new rule

[thesaint3]

Did the umpire on friday make up a rule.Free kick to goddard he plays on and the umpire calls him back because the man on the mark was still on the ground.???

[Life Long Saint]

I think they made up a few...

Free against Milera for not getting out the way quick enough when a player run with his head down straight at him...
No mark to Wilkes for a clear one grab mark near the boundary. Boundary ump threw it in.

[Mr Magic]

It was a practice match for the umpires as well as the players.

BUT the best one for me was the disputed 9 point goal to Geelong.
What's the point of hving a video referral system when teh video cannot possbily show anything resembling accurate vision?
and I have no idea if the call was correct/wrong.
Merely that it seems nonsensical to use down the ground vision for a goal-line decision.

[saintbrat]

Did the umpire on friday make up a rule.Free kick to goddard he plays on and the umpire calls him back because the man on the mark was still on the ground.???

was it the former player that called that one- his sense of' 'is he ok' kicking in...

[saintspremiers]

It was a practice match for the umpires as well as the players.

BUT the best one for me was the disputed 9 point goal to Geelong.
What's the point of hving a video referral system when teh video cannot possbily show anything resembling accurate vision?
and I have no idea if the call was correct/wrong.
Merely that it seems nonsensical to use down the ground vision for a goal-line decision.

One would think Anderscum would've been aware of this eh?

Nah, not likely.

[saintDal]

It was a practice match for the umpires as well as the players.

BUT the best one for me was the disputed 9 point goal to Geelong.
What's the point of hving a video referral system when teh video cannot possbily show anything resembling accurate vision?
and I have no idea if the call was correct/wrong.
Merely that it seems nonsensical to use down the ground vision for a goal-line decision.

Did the umpires decide that the footage was inconclusive? If it was then I was under the impression that they take the lesser score which would have been a point. The footage they showed hardly proved anything either way.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

I would say (because of the result of that video referral being 9 points) that they go with the original decision (which was 9 points), if it proves inconclusive. At the game I was sure that if he touched it, it was not over the line and having seen it several times since, I'm still almost certain it wasn't over the line/behind the padding of the post, as his body looked well inside the post and his arm wasn't reaching back that far.
The video replay was useful for that accidental soccer off the ground that bounced through for a goal at the other end, though. If they bring it in for the regular season, I imagine they will have a camera between the posts, to give a far better view. They're probably just trialling the rule, to see how much time it takes and how much it slows the game up and so on.

[plugger66]

It was a practice match for the umpires as well as the players.

BUT the best one for me was the disputed 9 point goal to Geelong.
What's the point of hving a video referral system when teh video cannot possbily show anything resembling accurate vision?
and I have no idea if the call was correct/wrong.
Merely that it seems nonsensical to use down the ground vision for a goal-line decision.

One would think Anderscum would've been aware of this eh?

Nah, not likely.

You are a fantastic guy. I am due to bash my grandmother. Are you going to Wangaratta?