It's that 2009 Hawkins goal again...

philtee · Post: # 1169933Post **philtee** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 12:02am

Yes, well, we all have our entrenched positions on the Hawkins "goal" in the 2009 Grand Final.
But Cats CEO Brian Cook delivers a pearler of a quote in today's on-line Age article about the AFL
introducing "hawk-eye" goal-line technology -

''I don't think we can back away from this any more. The error worked against us in the (2011) grand final,
and for us two years ago with Tom Hawkins. You'd hate to think it could ever decide a premiership.''

Gee Brian, there's a good chance it has !

Little Dozer · Fri 28 Oct 2011 12:44am

It certainly cost us the premiership. An inexcusable mistake that could only happen to St Kilda. The fact that Cook has even mentioned it is amazing. The football world in general don't seem to pay much credence to the incident. Personally it makes my blood boil.

Sainternist · Fri 28 Oct 2011 1:54am

Somebody please tell me that goal umpire never got a gig to umpire an AFL match again.

carnasaints55 · Fri 28 Oct 2011 3:47am

I find this moment infinitely more frustrating than the toepoke goal at the end. Really bothers me down to my core. Only to St Kilda could that kind of decision happen in such a close game...

meher baba · Fri 28 Oct 2011 5:17am

It was a inexcusable incident, as was the similar one in this year's GF. Yes, everyone makes mistakes, but the main task of a goal umpire is to detect this sort of occurrence.

There is clearly a strong case for technology to be brought into play here.

All that said, I think the idea that the Hawkins "goal" cost us the 2009 GF is far-fetched. It was only one of probably a dozen or more wrong umpiring calls which directly or indirectly resulted in a goal to one or other team. This happens every game and that's football.

saintspremiers · Fri 28 Oct 2011 5:55am

Well said MB. It didn't cost us the GF.

Milney's bounce may not have either.

But it's about bloody time they use replays, or employ 4 goal umpires !

bergholt · Post: # 1169944Post **bergholt** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 6:30am

meher baba wrote:All that said, I think the idea that the Hawkins "goal" cost us the 2009 GF is far-fetched. It was only one of probably a dozen or more wrong umpiring calls which directly or indirectly resulted in a goal to one or other team. This happens every game and that's football.

yup. it was directly counter-balanced by the double goal against milburn later in the same quarter. that was a fairly uncommon and frankly dubious decision which went in our favour, and if we'd won the game there would have beeb massive scrutiny of it instead.

Enrico_Misso · Fri 28 Oct 2011 7:27am

Does anyone know the name of THAT goal umpire?

kosifantutti23 · Fri 28 Oct 2011 7:30am

Enrico_Misso wrote:Does anyone know the name of THAT goal umpire?

Ross Lyon

Dr Spaceman · Fri 28 Oct 2011 7:41am

kosifantutti23 wrote:
Enrico_Misso wrote:Does anyone know the name of THAT goal umpire?
Ross Lyon

Grant Thomas?

meher baba · Fri 28 Oct 2011 8:02am

saintspremiers wrote:Well said MB. It didn't cost us the GF.

Milney's bounce may not have either.

But it's about bloody time they use replays, or employ 4 goal umpires !

Yes, there are errors and errors. Whether or not the ball smashed into the goal post isn't a judgement call.

The goal umpire wasn't paying sufficient attention to what was going on. Some dirt or the sun might have gotten in his eye, he might have been distracted by something going on in the crowd, he might have been caught up in watching the action, he might have been standing in the wrong spot, the shot for goal might have have come when he wasn't expecting it.

It doesn't really matter what the excuse was. It was his job, and nobody else's, to notice what he failed to detect. A field umpire has to adjudicate on dozens of things every minute. The goal IMO simply has to adjudicate on a few dozen shots for goal every game: whether they were goals, shots that missed and went for behinds or out of bounds, and a few posters, rushed behinds and touched off the boots. By rights, he should have a 100% success rate. If he (or she) can't achieve this, what use is he (or she), given that we now have plenty of other officials running around on the field who can get things right most of the time.

The missed posters in the 2009 and 2011 GFs were therefore major fails at the most inappropriate times imaginable. I would consider doing away with the goal umps altogether and going with technology (with the field umps as a fallback in case the technology is inconclusive). It would be the end of a tradition but one that has shown itself to be a useless tradition.

IMO

8856brother · Fri 28 Oct 2011 8:08am

Enrico_Misso wrote:Does anyone know the name of THAT goal umpire?

Hutchy

Ajer · Post: # 1169960Post **Ajer** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 8:24am

Big lol at the people saying that the Hawkins "goal" cost us the Grand Final. What about the goals Adam Schneider and Steve Milne missed? Or can those two misses be forgiven because of biasy?

Anyway. Who is to say that if the Hawkins goal was correctly called a behind (which it should of been) that from the kick out we kick it straight back to Geelong and they kick a goal anyway? In a game of hypotheticals anything can happen. One moment out of thousands and thousands of moments in a game does not cost you. We lost by 12 points anyway, not sure how people say that cost us the game...

Dan Warna · Post: # 1169965Post **Dan Warna** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 8:59am

sirengate, lights out at waverley, whispers in the sky, bakers suspension on mystery evidence, Cousins mystery Jab and insta-recovery, the 40 minute quarter in the late 80s when the siren didn't go, resulting in a carlton victory.

All clubs have them, but from a st kilda perspective we seem specially blessed

St Chris · Post: # 1169973Post **St Chris** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 9:37am

The one this year was a hell of a lot more dubious.

In 2009, Hawkins snapped the ball, the umpire was moving really quickly to try and get in line with the shot, and it looked, certainly to the naked eye at the ground, that it was a goal. It wasn't until I saw replays later that it was obvious what had happened.

This year, the goal umpire was perfectly positioned, motioned to call a behind, then knowingly changed his mind and signalled a goal.

We didn't lose the 2009 flag because of a poor umpiring decision, we lost it because our players choked in front of goal.

matrix · Post: # 1170044Post **matrix** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 11:00am

shesh i didnt realize a goal was worth 12 points?

SaintPav · Post: # 1170069Post **SaintPav** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 11:40am

saintspremiers wrote:Well said MB. It didn't cost us the GF.

Milney's bounce may not have either.

But it's about bloody time they use replays, or employ 4 goal umpires !

You really don't get it.

The bounce did not cost us the GF but it is obvious that a bit of luck here and there in both GF probably would have made a difference given how close it was.

gringo · Post: # 1170074Post **gringo** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 11:54am

matrix wrote:shesh i didnt realize a goal was worth 12 points?

The last goal was allowed to dribble through after the siren because the saints had no reason to walk over and stop the ball going through. It was a one goal game until after the siren. That goal may have cost us a flag, it regained Geelong some momentum and that was probably more costly than the score differential.

Rosco · Post: # 1170107Post **Rosco** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 1:35pm

gringo wrote:
matrix wrote:shesh i didnt realize a goal was worth 12 points?

The last goal was allowed to dribble through after the siren because the saints had no reason to walk over and stop the ball going through. It was a one goal game until after the siren. That goal may have cost us a flag, it regained Geelong some momentum and that was probably more costly than the score differential.

yeah, it really comes down to the butterfly effect. it may or it may not have cost us, we will never know, but it was wrong and wrong enough that something should at least be trialed as a means of reducing such errors.

Spud · Post: # 1170110Post **Spud** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 1:43pm

Little Dozer wrote:It certainly cost us the premiership. An inexcusable mistake that could only happen to St Kilda. The fact that Cook has even mentioned it is amazing. The football world in general don't seem to pay much credence to the incident. Personally it makes my blood boil.

Absolutely astounding really! It seems whenever these things happen to the bigger clubs such decisions are a glaring error, but with our club there is not even a passing comment by the media on this. It's as if it never happened.

Rosco · Post: # 1170112Post **Rosco** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 1:45pm

philtee wrote:Yes, well, we all have our entrenched positions on the Hawkins "goal" in the 2009 Grand Final.
But Cats CEO Brian Cook delivers a pearler of a quote in today's on-line Age article about the AFL
introducing "hawk-eye" goal-line technology -

''I don't think we can back away from this any more. The error worked against us in the (2011) grand final,
and for us two years ago with Tom Hawkins. You'd hate to think it could ever decide a premiership.''

Gee Brian, there's a good chance it has !

btw, he's right, i do hate thinking about this.

Life Long Saint · Fri 28 Oct 2011 2:13pm

No need to introduce technology or more goal umpires just a slight adjustment to the rules is needed.

If the ball crosses the line between the goals, then it is a goal.
If the ball crosses the line between the point post and goal post then it is a point.
If the ball hits the goal post and doesn't cross the line then it is a point.
If the ball hist the point post and doesn't cross the line then it is out of bounds.
The last two could be changed to play on but that is a fundamental change to the game.

The game would not be worse off for this rule change and all of a sudden the most contentious and error-prone goal umpiring decisions are gone!

8856brother · Fri 28 Oct 2011 7:38pm

matrix wrote:shesh i didnt realize a goal was worth 12 points?

If you add the one they got within 10 seconds of the following centre bounce it adds up to 12 points

Net net, we lost by 1 point

gringo · Post: # 1170304Post **gringo** » Fri 28 Oct 2011 10:19pm

Life Long Saint wrote:No need to introduce technology or more goal umpires just a slight adjustment to the rules is needed.

If the ball crosses the line between the goals, then it is a goal.
If the ball crosses the line between the point post and goal post then it is a point.
If the ball hits the goal post and doesn't cross the line then it is a point.
If the ball hist the point post and doesn't cross the line then it is out of bounds.
The last two could be changed to play on but that is a fundamental change to the game.

The game would not be worse off for this rule change and all of a sudden the most contentious and error-prone goal umpiring decisions are gone!

They would still see it go the wrong side.

Life Long Saint · Fri 28 Oct 2011 10:32pm

gringo wrote:
Life Long Saint wrote:No need to introduce technology or more goal umpires just a slight adjustment to the rules is needed.

If the ball crosses the line between the goals, then it is a goal.
If the ball crosses the line between the point post and goal post then it is a point.
If the ball hits the goal post and doesn't cross the line then it is a point.
If the ball hist the point post and doesn't cross the line then it is out of bounds.
The last two could be changed to play on but that is a fundamental change to the game.

The game would not be worse off for this rule change and all of a sudden the most contentious and error-prone goal umpiring decisions are gone!
They would still see it go the wrong side.

Those errors are very, very rare.

It's that 2009 Hawkins goal again...

It's that 2009 Hawkins goal again...

Re: It's that 2009 Hawkins goal again...