Mooney goal - touched by Dawson

[Winmar]

Is there a video of it anywhere? In slow motion would be nice! My Foxtel remote doesn't seem to have a slow motion function.

[sRaf]

Gotta look at it from the ump's perspective too. He saw a swing of a boot and a ball being propelled towards him. We have the luxury of many camera angles and slow motion replays. The umpire on the other hand doesn't. He can't be blamed for his decision as he's only human.

Heck, even with camera angles and replays, there are still differences of opinions on whether it was touched or not.

[kosifantutti23]

Clearly, Zac touched it and deflected the ball. Then there was also another goal payed when Sammy G touched the ball. So they were awarded 2 goals that weren't there. So their luck run out in the end. Suck it up you poor loosers.

Gilbert clearly DIDN'T touch that ball. And the Dawson one was just too close to call.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDxEKMfY ... r_embedded

But I totally agree with this

Suck it up you poor losers

[ttufc7]

Similar to Rooeys goal in the Prelim last year.
Hard to call at the time most of those over the course of the year generally get given as goals.
Very easy to pass judgement with the benefit of replays ect.

[bigred]

watched that replay about six times.

Dawson did really, really well there.

Should have been a behind.

Dawson touched it after it hit mooney's foot.

Umpire was lazy.

LAZY

[plugger66]

watched that replay about six times.

Dawson did really, really well there.

Should have been a behind.

Dawson touched it after it hit mooney's foot.

Umpire was lazy.

LAZY

Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.

[bigcarl]

Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.

You've changed your tune since last night. Where's the consistency?

[F_Q_F]

Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.

Yeah I had a look at the replay on youtube, and it looks like Dawson touched it then Mooney hit it on the bounce.

[plugger66]

Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.

You've changed your tune since last night. Where's the consistency?

Agreed. Last night I was going from what I saw on the scoreboard when I was watching threw one eye. Today after we have actually won the game I watched it many times and pretty much have no doubt it was a correct decsion.

[Thinline]

Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.

Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.

[saintsRrising]

Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.

Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.

if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.

So should always have been a behind.

[plugger66]

Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.

Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.

if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.

So should always have been a behind.

Have you actually thought that he was sure and watching it again I am also sure it was right.

[bigcarl]

Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.

Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.

if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.

So should always have been a behind.

Have you actually thought that he was sure and watching it again I am also sure it was right.

So last night you would have paid a point and today you would have paid a goal.

Damned umpires

Where's the consistency?

[plugger66]

Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.

Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.

if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.

So should always have been a behind.

Have you actually thought that he was sure and watching it again I am also sure it was right.

So last night you would have paid a point and today you would have paid a goal.

Damned umpires

Where's the consistency?

I think it proves 2 eyes are better than one.

[Thinline]

Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.

Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.

if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.

So should always have been a behind.

Have you actually thought that he was sure and watching it again I am also sure it was right.

I'm not sure anyone could adjudicate that with any certainty.

Credit to him if he was right. I just don't know that he could have been sure.

Mind you telly angles were side on. He gets front view.

[stinger]

watched that replay about six times.

Dawson did really, really well there.

Should have been a behind.

Dawson touched it after it hit mooney's foot.

Umpire was lazy.

LAZY

Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.

crap....

[Leo.J]

Fact is if the ump called it touched we'd have watched a million replays and it'd still be inconclusive.

Benefit of the doubt should go to the defending side. Just my opinion.

if the ump is not 100% sure then the lowest score is meant to be awarded.

So should always have been a behind.

Have you actually thought that he was sure and watching it again I am also sure it was right.

The channel seven coverage didn't show it from the view of the camera in the Southern Stand.

The views they showed on channel 7 are inconclusive imo.

The angle they showed at the ground on the score board showed without doubt that it came off Dawsons hand.

[bigred]

Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.

You've changed your tune since last night. Where's the consistency?

You are the AFL's fanboi eh...

[bigcarl]

I just watched the replay. Touched off the boot.

Big call by the goal umpire that it was a goal.

lucky for him/her that it didn't cost us the game.

[Beej]

After watching a replay, albeit not very closely, I reckon Dawson touched it onto Mooney's boot.

Really tough for the umpire to call though and if they are in any doubt whatsoever, they're instructed to award the lesser of the two.

So the umpire must have been confident it was a goal...

[avid]

Dawson touched it before it hit Mooney's boot. He actually hit it onto to Mooneys boot otherwise the ball wouldnt have gone through so quickly. Umpire was correct IMO.

You've changed your tune since last night. Where's the consistency?

Agreed. Last night I was going from what I saw on the scoreboard when I was watching threw one eye. Today after we have actually won the game I watched it many times and pretty much have no doubt it was a correct decsion.

Plugger, you say it went through the goal so quickly, but it actually went through quite slowly, which made me think it was touched even before I saw the replay. Like it was squeezed or slapped into the ground by hand.

The replays are surprisingly inconclusive. In most of them it looks like Zac's hand is in between the boot and the ball. In one, though, it looks like the ball was kicked (slightly) from behind Dawson's hand. On balance, I reckon it's a point.

What annoys me is not the umpire's decision -- impossibly hard, and in any case we know we are always going to get a percentage of incorrect close judgement calls: it's an inevitable part of our great game -- it's the lack of balance in the press coverage of the Mooney in-the-back decision and how the umpiring cost Geelong the game. Any Geelong bleating is surely balanced by this goal that should/could have been a point, and by the limp-arm-on-the-shoulder decision that got Johnston his goal. Etc.

I feel very satisfied that net umpiring justice was reflected in the final score.

[plugger66]

I will say it again. Dawson hit the ball into the ground, if no one else touched it , it wouldnt have had enough momentum to go through the goals so there is only one way that could have happened. Anyway who gives a stuff we won and we also cant chance the result of the decsion and for saying that isnt the point, no amount of whinging about it will change it.

[Superboot]

Can anyone confirm that the video shown at the ground is different from that shown on TV?

When I watched the replay at the ground in slow-mo it looked as if Mooney's boot didn't actually get with 6 inches of the ball. I was convinced he didn't touch it.

Watched again on Bigpond today and ran the incident in freeze frame many times and it's far less certain.

[Grrrrr]

Similar incident in last year's preliminary final where Roo kicked it off the deck, was touched by Harbrow I think it was...But the correct decision was made to pay it a goal.

How quickly we forget

[bigred]

I will say it again. Dawson hit the ball into the ground, if no one else touched it , it wouldnt have had enough momentum to go through the goals so there is only one way that could have happened. Anyway who gives a stuff we won and we also cant chance the result of the decsion and for saying that isnt the point, no amount of whinging about it will change it.

Horseapples.