When was the new rule passed that when a goal umpire says it it was not touched and is a goal and the field umpire says he also didn't see it touched, a boundary umpire is called in to get his opinion. This was clearly heard on the Dunn shot on TV through the umpires mikes. If the field and Goal umpires both believe it was a goal what was the need to call in a boundary umpire, who had to sprint to the goals from around the boundary. Why is this not done on every shot where someone may have touched it?

Someone can correct me but I thought the boundary umpire said he "thought" it was touched. Since when is that used to overrule the man in charge of the decision who was closest and gave his ruling. Should every decision on a footy field now be a consultation between all umpires.

As for the umpires pink shirts, when we also wear pink, nothing less than disgraceful in a professional sport. We should be wringing a favourable position in next year's draw from the AFL as a result. I suggest we don't play at Skilled Stadium for the next 10 years.

We should fine the AFL!

Pink shirts. What a disgrace!!! There a bunch of clowns.

Melbourne always seem to to get the rough end of the stick with the umpires too! Colloingwood and Bulldgs in two close one's. Could have easily gaone our way.

I honestly think umpires have an interest in the result at times! So too the AFL!!!

We should fine the AFL!

Pink shirts. What a disgrace!!! There a bunch of clowns.

Melbourne always seem to to get the rough end of the stick with the umpires too! Colloingwood and Bulldgs in two close one's. Could have easily gaone our way.

I honestly think umpires have an interest in the result at times! So too the AFL!!!

I also find it refreshing when guys like Dermie, Hudson, Harley, McAvaney come out and say we got the raw end of the deal from the umpires and it could have cost us the game.

We should fine the AFL!

Pink shirts. What a disgrace!!! There a bunch of clowns.

Melbourne always seem to to get the rough end of the stick with the umpires too! Colloingwood and Bulldgs in two close one's. Could have easily gaone our way.

I honestly think umpires have an interest in the result at times! So too the AFL!!!

well they obviously do if they are betting on games

I've been calling for this for a long time, there should be two goal umpires at each end.

Whats the point of two goal at each end umps if they are going to be over ruled

Thank god it wan'st the grand final. unless of course it was the flith getting robbed

Edited May 7, 201015 yr by Face Your Demons

Whats the point of two goal at each end umps if they are going to be over ruled

They shouldn't be overruled and they shouldn't need to be if there are two of them.

Garry Lyon said Brad green missed out on wining a car because Greeny would have had goal of the year!

I'm sure I recall a few years ago the umpires changed attire at half time of a game as it clashed with one team... Why would they have not done that last night?

I'm sure I recall a few years ago the umpires changed attire at half time of a game as it clashed with one team... Why would they have not done that last night?

Because that would mean that the AFL would have to admit they were wrong.

Because that would mean that the AFL would have to admit they were wrong.

Bingo.

I thought you were saying about the New Rule that if a player marks the ball while falling over the boundary line, now it gets thrown in...

Trengove marked in the forward pocket halfway through the final term. It wasn't touched off the boot and what I saw, he took it cleanly with one arm on the line. Under the old rules it could only be one of two decisions, out on the full or a mark. But that boundary ump (the same one who took the goal off Dunn I suspect) threw it in ???????

I thought you were saying about the New Rule that if a player marks the ball while falling over the boundary line, now it gets thrown in...

Trengove marked in the forward pocket halfway through the final term. It wasn't touched off the boot and what I saw, he took it cleanly with one arm on the line. Under the old rules it could only be one of two decisions, out on the full or a mark. But that boundary ump (the same one who took the goal off Dunn I suspect) threw it in ???????

I noticed that too. Laughable.

I just figured he thought it was out on the full but was doing what he could to even up the ledger.

Clearly a mark.

All facets of the umpiring were woeful last night, I was a boundary ump in my younger years. We were only ever called if the central ump had doubts, and those doubts were only there because it was about to be called the goal.

Regards Darren

P.S. even with 4 boundary they still made errors!

I thought you were saying about the New Rule that if a player marks the ball while falling over the boundary line, now it gets thrown in...

Trengove marked in the forward pocket halfway through the final term. It wasn't touched off the boot and what I saw, he took it cleanly with one arm on the line. Under the old rules it could only be one of two decisions, out on the full or a mark. But that boundary ump (the same one who took the goal off Dunn I suspect) threw it in ???????

Absolutely! It looked clean on the replay and should have been a mark. If not it was out on the full.

I think with the Trengove mark is that he started the mark inside but still did not have full control of the ball until he was over the line.

what about the new rule whe if it comes off your knee, bounces inside the field of play and then over the boundary line, that its ut on the full. twice that happened. those boundary umpires shouldbe sacked. they had a shocker

what about the new rule when if it comes off your knee, bounces inside the field of play and then over the boundary line, that its out on the full. twice that happened. those boundary umpires should be sacked. they had a shocker

I want to know if it was the same boundary umpire, the one who said Dunn's goal was touched, the one who disallowed Trengove's mark, and this one. Anybody know their names? Maybe a closet Bullgog's sympathiser?