Have goal umpires become redundant?

[Eth 4]

You can clearly hear the field umpire say``I did`nt see it touched``on the Channel 7 telecast, then the boundary ump comes in and says it was touched.

Okay, let's bag the boundary ump for being blind then

[Pipefitter 2,159]

Twice tonight we were robbed of goals. Twice tonight we were penalised for out on the full when it was in. It put's the collingwood loss in perspective. Compared to tonight against the pies we lost fair in fair. Tonight we were actually robbed by the umpires. Dean Bailey has every right to speak up against the umpiring. I'm quite happy to chip in for the fine.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

But in the end it just highlights the importance of taking your chances. Currently we don't give ourselves anywhere near the reward for our effort.

Spot on. I used to tell my primary school team I coached, no good whingeing about bad umpiring. The only solution is to have enough goals on the board to not have to overly worry about the umpiring.

That said, Peter Gonis should definitely be given a long holiday from goal umpiring at AFL level. He needs lessons in assertiveness.

I came home wondering do they think we're Melb Storm and no matter how well we play, they're never going to let us get the 4 points!

[heartbeatstrue 57]

Don't get me started on McBurney. I'd punch his face in if I could.

Is McBurney McLaren's cousin?

[Brettmcg 24]

Spot on. I used to tell my primary school team I coached, no good whingeing about bad umpiring. The only solution is to have enough goals on the board to not have to overly worry about the umpiring.

That said, Peter Gonis should definitely be given a long holiday from goal umpiring at AFL level. He needs lessons in assertiveness.

I came home wondering do they think we're Melb Storm and no matter how well we play, they're never going to let us get the 4 points!

The disappointing part is Peter will probably be "rotated out" next week, whereas Robert Findlay (field umpire in the first quarter non-goal) will be back making sh*thouse decisions next week. Even though they are technically not to be overruled in a situation like that, the goalies are unlikely to deny the field umpire especially now they are wired up and basically have cameras up their butts the whole time. Opens them to no end of ridicule if they stick to their guns and the replay suggests they were wrong.

[Summer Blease 0]

and whose dumb idea was it to let some [censored] 30m away have the power to overrule a goal umpire??

ARGH!!!!!! :mad:

ARGH Indeed!! I have NO IDEA and it pisses me off no end how they overrule or even influence the goal umpire in the first place when they are so far away and only meant to assist the guy who is dead infront and paid to focus solely on these line ball decisions- so for the purpose of this thread- yes, goal umpires have officialy become redundant!

We have the technology to eliminate human error. Why oh why don't we use it? Don't give me that "element of randomness" and mistakes even themeselves out crap because we always get screwed! I'm just shitty this has ruined my weekend!!

[d me 0]

The one that really stumped me the most was Trengove's mark in the forward pocket halfway through the final term. It wasnt touched off the boot and he took it cleanly with one arm on the line. It can only be one of two decisions, out on the full or a mark. Yet it was thrown in. Did I miss something?

[Brettmcg 24]

ARGH Indeed!! I have NO IDEA and it pisses me off no end how they overrule or even influence the goal umpire in the first place when they are so far away and only meant to assist the guy who is dead infront and paid to focus solely on these line ball decisions- so for the purpose of this thread- yes, goal umpires have officialy become redundant!

We have the technology to eliminate human error. Why oh why don't we use it? Don't give me that "element of randomness" and mistakes even themeselves out crap because we always get screwed! I'm just shitty this has ruined my weekend!!

Sorry, I think I posted some misleading information above. The first quarter non-goal was an overrule by the field umpire. The last quarter non-goal was by a boundary umpire. Sorry, for the confusion. Just watched them back on replay now. Even so, the field umpire was at least 20m away from the first contest. The goalie even said "I saw it come off the boot". Shocking.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Brettmcg

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

The one that really stumped me the most was Trengove's mark in the forward pocket halfway through the final term. It wasnt touched off the boot and he took it cleanly with one arm on the line. It can only be one of two decisions, out on the full or a mark. Yet it was thrown in. Did I miss something?

In fairness it did look as though he fumbled the ball over the line, it wasn't a one grab mark.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Clint Bizkit

[Brettmcg 24]

In fairness it did look as though he fumbled the ball over the line.

I reckon he took the controlling grab (the determinant here) before the line.

[TopCorner 103]

The one that really stumped me the most was Trengove's mark in the forward pocket halfway through the final term. It wasnt touched off the boot and he took it cleanly with one arm on the line. It can only be one of two decisions, out on the full or a mark. Yet it was thrown in. Did I miss something?

You didn't miss anything. I had a good view of it - the ball was in his hands inside or just on the line and he completed the mark outside. No juggle. So you're right - had to be a mark or out on the full. The throw in decision was just plain wrong.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

The one that really stumped me the most was Trengove's mark in the forward pocket halfway through the final term. It wasnt touched off the boot and he took it cleanly with one arm on the line. It can only be one of two decisions, out on the full or a mark. Yet it was thrown in. Did I miss something?

You are right. Under the old rules, it had to be either "out on the full" or a mark. What fool changed this rule, and for what reason? (or were these pathetic umpires so incompetent they got this wrong too?)

Was it the same boundary umpire who disallowed the goal that Peter Gonis (goal umpire) called a goal? Does anybody know that boundary ump's name?

[Deevout 492]

The one that really stumped me the most was Trengove's mark in the forward pocket halfway through the final term. It wasnt touched off the boot and he took it cleanly with one arm on the line. It can only be one of two decisions, out on the full or a mark. Yet it was thrown in. Did I miss something?

I have to watch the reply when I am a little more calm. Totally agree out on the full or a mark. UNBELIEVEABLE. But so so many bad decisions.

Did someone have money on this game? :S

[Brettmcg 24]

You are right. Under the old rules, it had to be either "out on the full" or a mark. What fool changed this rule, and for what reason? (or were these pathetic umpires so incompetent they got this wrong too?)

Was it the same boundary umpire who disallowed the goal that Peter Gonis (goal umpire) called a goal? Does anybody know that boundary ump's name?

I'd have to look at the replay and then I could tell you, but in the meantime: http://www.aflua.com.au/pdf/Round%207.pdf

[titan_uranus 25,020]

I was sure the Green/Hargrave one was a point, but it seems according to most here it was a goal. The Lake one I am certain was a goal.

I agree with Nasher's question: goal umpires are now nothing more than just men/women who signal the result of a scoring attempt. They have no power. If there is any doubt, any at all, the field umpire rushes in to make the goal umpire second-guess his/her decision. Goal umpires are called 'umpires' for a reason. Both times the goal ump made his decision that it was a goal. You don't see boundary/goal umpires rushing into contests in the middle of the ground saying 'Hold on, are you sure that was holding the ball? I'm not'. Yet with goals for some reason every man and his dog gets to question the goal umpire's decision. I find it hard to believe that the boundary umpire in the Lake one could have been 100% certain, yet he decided he was, and that cost us a goal. The microphones on Channel 7 clearly picked up the field umpire saying he didn't know and the goal umpire said he thought it wasn't touched. Majority rules? Nope.

It's not fair to blame umpiring for our loss considering we had about 7 inside-50s during the period where we led by 8-9 points and didn't get one shot on goal.

I reckon he took the controlling grab (the determinant here) before the line.

Not true. If you juggle a mark, and you complete it over the boundary line, it's not a mark, it's out of bounds. That's what happened.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

To make your own minds up, go to http://www.gameanalyser.afl.com.au/

Not a bad initiative this. Let's you go directly to any goal, behind (not rushed ones) contested mark, mark inside 50 or free kick.

To see the Green/Hargrave one you can click on the Tom Williams contested mark in the first quarter. It loads directly at the replay. Looks like it came off the boot to me. Also, in that one, the goal umpire says he saw it come off the boot, the two boundary umpires said they didn't know, but since the field umpire thought it was off hands he won the debate.

[Adam The God 30,259]

I usually try to avoid starting emotional threads, but I can't help myself.

Has the goal umpire become redundant?

Not once but twice tonight, a goal umpire made the correct decision and got vetoed by another umpire in a worse position.

If the goal umpire does not have the authority to make rulings on goals, then what is the point of having them at all?

Agreed. Absolutely redundant, it seems.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,798]

Mind you, why would you even bother making a tough, contentious decision these days when your "boss" comes out on Monday and tells the world you had a sh*t one. As much as I hate McLaren, I thought the way Gieschen hung him out to dry was disgraceful. No wonder McBurney didn't want to pay the blatantly obvious rushed behind down the Punt Road end in the 2nd.

Couldn't agree more, Brettmcg.

Apparently that dolt McLaren was dropped also for a couple of other poor decisions, but the deliberate rushed point was highlighted. That was a CORRECT decision. Slattery was in the clear and walked over the line.

Our players should be mindful of the fact that no umpire will dare to pay the rushed behind free again. In other words, walk over the line, or tap it through the points if there's very little other option. The Tassie Hawks won a premiership doing that to the nth degree.

Also, is Gieschen responsible for selecting the colour of the umps' attire.??? ? It smacked of his incompetence, dressing them up as Melbourne players!

[sue 9,106]

I

Not true. If you juggle a mark, and you complete it over the boundary line, it's not a mark, it's out of bounds. That's what happened.

While what you say is correct, it is not a response to the previous post if you read it more carefully. He said it was under control it before it went over the line. (I won't argue if that is correct or not.) You are allowed to fumble it after you have controlled it and still be awarded the mark. That happens all the time all over the field, so it should also apply if the ball goes over the line during a post-mark fumble.

[wisedog 352]

Mclaren made the right call in the way I'd like to see the rule interpreted.

I was unsure about the rule at the start of the 2009 season, but I really thought it was a positive change. The only way players got away with it was by 'fumbling' the ball across the line. But now, players are apparently allowed to run across the line if there's a player within 2 metres of them. Won't that just take us back to where we were in 2007? I suppose the major difference is that teams are unable to make the fast break anymore.

But I just don't get it... A player is allowed to rush a behind if he's under pressure? Rushed behinds only happen when a player IS under a pressure. It's a non-rule. (...well unless a player gets clear of his opponent only to inexplicably dive across the goal line)

Rush behinds should be judged the same way as deliberate out of bounds. But I agree with Caroline Wilson in that I think the penalty is too high. A ball up at the top of the square seems fair, or a set shot from 30-40.

[titan_uranus 25,020]

While what you say is correct, it is not a response to the previous post if you read it more carefully. He said it was under control it before it went over the line. (I won't argue if that is correct or not.) You are allowed to fumble it after you have controlled it and still be awarded the mark. That happens all the time all over the field, so it should also apply if the ball goes over the line during a post-mark fumble.

No I don't think that's the case sue. If you're not in control of the ball as it goes over the line it's a throw in. Since he hadn't marked the ball before going over the line, it was rightly called a throw in.

Rush behinds should be judged the same way as deliberate out of bounds. But I agree with Caroline Wilson in that I think the penalty is too high. A ball up at the top of the square seems fair, or a set shot from 30-40.

I agree on both counts. The defensive goal line should be treated the same as the boundary lines. Why discriminate between the two? All that changes them is which side of the behind post the line is. If you can't take the ball deliberately over the boundary line, you shouldn't be able to take it deliberately over the goal line. If forwards and mids don't get that luxury defenders shouldn't either.

And the penalty is ridiculous. Should be the same as for when the defender touches the goalsquare on the kick out: a ball up.