The goal that wasn't
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Re: The goal that wasn't
Not sure Damien Hardwick, the AFL and Ump department agree it was 'clearly a behind'
They have already admitted the clear error.
They have already admitted the clear error.
- MCG-Unit
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3149
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 4:04pm
- Location: Land of the Giants
- Has thanked: 536 times
- Been thanked: 20 times
Re: The I/C infringement that wasn't Kosi
This keeps getting brought up - but I think you will find it was Saad who caused the interchange infringement - not Koschitzke.Saintlester wrote: 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.
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
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Last edited by MCG-Unit on Sun 28 Apr 2013 9:56pm, edited 1 time in total.
No Contract, No contact ![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6316
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 262 times
- Been thanked: 1118 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
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?Bernard Shakey wrote: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.
“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!
Re: The goal that wasn't
Sainter_Dad wrote: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?Bernard Shakey wrote: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.
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.
Re: The goal that wasn't
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?!
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?!
Re: The goal that wasn't
BigMart wrote: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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: The goal that wasn't
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 !!
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 !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
![Image](http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o23/saintbrat/9c94369c.jpg)
![Image](http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o23/saintbrat/9c94369c.jpg)
Re: The goal that wasn't
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
The review was far from certain.... You're certain because your making excuses for fools.
Excepting mediocre umpiring standards too....
Theme perhaps
Re: The goal that wasn't
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
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
Re: The goal that wasn't
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 reckonPwoit wrote: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
Re: The goal that wasn't
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?
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?
Re: The goal that wasn't
BigMart wrote: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
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2358
- Joined: Mon 09 Jun 2008 6:58pm
- Location: East of Bentleigh
Re: The goal that wasn't
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.BigMart wrote: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?!
We are all wasting our breath on that person.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 12:37pm
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 94 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
plugger66 wrote: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 reckonPwoit wrote: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
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.
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30091
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
A metre?bigcarl wrote:i was watching it on tv in Melbourne and could see easily that it was a metre over the line.
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
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.
Re: The goal that wasn't
bergsone wrote: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.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2921
- Joined: Mon 28 Apr 2008 4:56pm
- Location: victoria
- Has thanked: 260 times
- Been thanked: 121 times
Re: The goal that wasn't
plugger66 wrote:bergsone wrote: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
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Re: The goal that wasn't
bergsone wrote:plugger66 wrote:bergsone wrote: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.
Re: The goal that wasn't
matrix wrote: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?