pretty much have no doubt it was a correct decsion.bigcarl wrote:You've changed your tune since last night. Where's the consistency?plugger66 wrote:Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.
Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.
Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30089
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.Thinline wrote:Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.
Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.
So should always have been a behind.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
Have you actually thought that he was sure and watching it again I am also sure it was right.saintsRrising wrote:if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.Thinline wrote:Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.
Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.
So should always have been a behind.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18579
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1904 times
- Been thanked: 841 times
So last night you would have paid a point and today you would have paid a goal.plugger66 wrote:Have you actually thought that he was sure and watching it again I am also sure it was right.saintsRrising wrote:if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.Thinline wrote:Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.
Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.
So should always have been a behind.
Damned umpires
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Where's the consistency?
I think it proves 2 eyes are better than one.bigcarl wrote:So last night you would have paid a point and today you would have paid a goal.plugger66 wrote:Have you actually thought that he was sure and watching it again I am also sure it was right.saintsRrising wrote:if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.Thinline wrote:Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.
Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.
So should always have been a behind.
Damned umpires
Where's the consistency?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
I'm not sure anyone could adjudicate that with any certainty.plugger66 wrote:Have you actually thought that he was sure and watching it again I am also sure it was right.saintsRrising wrote:if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.Thinline wrote:Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.
Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.
So should always have been a behind.
Credit to him if he was right. I just don't know that he could have been sure.
Mind you telly angles were side on. He gets front view.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
crap....plugger66 wrote:Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.bigred wrote:watched that replay about six times.
Dawson did really, really well there.
Should have been a behind.
Dawson touched it after it hit mooney's foot.
Umpire was lazy.
LAZY
.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 Life Member
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: Sun 27 Mar 2005 8:29pm
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
The channel seven coverage didn't show it from the view of the camera in the Southern Stand.plugger66 wrote:Have you actually thought that he was sure and watching it again I am also sure it was right.saintsRrising wrote:if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.Thinline wrote:Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.
Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.
So should always have been a behind.
The views they showed on channel 7 are inconclusive imo.
The angle they showed at the ground on the score board showed without doubt that it came off Dawsons hand.
- bigred
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 7:39am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 609 times
You are the AFL's fanboi eh...bigcarl wrote:You've changed your tune since last night. Where's the consistency?plugger66 wrote:Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.
"Now the ball is loose, it gives St. Kilda a rough chance. Black. Good handpass. Voss. Schwarze now, the defender, can run and from a long way".....
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18579
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1904 times
- Been thanked: 841 times
- avid
- Club Player
- Posts: 1619
- Joined: Tue 11 Mar 2008 1:54am
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 86 times
Plugger, you say it went through the goal so quickly, but it actually went through quite slowly, which made me think it was touched even before I saw the replay. Like it was squeezed or slapped into the ground by hand.plugger66 wrote:Agreed. Last night I was going from what I saw on the scoreboard when I was watching threw one eye. Today after we have actually won the game I watched it many times and pretty much have no doubt it was a correct decsion.bigcarl wrote:You've changed your tune since last night. Where's the consistency?plugger66 wrote:Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.
The replays are surprisingly inconclusive. In most of them it looks like Zac's hand is in between the boot and the ball. In one, though, it looks like the ball was kicked (slightly) from behind Dawson's hand. On balance, I reckon it's a point.
What annoys me is not the umpire's decision -- impossibly hard, and in any case we know we are always going to get a percentage of incorrect close judgement calls: it's an inevitable part of our great game -- it's the lack of balance in the press coverage of the Mooney in-the-back decision and how the umpiring cost Geelong the game. Any Geelong bleating is surely balanced by this goal that should/could have been a point, and by the limp-arm-on-the-shoulder decision that got Johnston his goal. Etc.
I feel very satisfied that net umpiring justice was reflected in the final score.
I will say it again. Dawson hit the ball into the ground, if no one else touched it , it wouldnt have had enough momentum to go through the goals so there is only one way that could have happened. Anyway who gives a stuff we won and we also cant chance the result of the decsion and for saying that isnt the point, no amount of whinging about it will change it.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 9:11pm
- Location: Behind the goal, South Road end
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Can anyone confirm that the video shown at the ground is different from that shown on TV?
When I watched the replay at the ground in slow-mo it looked as if Mooney's boot didn't actually get with 6 inches of the ball. I was convinced he didn't touch it.
Watched again on Bigpond today and ran the incident in freeze frame many times and it's far less certain.
When I watched the replay at the ground in slow-mo it looked as if Mooney's boot didn't actually get with 6 inches of the ball. I was convinced he didn't touch it.
Watched again on Bigpond today and ran the incident in freeze frame many times and it's far less certain.
- bigred
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 7:39am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 609 times
Horseapples.plugger66 wrote:I will say it again. Dawson hit the ball into the ground, if no one else touched it , it wouldnt have had enough momentum to go through the goals so there is only one way that could have happened. Anyway who gives a stuff we won and we also cant chance the result of the decsion and for saying that isnt the point, no amount of whinging about it will change it.
"Now the ball is loose, it gives St. Kilda a rough chance. Black. Good handpass. Voss. Schwarze now, the defender, can run and from a long way".....