Goal Umpiring
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Goal Umpiring
Happy we won but might it have been more comfortable? Anyone else reckon the Dawson goal was clearly a point. Also I only saw one replay but I could have sworn I saw the Varcoe angled goal hit the padding.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18580
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1906 times
- Been thanked: 843 times
Re: Goal Umpiring
there should be an inquiry into it. how anyone could miss zac's fist is beyond me.
rank incompetence that could have cost the better team on the night the match.
rank incompetence that could have cost the better team on the night the match.
Re: Goal Umpiring
It is called a mistake. It happens. Are you suggeste=ing the goal umpires cheated?bigcarl wrote:there should be an inquiry into it. how anyone could miss zac's fist is beyond me.
rank incompetence that could have cost the better team on the night the match.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1315
- Joined: Tue 15 Sep 2009 10:28pm
- Been thanked: 11 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18580
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1906 times
- Been thanked: 843 times
Re: Goal Umpiring
no, i called him incompetent.plugger66 wrote:It is called a mistake. It happens. Are you suggeste=ing the goal umpires cheated?bigcarl wrote:there should be an inquiry into it. how anyone could miss zac's fist is beyond me.
rank incompetence that could have cost the better team on the night the match.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Sun 21 Jun 2009 11:12am
They are supposed to take the 'lesser' according to the rules.saintsareprettygoodhey wrote:I thought it was a fair call. When hand/boot touch at the same time they generally go the way of the boot. Happened to us in prelim last year against the dogs and we got the better end of the stick... Go figure.
Same applies for potential out on the full/boundry throw ins. If they are in doubt, the take the 'lesser' which would be a throw in, or in our case, the point.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Re: Goal Umpiring
look, I don't blame the goal umpire.bigcarl wrote:no, i called him incompetent.plugger66 wrote:It is called a mistake. It happens. Are you suggeste=ing the goal umpires cheated?bigcarl wrote:there should be an inquiry into it. how anyone could miss zac's fist is beyond me.
rank incompetence that could have cost the better team on the night the match.
I don't blame the field umpires or boundary umpires for that matter.
I BLAME the AFL for being so farking ignorant to the use of technology for goal umpiring decisions.
Why can't they have a challenge system like in Tennis?
Give each team, say, 2 challenges (or maybe 3) per match......get 3 wrong, and no more, get them right, and it stays a live challenge.
Surely that is not too hard an idea for Dimwit and Monkey boy to get their collective "heads" around??
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
If the ball is kicked with a hand on it , it should be paid a goal. I actually think Zac punched it threw but who cares.#1GILL wrote:They are supposed to take the 'lesser' according to the rules.saintsareprettygoodhey wrote:I thought it was a fair call. When hand/boot touch at the same time they generally go the way of the boot. Happened to us in prelim last year against the dogs and we got the better end of the stick... Go figure.
Same applies for potential out on the full/boundry throw ins. If they are in doubt, the take the 'lesser' which would be a throw in, or in our case, the point.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
you never do Tugger.plugger66 wrote:If the ball is kicked with a hand on it , it should be paid a goal. I actually think Zac punched it threw but who cares.#1GILL wrote:They are supposed to take the 'lesser' according to the rules.saintsareprettygoodhey wrote:I thought it was a fair call. When hand/boot touch at the same time they generally go the way of the boot. Happened to us in prelim last year against the dogs and we got the better end of the stick... Go figure.
Same applies for potential out on the full/boundry throw ins. If they are in doubt, the take the 'lesser' which would be a throw in, or in our case, the point.
You are the biggest AFL-lacky this site has ever seen....
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
- St Chris
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2153
- Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006 2:20pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 41 times
I believe the kicking in danger "interpretation" was changed that their needed to be an intent to injure, which is impossible to pay anymore.fonz_#15 wrote:another question.. whatever happened to the kicking in danger rule? Zac's hands would have been kicked on that play, thus being kicking in danger.
it looked touched from where i was behind the goals.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18580
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1906 times
- Been thanked: 843 times
Re: Goal Umpiring
i do. a decision like that will cost a team a premiership one day ... or even a very important final like today's.plugger66 wrote:I actually think Zac punched it threw but who cares.
umpires should think before they decide to play god. there is a lot riding on their decisions.
it was a turning point in the match, compounded by the rain and gave geelong a glimmer when they deserved none.
Last edited by bigcarl on Sat 04 Sep 2010 1:17am, edited 1 time in total.
actually they are instructed to pay the lower score......plugger66 wrote:If the ball is kicked with a hand on it , it should be paid a goal. I actually think Zac punched it threw but who cares.#1GILL wrote:They are supposed to take the 'lesser' according to the rules.saintsareprettygoodhey wrote:I thought it was a fair call. When hand/boot touch at the same time they generally go the way of the boot. Happened to us in prelim last year against the dogs and we got the better end of the stick... Go figure.
Same applies for potential out on the full/boundry throw ins. If they are in doubt, the take the 'lesser' which would be a throw in, or in our case, the point.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
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
Why because I dont care after winning. I think it is hilarous that anyone would care after one of our best wins ever. Hilarous.saintspremiers wrote:you never do Tugger.plugger66 wrote:If the ball is kicked with a hand on it , it should be paid a goal. I actually think Zac punched it threw but who cares.#1GILL wrote:They are supposed to take the 'lesser' according to the rules.saintsareprettygoodhey wrote:I thought it was a fair call. When hand/boot touch at the same time they generally go the way of the boot. Happened to us in prelim last year against the dogs and we got the better end of the stick... Go figure.
Same applies for potential out on the full/boundry throw ins. If they are in doubt, the take the 'lesser' which would be a throw in, or in our case, the point.
You are the biggest AFL-lacky this site has ever seen....
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Tue 30 May 2006 7:34pm
- Location: the new home of the saints :)
i'd say thats the case too, just a comment in jest to make light of the issue.St Chris wrote:I believe the kicking in danger "interpretation" was changed that their needed to be an intent to injure, which is impossible to pay anymore.fonz_#15 wrote:another question.. whatever happened to the kicking in danger rule? Zac's hands would have been kicked on that play, thus being kicking in danger.
it looked touched from where i was behind the goals.
go saints
Robert Harvey- Simply the best
- 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
So if we had lost by 2 points are we just expected to cop it?
There is an excellent case that the Hawkins goal cost us a Premiership.
When is the AFL going to do something about this.
Had we lost we are condemned to play each week and come up against Coll in the Prelim making the Premiership very very hard.
But with the win we should get a smooth ride into the GF.
THAT is how significant that blatant error could have been.
There is an excellent case that the Hawkins goal cost us a Premiership.
When is the AFL going to do something about this.
Had we lost we are condemned to play each week and come up against Coll in the Prelim making the Premiership very very hard.
But with the win we should get a smooth ride into the GF.
THAT is how significant that blatant error could have been.
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!
Sorry I thought we won.Enrico_Misso wrote:So if we had lost by 2 points are we just expected to cop it?
There is an excellent case that the Hawkins goal cost us a Premiership.
When is the AFL going to do something about this.
Had we lost we are condemned to play each week and come up against Coll in the Prelim making the Premiership very very hard.
But with the win we should get a smooth ride into the GF.
THAT is how significant that blatant error could have been.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
You are the Hilarious one plugger.plugger66 wrote:Why because I dont care after winning. I think it is hilarous that anyone would care after one of our best wins ever. Hilarous.saintspremiers wrote:you never do Tugger.plugger66 wrote:If the ball is kicked with a hand on it , it should be paid a goal. I actually think Zac punched it threw but who cares.#1GILL wrote:They are supposed to take the 'lesser' according to the rules.saintsareprettygoodhey wrote:I thought it was a fair call. When hand/boot touch at the same time they generally go the way of the boot. Happened to us in prelim last year against the dogs and we got the better end of the stick... Go figure.
Same applies for potential out on the full/boundry throw ins. If they are in doubt, the take the 'lesser' which would be a throw in, or in our case, the point.
You are the biggest AFL-lacky this site has ever seen....
So you don't give a stuff because we won?
What about if it happens in a GF AND we lose by under a goal?
Will you ever care, or will do you spend your whole life so far up the AFL's Jatz Cracker that you never see daylight???
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
And what should happen. Should we just whinge, why us or they are picking on us. I choose to go to the footy thinking everything is level and after tonight I am sure. They got a goal that didnt look like it was and we got a free after I thought we had lost. Swings and roundabouts unless of course you think the world is against us.saintspremiers wrote:You are the Hilarious one plugger.plugger66 wrote:Why because I dont care after winning. I think it is hilarous that anyone would care after one of our best wins ever. Hilarous.saintspremiers wrote:you never do Tugger.plugger66 wrote:If the ball is kicked with a hand on it , it should be paid a goal. I actually think Zac punched it threw but who cares.#1GILL wrote:They are supposed to take the 'lesser' according to the rules.saintsareprettygoodhey wrote:I thought it was a fair call. When hand/boot touch at the same time they generally go the way of the boot. Happened to us in prelim last year against the dogs and we got the better end of the stick... Go figure.
Same applies for potential out on the full/boundry throw ins. If they are in doubt, the take the 'lesser' which would be a throw in, or in our case, the point.
You are the biggest AFL-lacky this site has ever seen....
So you don't give a stuff because we won?
What about if it happens in a GF AND we lose by under a goal?
Will you ever care, or will do you spend your whole life so far up the AFL's Jatz Cracker that you never see daylight???
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Um, Mr Plugger, I actually posted a possible solution to this tripe if you bothered to read my other post about using technology.plugger66 wrote:And what should happen. Should we just whinge, why us or they are picking on us. I choose to go to the footy thinking everything is level and after tonight I am sure. They got a goal that didnt look like it was and we got a free after I thought we had lost. Swings and roundabouts unless of course you think the world is against us.saintspremiers wrote:You are the Hilarious one plugger.plugger66 wrote:Why because I dont care after winning. I think it is hilarous that anyone would care after one of our best wins ever. Hilarous.saintspremiers wrote:you never do Tugger.plugger66 wrote:If the ball is kicked with a hand on it , it should be paid a goal. I actually think Zac punched it threw but who cares.#1GILL wrote:They are supposed to take the 'lesser' according to the rules.saintsareprettygoodhey wrote:I thought it was a fair call. When hand/boot touch at the same time they generally go the way of the boot. Happened to us in prelim last year against the dogs and we got the better end of the stick... Go figure.
Same applies for potential out on the full/boundry throw ins. If they are in doubt, the take the 'lesser' which would be a throw in, or in our case, the point.
You are the biggest AFL-lacky this site has ever seen....
So you don't give a stuff because we won?
What about if it happens in a GF AND we lose by under a goal?
Will you ever care, or will do you spend your whole life so far up the AFL's Jatz Cracker that you never see daylight???
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18580
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1906 times
- Been thanked: 843 times
Next season.saintspremiers wrote:Um, Mr Plugger, I actually posted a possible solution to this tripe if you bothered to read my other post about using technology.plugger66 wrote:And what should happen. Should we just whinge, why us or they are picking on us. I choose to go to the footy thinking everything is level and after tonight I am sure. They got a goal that didnt look like it was and we got a free after I thought we had lost. Swings and roundabouts unless of course you think the world is against us.saintspremiers wrote:You are the Hilarious one plugger.plugger66 wrote:Why because I dont care after winning. I think it is hilarous that anyone would care after one of our best wins ever. Hilarous.saintspremiers wrote:you never do Tugger.plugger66 wrote:If the ball is kicked with a hand on it , it should be paid a goal. I actually think Zac punched it threw but who cares.#1GILL wrote:They are supposed to take the 'lesser' according to the rules.saintsareprettygoodhey wrote:I thought it was a fair call. When hand/boot touch at the same time they generally go the way of the boot. Happened to us in prelim last year against the dogs and we got the better end of the stick... Go figure.
Same applies for potential out on the full/boundry throw ins. If they are in doubt, the take the 'lesser' which would be a throw in, or in our case, the point.
You are the biggest AFL-lacky this site has ever seen....
So you don't give a stuff because we won?
What about if it happens in a GF AND we lose by under a goal?
Will you ever care, or will do you spend your whole life so far up the AFL's Jatz Cracker that you never see daylight???
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16898
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3585 times
- Been thanked: 2853 times