Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
stinger wrote:Justin Koschitzke's shot looked like it had made the distance and the goal umpire thought so as well. The field umpire, after consulting with the goal umpire, called for a video review which changed the initial call of a goal to a behind.
the real reason these goal-line reviews are stupid is because there's absolutely no way for them to tell how far across the line the ball is - the camera angles just don't exist. so 95% of the time this is going to come out inconclusive.
i'm not convinced they got the wrong result in this case, but without the correct technology it's pretty hard to defend the time wasted calling for a replay.
CURLY wrote:Herald Sun today reported that goal umpire believed it was a goal as I posted earlier. How the hell that can be dismissef is beyond a joke.
exactly....piss poor imfho......robbed us of momentum....
"4. THERE was just one video review of a goal in the match and it looked like it might decide the outcome when things were close halfway through the last term.
Justin Koschitzke's shot looked like it had made the distance and the goal umpire thought so as well. The field umpire, after consulting with the goal umpire, called for a video review which changed the initial call of a goal to a behind."
Well there is one mistake that we are 100% sure of in that part of the article so who knows if there isnt 2. The video did not change the initial call of a goal to a behind. We know that is 100% wrong so why do we actually think the goal umpire thought it was a goal anyway. I suppose we beleive because we want to blame someone except poor kicking and plenty of players struggling.
So what are you saying then? The goal wasnt played because inconclusuve video footage of the incident was you guessed it inconclusive.So the umpire closest and in the best position got overuled. Staggering that anyone can defend that.
CURLY wrote:So what are you saying then? The goal wasnt played because inconclusuve video footage of the incident was you guessed it inconclusive.So the umpire closest and in the best position got overuled. Staggering that anyone can defend that.
I am saying that if what the HS said is correct, even though part of what they said we know to be 100% wrong, then the goal umpire was weak in changing his mind because as you said he was in the closest position.
However do we know what the HS said was not correct. They were wrong in saying the video changed the initial decision so why arent they also wrong about the umpire saying it was a goal.
Another point I would like to raise here is 50 metre penalties. Why is it that the Saints always give more away than they receive? Is it because our players are less disciplined than our opponents?
Armo was responsible yesterday. How many 50 metres has he given away this season I wonder? Our coaches should get right onto this.
borderbarry wrote:Another point I would like to raise here is 50 metre penalties. Why is it that the Saints always give more away than they receive? Is it because our players are less disciplined than our opponents?
Armo was responsible yesterday. How many 50 metres has he given away this season I wonder? Our coaches should get right onto this.
borderbarry wrote:Another point I would like to raise here is 50 metre penalties. Why is it that the Saints always give more away than they receive? Is it because our players are less disciplined than our opponents?
Armo was responsible yesterday. How many 50 metres has he given away this season I wonder? Our coaches should get right onto this.
didn't goodes give one away yesterday? he's won a couple of brownlows.
Some teams get pinned others have a far larger tolerance granted. The 2010 GF was a prime example of this. Cloke gives a way a blatant free Blair picks up the ball and boots it. Umpire no fifty uses the excuse he hadnt blown his whistle twuce. Later on Saints give away a free free Ray boots the ball umpire pays 50 and they goal.
borderbarry wrote:Another point I would like to raise here is 50 metre penalties. Why is it that the Saints always give more away than they receive? Is it because our players are less disciplined than our opponents?
Armo was responsible yesterday. How many 50 metres has he given away this season I wonder? Our coaches should get right onto this.
I reckon SWatters could bench him. Oh wait he benches him (and all of them) multiple times a match already. No much punishment unless he left him off for a while to let him know that this should not be tolerated.
As ex-president Peter Summers said:
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”
borderbarry wrote:Another point I would like to raise here is 50 metre penalties. Why is it that the Saints always give more away than they receive? Is it because our players are less disciplined than our opponents?
Armo was responsible yesterday. How many 50 metres has he given away this season I wonder? Our coaches should get right onto this.
I reckon SWatters could bench him. Oh wait he benches him (and all of them) multiple times a match already. No much punishment unless he left him off for a while to let him know that this should not be tolerated.
I think the 50m penalties are a non issue. Both teams gave away 1 each. Ours came at a painful point in the game. That's really the only difference.
Thought 50m was a bit harsh against Armo, but the one paid to Dal Santos' was pretty soft as well. Probably both technically there, but all frees and 50s are technically there, some way or another.
matrix wrote:was it mattner who stepped over the mark at a slight angle by about 4cms??
gee that was friggin harsh
He took a big step towards Dal when the umpire had not called play on. I don't know where you got 4cm from. Roosy thought it was OK because he stepped back again.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
