Throw decision against Ross

[CURLY]

It seemed to me that we did extremely well from the umpiring, particularly in the first half - happy to take them but sometimes you just have to pretend the umpire saw something you must have missed. But we got 3(?) goals from 50s, and then the calls for video reviews seemed completely unnecessary. 3 goals to MELBOURNE - each of which looked pretty clearly to be the case. But very very happy to leave the G with a win, particularly as my partner barracks for the Dees and we had a great afternoon together there. Oh, and the Ross decision was fine - he scooped it for sure. Mightn’t have meant too, but it certainly looked scooped.

Two of the video reviews may well have got it wrong.

The commentators all were in agreement that the dees player didn't actually connect his foot with the ball. Even the player shook his head. But the review only looked at whether the ball was touched or not before the line.

Wrong decision.

The second one Brown said that the ball grazes the padding at the top of the post.

The video review was inconclusive so the decision stood.

The commentators said they couldn’t tell whether the ball hit his foot from the 2 dodgy replay angles. The umpire who was three meters away with a perfect angle on it was confident he kicked it, I’m thinking he’s probably got a better idea than anyone watching on a screen.

That’s not true at all.

[The_Dud]

It seemed to me that we did extremely well from the umpiring, particularly in the first half - happy to take them but sometimes you just have to pretend the umpire saw something you must have missed. But we got 3(?) goals from 50s, and then the calls for video reviews seemed completely unnecessary. 3 goals to MELBOURNE - each of which looked pretty clearly to be the case. But very very happy to leave the G with a win, particularly as my partner barracks for the Dees and we had a great afternoon together there. Oh, and the Ross decision was fine - he scooped it for sure. Mightn’t have meant too, but it certainly looked scooped.

Two of the video reviews may well have got it wrong.

The commentators all were in agreement that the dees player didn't actually connect his foot with the ball. Even the player shook his head. But the review only looked at whether the ball was touched or not before the line.

Wrong decision.

The second one Brown said that the ball grazes the padding at the top of the post.

The video review was inconclusive so the decision stood.

The commentators said they couldn’t tell whether the ball hit his foot from the 2 dodgy replay angles. The umpire who was three meters away with a perfect angle on it was confident he kicked it, I’m thinking he’s probably got a better idea than anyone watching on a screen.

That’s not true at all.

That what, the bloke 3 meters away on the perfect angle is in the best position to judge whether it brushed the outside of his boot or not?

[Enrico_Misso]

To throw the ball by definition you must have possession of the ball it was a tap . You cant throw any ball you don't control. Consistent of the worst umpiring performance i have seen for many years ( both ways )

Exactly

[kosifantutti]

It seemed to me that we did extremely well from the umpiring, particularly in the first half - happy to take them but sometimes you just have to pretend the umpire saw something you must have missed. But we got 3(?) goals from 50s, and then the calls for video reviews seemed completely unnecessary. 3 goals to MELBOURNE - each of which looked pretty clearly to be the case. But very very happy to leave the G with a win, particularly as my partner barracks for the Dees and we had a great afternoon together there. Oh, and the Ross decision was fine - he scooped it for sure. Mightn’t have meant too, but it certainly looked scooped.

Two of the video reviews may well have got it wrong.

The commentators all were in agreement that the dees player didn't actually connect his foot with the ball. Even the player shook his head. But the review only looked at whether the ball was touched or not before the line.

Wrong decision.

The second one Brown said that the ball grazes the padding at the top of the post.

The video review was inconclusive so the decision stood.

The commentators said they couldn’t tell whether the ball hit his foot from the 2 dodgy replay angles. The umpire who was three meters away with a perfect angle on it was confident he kicked it, I’m thinking he’s probably got a better idea than anyone watching on a screen.

“I believe that’s a goal” he sounded very confident.

[Scollop]

Scooped it, which is a throw. Should have punched or slapped it.

your nic is so appropriate, you are a complete dud. It was clearly and open hand slap, he never took control of the ball at any stage. There is nothing in the rules to state that you cant hit the ball in the air with an open hand.

According to The_Dud umpires have been negligent and incompetent at ruck contests. Ruckmen palming the footy are throwing it. They need to punch or slap the ball

[saintspremiers]

So which umpire is The Dud?

I’m picking a recently retired one with several chips on both shoulders.

[stevie]

The umps did everything they could to get Shitmantle back into it yesty but eventually caved in when the Lions got way ahead. It was disgraceful

[The_Dud]

Scooped it, which is a throw. Should have punched or slapped it.

your nic is so appropriate, you are a complete dud. It was clearly and open hand slap, he never took control of the ball at any stage. There is nothing in the rules to state that you cant hit the ball in the air with an open hand.

According to The_Dud umpires have been negligent and incompetent at ruck contests. Ruckmen palming the footy are throwing it. They need to punch or slap the ball

If people can’t tell the difference between slapping (palming) the ball and scooping it then I think they have bigger things to worry about than umpiring decisions...

I also just watched the replay, it’s hard to tell live, but the umpire was 5 meters away with a clear view of the incident and he called it straight away (Hogan also indicated it was a throw straight away fwiw) and to think myself, or anyone else, watching on a screen at home would have a better idea of whether it was or was not a throw is plain arrogance.

The fact some people are so stubborn they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that we had a good run with the umpires yesterday is baffling, it’s like the Fonz trying to say he’s sorry!!

[terry smith rules]

Scooped it, which is a throw. Should have punched or slapped it.

He didn't scoop it. It wasn't a throw.

I doubt you even saw the match.

Watch the replay. Even the commentators said it was bulls***.

Certainly was, his hand moved in an upward motion however he never had control of it. You cannot throw a ball if you don't have control of it, it was a tap. Completely incompetent from the Umpire who had a good view of it (as I did) and he needs to be dropped.

Um, from the Rules of the Game
"Part B Definitions

Throw - shall be given its ordinary meaning, but also include the act of propelling the football with one or both hands in a SCOOPING motion. A player does not throw the ball if the player hits, punches or taps the football without taking possession"

It was a scoop as he lifted the ball off the ground (or near it) in an upwards fashion

Free kick all day every day and there should be more paid as players do it all the time

[spert]

Scooped it, which is a throw. Should have punched or slapped it.

He didn't scoop it. It wasn't a throw.

I doubt you even saw the match.

Watch the replay. Even the commentators said it was bulls***.

Certainly was, his hand moved in an upward motion however he never had control of it. You cannot throw a ball if you don't have control of it, it was a tap. Completely incompetent from the Umpire who had a good view of it (as I did) and he needs to be dropped.

Um, from the Rules of the Game
"Part B Definitions

Throw - shall be given its ordinary meaning, but also include the act of propelling the football with one or both hands in a SCOOPING motion. A player does not throw the ball if the player hits, punches or taps the football without taking possession"

It was a scoop as he lifted the ball off the ground (or near it) in an upwards fashion

Free kick all day every day and there should be more paid as players do it all the time

I reckon the Dogs were culprits in their premiership season- never seen so much throwing disguised as handball right in front of umpires...especially in the GF

[saynta]

So which umpire is The Dud?

I’m picking a recently retired one with several chips on both shoulders.

He certainly is a fan of the little maggots.

[saynta]

Scooped it, which is a throw. Should have punched or slapped it.

your nic is so appropriate, you are a complete dud. It was clearly and open hand slap, he never took control of the ball at any stage. There is nothing in the rules to state that you cant hit the ball in the air with an open hand.

According to The_Dud umpires have been negligent and incompetent at ruck contests. Ruckmen palming the footy are throwing it. They need to punch or slap the ball

If people can’t tell the difference between slapping (palming) the ball and scooping it then I think they have bigger things to worry about than umpiring decisions...

I also just watched the replay, it’s hard to tell live, but the umpire was 5 meters away with a clear view of the incident and he called it straight away (Hogan also indicated it was a throw straight away fwiw) and to think myself, or anyone else, watching on a screen at home would have a better idea of whether it was or was not a throw is plain arrogance.

The fact some people are so stubborn they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that we had a good run with the umpires yesterday is baffling, it’s like the Fonz trying to say he’s sorry!!

There you go again. Insulting those that don't see things as you do. This time calling them arrogant.

17 frees to 5 in a half of football ain't a good run with the maggots ffs.

[The_Dud]

Scooped it, which is a throw. Should have punched or slapped it.

your nic is so appropriate, you are a complete dud. It was clearly and open hand slap, he never took control of the ball at any stage. There is nothing in the rules to state that you cant hit the ball in the air with an open hand.

According to The_Dud umpires have been negligent and incompetent at ruck contests. Ruckmen palming the footy are throwing it. They need to punch or slap the ball

If people can’t tell the difference between slapping (palming) the ball and scooping it then I think they have bigger things to worry about than umpiring decisions...

I also just watched the replay, it’s hard to tell live, but the umpire was 5 meters away with a clear view of the incident and he called it straight away (Hogan also indicated it was a throw straight away fwiw) and to think myself, or anyone else, watching on a screen at home would have a better idea of whether it was or was not a throw is plain arrogance.

The fact some people are so stubborn they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that we had a good run with the umpires yesterday is baffling, it’s like the Fonz trying to say he’s sorry!!

There you go again. Insulting those that don't see things as you do. This time calling them arrogant.

17 frees to 5 in a half of football ain't a good run with the maggots ffs.

Again, not insulting, just your generation seems to be more easily offended than others.

And I didn’t call people arrogant, I said it’s arrogance if I or anyone else thinks we can make a better decision live watching on a screen than a person standing 5 meters away, which is 100% true.

On a side note, I love how your strategy of how to reply to me changes weekly, all in lieu of actually just using facts to argue a point. I can’t wait to see what next week brings!

[saynta]

Scooped it, which is a throw. Should have punched or slapped it.

your nic is so appropriate, you are a complete dud. It was clearly and open hand slap, he never took control of the ball at any stage. There is nothing in the rules to state that you cant hit the ball in the air with an open hand.

According to The_Dud umpires have been negligent and incompetent at ruck contests. Ruckmen palming the footy are throwing it. They need to punch or slap the ball

If people can’t tell the difference between slapping (palming) the ball and scooping it then I think they have bigger things to worry about than umpiring decisions...

I also just watched the replay, it’s hard to tell live, but the umpire was 5 meters away with a clear view of the incident and he called it straight away (Hogan also indicated it was a throw straight away fwiw) and to think myself, or anyone else, watching on a screen at home would have a better idea of whether it was or was not a throw is plain arrogance.

The fact some people are so stubborn they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that we had a good run with the umpires yesterday is baffling, it’s like the Fonz trying to say he’s sorry!!

There you go again. Insulting those that don't see things as you do. This time calling them arrogant.

17 frees to 5 in a half of football ain't a good run with the maggots ffs.

Again, not insulting, just your generation seems to be more easily offended than others.

And I didn’t call people arrogant, I said it’s arrogance if I or anyone else thinks we can make a better decision live watching on a screen than a person standing 5 meters away, which is 100% true.

On a side note, I love how your strategy of how to reply to me changes weekly, all in lieu of actually just using facts to argue a point. I can’t wait to see what next week brings!

There you go again.

Fact. 17 frees to 5 after half time isn't "a good run." Exact opposite in fact.

[The_Dud]

Scooped it, which is a throw. Should have punched or slapped it.

your nic is so appropriate, you are a complete dud. It was clearly and open hand slap, he never took control of the ball at any stage. There is nothing in the rules to state that you cant hit the ball in the air with an open hand.

According to The_Dud umpires have been negligent and incompetent at ruck contests. Ruckmen palming the footy are throwing it. They need to punch or slap the ball

If people can’t tell the difference between slapping (palming) the ball and scooping it then I think they have bigger things to worry about than umpiring decisions...

I also just watched the replay, it’s hard to tell live, but the umpire was 5 meters away with a clear view of the incident and he called it straight away (Hogan also indicated it was a throw straight away fwiw) and to think myself, or anyone else, watching on a screen at home would have a better idea of whether it was or was not a throw is plain arrogance.

The fact some people are so stubborn they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that we had a good run with the umpires yesterday is baffling, it’s like the Fonz trying to say he’s sorry!!

There you go again. Insulting those that don't see things as you do. This time calling them arrogant.

17 frees to 5 in a half of football ain't a good run with the maggots ffs.

Again, not insulting, just your generation seems to be more easily offended than others.

And I didn’t call people arrogant, I said it’s arrogance if I or anyone else thinks we can make a better decision live watching on a screen than a person standing 5 meters away, which is 100% true.

On a side note, I love how your strategy of how to reply to me changes weekly, all in lieu of actually just using facts to argue a point. I can’t wait to see what next week brings!

There you go again.

Fact. 17 frees to 5 after half time isn't "a good run." Exact opposite in fact.

And what kind of run is 18 frees for (including three 50 meters penalties and a down-the-field that all resulted in goals) to 11 in the first half..?

I’ll eagerly wait your next creative reply, “I was wr... wr... wro...”

[rodgerfox]

It seemed to me that we did extremely well from the umpiring, particularly in the first half - happy to take them but sometimes you just have to pretend the umpire saw something you must have missed. But we got 3(?) goals from 50s, and then the calls for video reviews seemed completely unnecessary. 3 goals to MELBOURNE - each of which looked pretty clearly to be the case. But very very happy to leave the G with a win, particularly as my partner barracks for the Dees and we had a great afternoon together there. Oh, and the Ross decision was fine - he scooped it for sure. Mightn’t have meant too, but it certainly looked scooped.

Two of the video reviews may well have got it wrong.

The commentators all were in agreement that the dees player didn't actually connect his foot with the ball. Even the player shook his head. But the review only looked at whether the ball was touched or not before the line.

Wrong decision.

The second one Brown said that the ball grazes the padding at the top of the post.

The video review was inconclusive so the decision stood.

The commentators said they couldn’t tell whether the ball hit his foot from the 2 dodgy replay angles. The umpire who was three meters away with a perfect angle on it was confident he kicked it, I’m thinking he’s probably got a better idea than anyone watching on a screen.

That’s not true at all.

That what, the bloke 3 meters away on the perfect angle is in the best position to judge whether it brushed the outside of his boot or not?

That was poor officiating.

I was close to it, and the goal umpire didn't see it. He assumed the Melbourne player got his boot to it, but he clearly didn't.
He reviewed whether it was touched before the line or not - which was actually irrelevant.

Poor decision, and poor officiating.

[The_Dud]

That was poor officiating.

I was close to it, and the goal umpire didn't see it. He assumed the Melbourne player got his boot to it, but he clearly didn't.
He reviewed whether it was touched before the line or not - which was actually irrelevant.

Poor decision, and poor officiating.

I’m not trying to be a smartarse here, I genuinely want to ask, how could you possibly know what the umpire did or did not see or what he assumes? Also, how was your vantage point superior to the umpires?

The umpire clearly was in no doubt his boot touched it, otherwise why wouldn’t he ask them to check as he was reviewing it anyway?

[ace]

The AFL can solve the dilemma with defenders forcing the ball through for behind at the same time as curing the faulty review issue.

If the ball goes between the two goal posts it is a goal even if it hits a post
If the ball rebounds back into play off the goal post it is a behind.
If the ball goes between a goal post and a point post it is a behind even if it hits a post.
If the ball hits a point post and rebounds back into play it is out of bounds.

This would stop defenders spoiling or forcing the ball between the goal posts.
They could force a behind, even in the goal square, they could hand pass between the goal and point post.
If the ball is run through the goal line or hand passed it is still a goal, same applies to the goal and point posts being a behind.

All the AFL would need to do is use side on reviews at the goal line to determine if the ball crossed the line before being knocked back into play.

[saynta]

Scooped it, which is a throw. Should have punched or slapped it.

your nic is so appropriate, you are a complete dud. It was clearly and open hand slap, he never took control of the ball at any stage. There is nothing in the rules to state that you cant hit the ball in the air with an open hand.

According to The_Dud umpires have been negligent and incompetent at ruck contests. Ruckmen palming the footy are throwing it. They need to punch or slap the ball

If people can’t tell the difference between slapping (palming) the ball and scooping it then I think they have bigger things to worry about than umpiring decisions...

I also just watched the replay, it’s hard to tell live, but the umpire was 5 meters away with a clear view of the incident and he called it straight away (Hogan also indicated it was a throw straight away fwiw) and to think myself, or anyone else, watching on a screen at home would have a better idea of whether it was or was not a throw is plain arrogance.

The fact some people are so stubborn they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge that we had a good run with the umpires yesterday is baffling, it’s like the Fonz trying to say he’s sorry!!

There you go again. Insulting those that don't see things as you do. This time calling them arrogant.

17 frees to 5 in a half of football ain't a good run with the maggots ffs.

Again, not insulting, just your generation seems to be more easily offended than others.

And I didn’t call people arrogant, I said it’s arrogance if I or anyone else thinks we can make a better decision live watching on a screen than a person standing 5 meters away, which is 100% true.

On a side note, I love how your strategy of how to reply to me changes weekly, all in lieu of actually just using facts to argue a point. I can’t wait to see what next week brings!

There you go again.

Fact. 17 frees to 5 after half time isn't "a good run." Exact opposite in fact.

And what kind of run is 18 frees for (including three 50 meters penalties and a down-the-field that all resulted in goals) to 11 in the first half..?

I’ll eagerly wait your next creative reply, “I was wr... wr... wro...”

No, the only one here that is wrong is you. How can a side playing in front and winning on the scoreboard incur 11 frees in one quarter when the way the teams were playing the lopsided count should still have favoured the saints,
.

And I'm not going to argue with you over the 50 metre penalties, as they were all there .

Obvious to me that the umps saw the free kick count at half time and decided to even up. they do it all the time , if you ever watched a game.

[saynta]

It seemed to me that we did extremely well from the umpiring, particularly in the first half - happy to take them but sometimes you just have to pretend the umpire saw something you must have missed. But we got 3(?) goals from 50s, and then the calls for video reviews seemed completely unnecessary. 3 goals to MELBOURNE - each of which looked pretty clearly to be the case. But very very happy to leave the G with a win, particularly as my partner barracks for the Dees and we had a great afternoon together there. Oh, and the Ross decision was fine - he scooped it for sure. Mightn’t have meant too, but it certainly looked scooped.

Two of the video reviews may well have got it wrong.

The commentators all were in agreement that the dees player didn't actually connect his foot with the ball. Even the player shook his head. But the review only looked at whether the ball was touched or not before the line.

Wrong decision.

The second one Brown said that the ball grazes the padding at the top of the post.

The video review was inconclusive so the decision stood.

The commentators said they couldn’t tell whether the ball hit his foot from the 2 dodgy replay angles. The umpire who was three meters away with a perfect angle on it was confident he kicked it, I’m thinking he’s probably got a better idea than anyone watching on a screen.

That’s not true at all.

That what, the bloke 3 meters away on the perfect angle is in the best position to judge whether it brushed the outside of his boot or not?

That was poor officiating.

I was close to it, and the goal umpire didn't see it. He assumed the Melbourne player got his boot to it, but he clearly didn't.
He reviewed whether it was touched before the line or not - which was actually irrelevant.

Poor decision, and poor officiating.

Correct, as usual mate.

[Joffa Burns]

Scooped it, which is a throw. Should have punched or slapped it.

your nic is so appropriate, you are a complete dud. It was clearly and open hand slap, he never took control of the ball at any stage. There is nothing in the rules to state that you cant hit the ball in the air with an open hand.

According to The_Dud umpires have been negligent and incompetent at ruck contests. Ruckmen palming the footy are throwing it. They need to punch or slap the ball

Scallop, did you see the ruck palm scoop from Daw in the Nth v Ess game yesterday?

He sort of caught it and threw it one handed lacrosse, hockey or hurling style. The commentators reviewed and suggested it was a throw.

Watching the saints on TV I thought the free on Ross for holding the ball was 100% there and that the Ross throw was 50/50. When he scooped it I thought oh no, then maybe ok as on the TV it seemed a long time before the ump called it.

[SaintPav]

Thank Christ we won.

[saynta]

Thank Christ we won.

Yep, the score review would have copped a real canning if we lost.

That wasn't a goal and doubtful the one challenged by Brown was either.

[SaintPav]

Thank Christ we won.

Yep, the score review would have copped a real canning if we lost.

That wasn't a goal and doubtful the one challenged by Brown was either.

I would have had a teary 5 year old to contend with.

Oh, the tears..

Like I said, thank Christ we held on.

[saynta]

Thank Christ we won.

Yep, the score review would have copped a real canning if we lost.

That wasn't a goal and doubtful the one challenged by Brown was either.

I would have had a teary 5 year old to contend with.

Oh, the tears..

Like I said, thank Christ we held on.

Know the feeling.