Goal umpire nearly cost us ...

[The Great Pretender 463]

Brad Green's shot with a few minutes to go was a goal. We were nearly robbed!

[Gorgoroth 12,950]

I thought Jamar touched it by trying to mark, I did not have the clearest view but will look at the replay later.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I've always said there should be two goal umpires at each end.

The 19 Swans were robbed (sort of) last week, Davey against the Crows in Cairns and even Brad Green against the Cats this year (although it wouldn't have changed the result).

[TonyMelb 7]

I've always said there should be two goal umpires at each end.

The 19 Swans were robbed (sort of) last week, Davey against the Crows in Cairns and even Brad Green against the Cats this year (although it wouldn't have changed the result).

Clearly was touched after passed the posts! The goal umpire was saved by fact that Freo didnt kick another goal to tie the scores!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Maybe being 51 points down in the 2nd quarter might have been a telling influence also.

[Redleg 40,905]

Clearly was touched after passed the posts! The goal umpire was saved by fact that Freo didnt kick another goal to tie the scores!

Saw the side on vision and it was clearly a goal.

[Guest MFC4Life]

Yep it was goal.

[QueenC 74]

Saw the side on vision and it was clearly a goal.

Yeah, the commentary team said the same thing as well......

[Demon Tragic 0]

Which of your one eyes were you using to see? The fact of the matter is the 'side on' camera view we have all seen is still at a slight angle. The goal umpire was in a perfect position to view the ball. I have no problem with the goal umpire's desicion.

[CHAMP 347]

Which of your one eyes were you using to see? The fact of the matter is the 'side on' camera view we have all seen is still at a slight angle. The goal umpire was in a perfect position to view the ball. I have no problem with the goal umpire's desicion.

An unfortunate anomalous situation has crept into the game whereby Goalies are using the extremities of the padding on the post to determine whether a goal has been scored. I can appreciate a goal being denied when a ball brushes the rear of the padding but this is a different situation. The padding does not actually form part of the goal-line. It is painted in lime on the ground. My diagram might make this clearer.

Much of the time the trajectory depicted would result in the score being called a behind although in fact the ball has clearly crossed the goal-line.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I was sitting in line with the posts in the pocket, and it was closer to being touched on the line than the one from a couple of weeks ago, but was still well over. The graph above makes an interesting point... But I still think it was far enough back. We've seen shots called goals that were closer to the line than that.

It was a pretty damn good kick. He loves those, but jeez... pressure seems to be his friend when shooting for goal.

[deanox 9,914]

are you sure the pads arent considered the goal? id be interested to see the ruling on that...

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

are you sure the pads arent considered the goal? id be interested to see the ruling on that...

The ball has the be over the goal line and within the padding / post (depending on how high the ball goes through).

[mikeod 21]

I'm reasonably educated on the topic and can assure all that Goal Umpire Chris Appleton was NOT in the correct position to make this decision.

Watch the replay and notice how he has to reach is head around, behind the line, in order to see the ball. Unless you are looking directly down the line you cannot possibly have the best view.

In my opinion, it was a goal.

We will all hear the 'inconclusive' talk from the AFL though.

[CHAMP 347]

are you sure the pads arent considered the goal? id be interested to see the ruling on that...

No reference to padding whatsoever. Rule 12.2 is All Clear/Touched All Clear.

[AzzKikA 2,371]

You have way too much time on your hands CHAMP.

I was also in the pocket and the players were facing us when they attempted to mark, I could not see the goal umpire so therefore in my belief they were in a poor position.

[diesel 420]

Which of your one eyes were you using to see? The fact of the matter is the 'side on' camera view we have all seen is still at a slight angle. The goal umpire was in a perfect position to view the ball. I have no problem with the goal umpire's desicion.

The umps view was at an angle as well because he was behind the line. He would have had no idea if it crossed the line thus he didn't call it a goal...which IMO after watching a replay, it clearly was.

[Gorgoroth 12,950]

Looked a goal on the replay.

[Rogue 585]

Looked a goal on the replay.

Yeah, I agree.

I think Green's 'handpass' to Robertson a little earlier may have been 'incorrect disposal', though.