I hope the Club say some things. Their are other clubs in Victoria who certainly would not let it lie.

If the club has a point, they will make their point clear. Just like any other club for that matter.

It astounds me that some supporters think our club doesn't give a yelp when required.

I still hate this! "When there's doubt".. technically there was no doubt until that umpire who was much further away decided to stick his nose into the whole situation. The goal umpire seemed certain, then when Mr busy-body got involved he folded like a little puppy dog.

I know what goes around in football comes around, and we will probably get lucky some time soon in turn (I still remember a bit of luck we had against Adelaide)- but this still sucks- Especialy seeing as we were in a winning position so late, and it seems a bit of bullcrap riped it away from us. This will sting for a bit.

RR I don't know how you can be so level headed. Do you not have passion? Do you not bleed like the rest of us?

You have explained the situation!

Nah! You are right WTL.

So what are going to do about it?? Hold you breath. Clench your fists. Run around and circles and see if that does anything.

Pile of angst meaning nothing.

The OP says Anderson said "After discussions with all umpires if there is any doubt the smaller score shall be registered". Obviously "all umpires" don't consult after every goal. So what constitutes "any doubt"?

I thought you answered that.

By far the worst mistake was the umpire's uniforms. And that should have been foreseen by the powers that be before the game. It wasn't a split-second mistake or bad decision made under pressure.

Agree

It astounds me that some supporters think our club doesn't give a yelp when required.

Only when it suits their purpose.

If it's a point, the field umpire signals all clear with one hand.

If it's a goal, the field umpire signals all clear with two. Not sure how much power you can say that goal umpires have except to judge if the ball goes through the sticks - and on occasion if it's touched on the line.

Mickrocks will be able to shed some light on all of this.

And I always thought if the field umpire was not 100% sure he would signal the goal umpire by placing both hands behind his back?

Or am I just remembering something completely different?

I really can't remember.

I have not seen the goals other than at the game (no replay) but I thought Dunn's was a goal, was not sure on the Green one.

If the club has a point, they will make their point clear. Just like any other club for that matter.

It astounds me that some supporters think our club doesn't give a yelp when required.

The MFC have been stepped on for years, and sadly we have let it happen-That's why supporters feel the way they do

May it cease going forward.

Adrian Anderson and geoff gieshan would have no doubt that if it were signalled a goal that it was the correct decision though also. thats what annoys me. they back them to the hill no matter what. green's goal - the field umpire over ruled as he had doubt, alright cop that one. dunn's -where both the goal umpire and field umpire thought it was a goal, and yet this boundary umpire from so far away comes in and says "i thought it was touched." when did a boundary umpire, where not absolutely certain of whether it was or not, get the power to over rule the judgement of both the goal and field umpire. that is an absolute joke.

there's a huge difference in saying 'i though it was touched' and 'it definately was touched'.

Funny thing, I'm more bothered by the Green goal. We clearly heard the goal umpire tell the field umpire he was certain it was a goal, and he was still overruled. Where was the doubt there?

it seems to me that the goal umpires are there just to see if it goes through the big sticks and that their opinions on anything else are irrelevant. because their responsibily has been slashed evidently, so should their pay packets.

Edited May 8, 201015 yr by hillie

On Triple M, he just admitted that the umpire uniform choice was a mistake but once started couldn't do anything about it

Although a huge stuff-up, it's good to see him on the front foot in the morning admitting a stuff up

Also said that goal umpiring decisions were correct. After discussions with all umpires if there is any doubt the smaller score shall be registered

I wonder if he has issued an apology to the MFC (for contributing to their loss). A general admission of a mistake is hardly sufficient.

I don't understand how this could even happen, it's not like 2 girls meeting up a party only to find out they're wearing the same dress. The Demons wearing pink this week has been highly publicised for months and even more so in the past week, so whoever was in charge of the umpires colours would have been well aware prior to the game. Maybe the AFL should focus a little less on what Fevola is doing off the field and pay a little more attention to things that actually affect games of football.

I find it amusing that they admit it was a mistake, and say it wont happen again, but I am pretty sure it has happened before.

I know it is bad to say that without a factual back up, as I cant remember the game, but I am sure I have heard people complaining about the colour of the umpires tops before.

It is pretty simple, whatever the situation is, the umpires should be in complete contrast to the 2 teams playing. SO even if Melbourne was wearing red and not pink, I think the umpires should still not have been in pink. Make them stand out. They should have been in bright green or something like that.

On Triple M, he just admitted that the umpire uniform choice was a mistake but once started couldn't do anything about it

Although a huge stuff-up, it's good to see him on the front foot in the morning admitting a stuff up

Also said that goal umpiring decisions were correct. After discussions with all umpires if there is any doubt the smaller score shall be registered

I would like to know what 'any doubt' means.

If the goal umpire is has no 'doubt', does that mean 'doubt' is manufactured during a discussion amongst the umpires? The idea of a consensual doubt after the person in charge of that area shows no doubt just seems to me patently ridiculous, like so much that goes on in our game, including most of the rules and all their amendments and interpretations.

Surely if two of the umpires are in doubt and the appropriate one is not, the outcome should be obvious.

Anyone ever seen a goal umpire and field umpire get together to discuss a line decision and then over-rule a boundary umpire?

I would like to know what 'any doubt' means.

If the goal umpire is has no 'doubt', does that mean 'doubt' is manufactured during a discussion amongst the umpires? The idea of a consensual doubt after the person in charge of that area shows no doubt just seems to me patently ridiculous, like so much that goes on in our game, including most of the rules and all their amendments and interpretations.

Surely if two of the umpires are in doubt and the appropriate one is not, the outcome should be obvious.

Anyone ever seen a goal umpire and field umpire get together to discuss a line decision and then over-rule a boundary umpire?

This is where I'm at at the moment. If the goal umpire says he saw the ball come off Green's boot, then the doubt has been brought by the field umpire, who think he saw it come off Hargraves' fist. IMO the goal umpire's decision should have remained.

The other one seems to have been dealt with correctly, as the goal umpire said he didn't know if Lake touched it or not.

The other one seems to have been dealt with correctly, as the goal umpire said he didn't know if Lake touched it or not.

There's a difference between the goal umpire saying he didn't know that the ball had been touched by Lake (as appears the case, watching him about to signal the goal which was his first instinct, and in accord with the reaction of the Melb player applauding his initial decision) and him having enough doubt in his mind that he just didn't know what to do (which didn't appear the case watching what happened at the ground, nor watching the replays).

But I guess the sound will provide extra evidence, what did the goal umpire say and what were the two other 'doubt-raisers' (boundary ump and Brian Lake) saying (screaming in Lake's case) to him?

Someone has said that in the Green 'non-goal of the year' the goal umpire can be heard saying he heard the sound of boot on ball.

I would like to know what 'any doubt' means.

If the goal umpire is has no 'doubt', does that mean 'doubt' is manufactured during a discussion amongst the umpires? The idea of a consensual doubt after the person in charge of that area shows no doubt just seems to me patently ridiculous, like so much that goes on in our game

Agree absolutely. Because we now have this relatively new rule, we all need to know the answer to that. Particularly the umpires. Can and should 'doubt' be manufactured by one of the non-goal ump's not knowing for sure if it was touched or came off the boot? If the goal umpire is sure but the others just aren't, should he be overruled? Regarding these two incidents, because the AFL have got that rule with apparently loose definition of what constitutes reasonable doubt, they will hide behind the facile defence of "technically correct".

The other aspect that I think wants attention is, having this new rule, how much pressure can an opposition player be allowed to exert on the goal umpire? Watch Lake, carrying on like a spoilt kid until he gets his way (aided of course by the boundary ump of the same mind). Umpires need protecting from such potential bullying by players who are obviously not unbiased, if this new rule involving 'doubt' in determining whether to award a goal or the lesser score is to have credibility.

From today's Sunday Age "AFL admits umpires' kit confusing":

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-admits-umpires-kit-confusing-20100508-ukyl.html

"Adrian Anderson said similarities with the Demons' uniform, compounded by poor weather, led to confusion on the field."

Have a look at the pic in that article (couldn't figure how to upload it). No wonder poor Bartram thought they were on our team (the converse of course is that Bullgogs players might have thought they were Demons occupying extra space on the ground - [censored]-up is maybe more apt than "confusing").

Re the two overruled goals, Anderson says:

"The umpiring department's initial assessment was that they believe they are correct, those decisions," he said. "They will verify that on Monday when they go through all of the decisions from the round and check them using all the available video replays."

In other words, Anderson has already pre-judged the outcome of Monday's more detailed review... "They will verify that on Monday"!

verify (vb) - to prove to be true; confirm; substantiate; affirm; sustain; corroborate

This is denial of natural justice. Anderson (football operations manager, boss cocky) has said "they will verify that on Monday". Whether the emphasis was on "will" or not, woe betide any employee of the AFL who doesn't confirm it come monday.

(if he meant "reconsider" or "check the correctness of" then he should have said that plainly)

This is where I'm at at the moment. If the goal umpire says he saw the ball come off Green's boot, then the doubt has been brought by the field umpire, who think he saw it come off Hargraves' fist. IMO the goal umpire's decision should have remained.

The other one seems to have been dealt with correctly, as the goal umpire said he didn't know if Lake touched it or not.

Can absolutely guarantee that the Umpiring department will rule both correct as they know the trouble that will be caused if they admit the error.

Agree with your logic. Otherwise from now on every time a claim of touching the ball is made all umpires on the ground should get together for as long as it takes to get a consensus. They can also go to the TV commentators and Radio guys for their input as well. After that they can ring me for my opinion.

I think there must have been a rule change somewhere along the line that we aren't aware of, and the decisions will probably be judged as being correct (on that principle).

In the cats/swans game Stevie J took a mark (that was clearly on the full). Both the goal and boundary umpires said it was in the field of play but the field umpire overruled them.

Law of the Game 8.2.4

(d) Goal Umpire Unsure

If a goal Umpire is unsure whether the ball crossed the Goal or Behind Line, or is Out of Bounds; he or she shall seek the assistance of the Field and boundary Umpires. If the correct decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser score.

In at least the Brad Green situation, the goal umpire can be clearly heard saying he is sure it wasn't touched. That doesn't sound to me like being 'unsure' and he most certainly did not seek the input of the other umpires.

However,

(a) Duties

Unless otherwise determined by the relevant Controlling Body, the duties of a goal Umpire include:

(i) judging whether a Goal or Behind has been scored;

(ii) signalling that a Goal or Behind has been scored upon being given the All Clear or Touched All Clear by a field Umpire;

Based upon that, it would seem that judging whether the call should be "Touched All Clear" is in fact the duty of the field umpire, in which case he was within his rights to seek the assistance of the goal and boundary umpires before reaching his decision, which in this case, was "Touched All Clear".

Once this ruling is made by the field umpire, the goal umpire cannot award a goal.

That's what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. Thanks for that ID.

Once this ruling is made by the field umpire, the goal umpire cannot award a goal.

As far as I'm aware, the field umpire in the Dunny 'disallowed goal' had no involvement (correct me if I'm wrong), the replays clearly show two people remonstrating with the goal umpire who had indicated that his first instinct was to award a goal. Those two people were Brian Lake and a boundary umpire. What do the rules say about that?

Good to see that the AFL can admit they totally stuffed up on this one. I had the belief that they could do no wrong ever, as far as they were concerned. Also that they were out of touch with the grass roots supporters that they carn't do without...no, couldn't be could they?

Being closest does not mean you are always in the best position to see the incident. There have been a number of occassions where a field umpire has consulted with a goal umpire on an outcome.

Correct, the goal umpire is in the best position to see if the ball goes through the sticks. But usually the field umpire is in a better posyion to see how the ball ended up on it's way there.

Did he clarify whether we asked the AFL mid-week to change the uniform and had our request denied?

Or perhaps why a multimillion dollar national organisation is capable of making such glaring mistakes?

No, I'm still not over it!

According to Gazza on Footy Classified, the club queried them on the Monday, and were reassured that there 'would not be a clash'. The club was even told that the umps would be wearing white socks (not) and that the pink would be minimal (not).

Clearly the club was given false information. An apology is not good enough. The AFL is big business, and should have the pockets to compensate the club for this mistake, compounded by denying the club the opportunity to take corrective measures in time. If the AFL had been honest straight up, they could have arranged some new shirts (a lighter pink) and some white socks in time to prevent this problem. But they weren't. It was dishonest and deceptive conduct, and the AFL should rectify the consequences of it/

According to Gazza on Footy Classified, the club queried them on the Monday, and were reassured that there 'would not be a clash'. The club was even told that the umps would be wearing white socks (not) and that the pink would be minimal (not).

Clearly the club was given false information. An apology is not good enough.

Sorry to harp on about this but to date there has been no apology by the AFL.

I have heard the interview a few times and Andersen merely says that the AFL made a mistake and it won't happen again. That is not an apology. Saying sorry we did the wrong thing, or we apologise is an apology. There has been no apology.

As I also said earlier the apology should be to the MFC and its supporters for possibly costing the club a game. Something like " to the MFC and its supporters we are sorry or we apologise for the mistake we made, we will do our best to ensure no repetition."