Goal umpiring

[mr six o'clock]

Can anyone down the cheersquad end answer this , my seats around row 39 .
From my angle 150 metres ,
I thought milne's goal was easily a goal and in the last , I thought jetta took that mark past the point and goal post , and it should have been a point .
was i wrong ?

[SainterK]

Yep way past the line that mark...

I don't get why they check some and not others.

[gringo]

Both looked like it where I was too. Was up high though. Hate the reviews when they take ages and looked obvious anyway- robs atmosphere from the game with delays.

[St.Carl]

If Jetta's was a mark then he must have been in the field of play. But he went back between the point and goal posts then ran around the point post to play on. How can that be allowed as play on? I would have thought that, having been out of bounds, he would have to take his mark and then wait until the umpire called play on?

As for the 'video review' - pure time wasting by the umpires. It was always a goal. The vision shown was pathetic and had no hope of ever showing what happened. Either invest in decent video coverage or get the goal umpires to do their job and watch the ball.

A good win though despite these umpiring annoyances.

[Enrico_Misso]

Goal ump got both decisions wrong.

First the Milne one was clearly over the line before it was touched.
Should never have been referred.
Any competent umpire should have realised that - he was ony a couple of metres away.
He obviously had doubts and decided to refer it.
But that was a cop-out!

Second the Jetta one was clearly a point.
If he had any doubt then he should have referred it like the first.
If he didn't have any doubts then clearly he is blind and unfit to umpire at senior level.

[saintdooley]

Milnes was a goal for sure.
watched parts of the replay and although at the time i wasnt so leniant, he explained himself very well. in the replay you clearly hear him say to the feild ump something on the lines of...I'm sure it was a goal but was blocked so want to confirm. I dont see why it took more than 10 seconds though.

[gringo]

If Jetta's was a mark then he must have been in the field of play. But he went back between the point and goal posts then ran around the point post to play on. How can that be allowed as play on? I would have thought that, having been out of bounds, he would have to take his mark and then wait until the umpire called play on?

As for the 'video review' - pure time wasting by the umpires. It was always a goal. The vision shown was pathetic and had no hope of ever showing what happened. Either invest in decent video coverage or get the goal umpires to do their job and watch the ball.

A good win though despite these umpiring annoyances.

I took some French friends to watch the game and the guy watching his second game of AFL live correctly pointed out that if he marked then took off shouldn't it be a live ball and so a point when Jetta ran off his mark. Just as well we don't pay goal umpires money to do their job of refering to an upstairs panel operator. Hope it doesn't come down to a finals spot decided on minute percentages or those little pieces of incompetence look a little stupid.

[The Craw]

Jetta's mark was a good metre over the line. Clearly a point.

[Munga]

Also the swans player that took a "mark" when clearly it hit the ground first. He kicked the goal, why isn't there goal reviews for that?
The entire system is stupid, get rid of it.

[gringo]

Also the swans player that took a "mark" when clearly it hit the ground first. He kicked the goal, why isn't there goal reviews for that?
The entire system is stupid, get rid of it.

but then freaked out when Montagna marked down low and played it on?

[bergholt]

Also the swans player that took a "mark" when clearly it hit the ground first. He kicked the goal, why isn't there goal reviews for that?

seriously? you're sooking about the umpiring on a night where 90% of the dubious decisions went our way?

[gringo]

Also the swans player that took a "mark" when clearly it hit the ground first. He kicked the goal, why isn't there goal reviews for that?

seriously? you're sooking about the umpiring on a night where 90% of the dubious decisions went our way?

It was poorly umpired and yes in the first half we got them all going our way but then they go all crazy trying to even up the discrepancies. Third quarter started with two soft frees to Sydney just in case it looked like they were favouring us. They didn't seem to care against WCE last week. I will happily stop whining when they stop being crap.

[mr six o'clock]

Also the swans player that took a "mark" when clearly it hit the ground first. He kicked the goal, why isn't there goal reviews for that?

seriously? you're sooking about the umpiring on a night where 90% of the dubious decisions went our way?

It was poorly umpired and yes in the first half we got them all going our way but then they go all crazy trying to even up the discrepancies. Third quarter started with two soft frees to Sydney just in case it looked like they were favouring us. They didn't seem to care against WCE last week. I will happily stop whining when they stop being crap.

Agree !!!!

[Munga]

Also the swans player that took a "mark" when clearly it hit the ground first. He kicked the goal, why isn't there goal reviews for that?

seriously? you're sooking about the umpiring on a night where 90% of the dubious decisions went our way?

No. Read it again champ.
The goal "review" system.

[bergholt]

Also the swans player that took a "mark" when clearly it hit the ground first. He kicked the goal, why isn't there goal reviews for that?

seriously? you're sooking about the umpiring on a night where 90% of the dubious decisions went our way?

No. Read it again champ.
The goal "review" system.

so what do you want the review for? you want a goal review to take into account everything that happened in the whole passage of play?

[kosifantutti]

Also the swans player that took a "mark" when clearly it hit the ground first. He kicked the goal, why isn't there goal reviews for that?
The entire system is stupid, get rid of it.

He didn't kick the goal.

[Munga]

so what do you want the review for? you want a goal review to take into account everything that happened in the whole passage of play?

OK, so you didn't read my original post.
I said the whole thing should be scrapped. I know the AFL has the best intentions, but it's a waste of time and making goal umpires look stupid. The "review" system is still getting decisions incorrect after boring us to death for up to a minute.

[bergholt]

I said the whole thing should be scrapped. I know the AFL has the best intentions, but it's a waste of time and making goal umpires look stupid. The "review" system is still getting decisions incorrect after boring us to death for up to a minute.

but it's getting more decisions correct? the mistakes would have been mistakes under the old system anyway, and some of the decisions which are now correct would have been wrong. isn't it a good thing that it's more correct than it used to be?

and i'm sure the players quite enjoy having a breather for a minute.