I was quite shocked when the goal umpire ruled touched on our shot for goal in the last quarter. The Essendon defender was well behind the line when he contacted the ball. What do others think? It could have cost us the game.

I think if it had cost us the game I would have been up in arms. I feel bad for Nicho, because it was a great goal and I was screaming for him to take the shot, but I can forgive and forget given that we won anyway.

These things happen in games. We won. Thats all that matters.

I was quite shocked when the goal umpire ruled touched on our shot for goal in the last quarter. The Essendon defender was well behind the line when he contacted the ball. What do others think? It could have cost us the game.

Yeah, the ball was almost certainly over the white line but anomalously the Goalies judge aerial balls by the limit of the padding and it may have had an inch to so travel.

Nicho has actually made a habit of this. Streaming into goal. He's dangerous with his pace this kid. I must admit though, for some reason you got the feeling it wasn't going to effect the team. They had bigger fish to fry. If they weren't playing with their heart and soul, then yeah, you'd be [censored] that they didn't get the replay.

Thankfully, it didn't make the difference between winning and losing but I'm surprised they didn't go for the video review. This was a closer call than a number of others that have been given the benefit of scrutiny and if they're not going to look at the Nicholson shot then why have the system at all?

How this could not be referred is a disgrace. They have referred ones that were a lot less controversial. Very poor decision. The AFL were lucky. If we had lost that game by less than 6 points there would have been outrage.

Classic overcorrection by the umpires.

The system has been accused of wasting time on frivolous and inconclusive reviews, so when a situation actually calls for a review, the umpires don't review it.

Boy who cried wolf, and all that.

That said, from the footage I have seen on TV, which was also inconclusive since the ball was hidden by the post, the point would not have been corrected and it would have stayed a point.

Was a bit PO, but luckily no damage done in the end, poor decision not to review, but as already stated by TTea, wouldn't have altered original decision.

Did anyone see Johan Santanta's no hitter for the Mets on Saturday. Now that was a BLOWN CALL. But the record will never show it

Nicho's was probably right. I thought it was a goal but there is no proof of that

How this could not be referred is a disgrace. They have referred ones that were a lot less controversial. Very poor decision. The AFL were lucky. If we had lost that game by less than 6 points there would have been outrage.

I agree - didn't, thankfully, change the result, but why the hell have a review system when they don't use it for a close call like this???

Geishen, the failed failed coach both of Tigers and umpires, will of course come out and say how correct the decision, and the decision not to refer, was.

Classic overcorrection by the umpires.

The system has been accused of wasting time on frivolous and inconclusive reviews, so when a situation actually calls for a review, the umpires don't review it.

Boy who cried wolf, and all that.

That said, from the footage I have seen on TV, which was also inconclusive since the ball was hidden by the post, the point would not have been corrected and it would have stayed a point.

Yes, overcorrection. And it was inconclusive, but why was there only 1 camera angle? (at least on the broadcast). In past reviews, we usually see more than one angle.

It should have gone for review, but in the wash-up, the result would most likely have been the same due to inconclusive video evidence.

It'll cost us percentage.

Thankfully, it didn't make the difference between winning and losing but I'm surprised they didn't go for the video review.

I'm just surprised they haven't got a camera in a technically correct position for such a situation.

The umpires should have gone for a review and not made a call on what the decision was. There was one camera angle which indicated that the point of contact was behind the line. It should have been declared a goal.

Why have the technology if you are not going to refer to it. Lucky it did not cost the game.

After this season, I think there will be more camera technology addressing these close calls.

I'm just surprised they haven't got a camera in a technically correct position for such a situation.

Yes, the AFL should buy two cameras for every ground to get that angle.

It still might not be conclusive but it takes the percentages of a conclusive decision from about 5% to about 75%...

The umpires should have gone for a review and not made a call on what the decision was. There was one camera angle which indicated that the point of contact was behind the line. It should have been declared a goal.

Why have the technology if you are not going to refer to it. Lucky it did not cost the game.

After this season, I think there will be more camera technology addressing these close calls.

It wasn't conclusive at all, the shot that 7 had.

The whole ball has to be over and you couldn't tell - it would have been his decision anyway.

Get real guys

Can anyone remember the last time, if ever, we got the rub of the green on any contentious issue

Just get used to the idea that we never will

Whats stupid is they go to the video review system when its a clear goal and it goes right over the goal umpires head, but when its a controversial decision like that - they don't even utilize what was implemented to begin with..... no logic to the AFL system some times

Did anyone see Johan Santanta's no hitter for the Mets on Saturday. Now that was a BLOWN CALL. But the record will never show it

Nicho's was probably right. I thought it was a goal but there is no proof of that

Nicho's shot was probably a goal but until we get proper goal line techology we are not going to get them all correct.

The blown call at the Mets game was a beauty. The ball landed squarely in the middle of the line, leaving a clear baseball sized mark, and the umpire blithely signalled a foul ball. For those who don't know, baseball is like tennis, any part of the ball touching the line makes it a fair ball.

It wasn't conclusive at all, the shot that 7 had.

The whole ball has to be over and you couldn't tell - it would have been his decision anyway.

This whole situation is in bad need of clariication

It seems to me the following is true

1. At least part of the ball was over the line (inconclusive from cameras if all of the ball was)

2. Essendon player touched a part of the ball already over the line i.e. his touch was behind the line.

Q. what is the "line". Is it the line between the post measured from front of posts inc padding, or the back of posts inc padding or a mid line.

A. Pretty sure it is the line at back of posts inc padding. So all of ball must be past this back line?

Note thickness of post plus padding is at least 50+% of ball lengthwise and 90+% of ball width wise

What I find contentious is that the touch was to a part of the ball behind the line. I don't know what the rule is here but I think the touch should only count if the touch is forward of the line (remebering the line is at the back of the post). It doesn't seem right to me that a goal is disallowed when a player touches a part of the ball already over the line.

If the Essendon player had marked the ball (cleanly) would it have been a mark even though all ball contact was behind the line?

Thankfully, it didn't make the difference between winning and losing but I'm surprised they didn't go for the video review. This was a closer call than a number of others that have been given the benefit of scrutiny and if they're not going to look at the Nicholson shot then why have the system at all?

+1

I think it was this point in the game where my frustration lead to me dacking myself. I've had to work hard to let out my frustration and anger in more appropriate (i.e., less aggressive) ways.

I think it was one each. Monfries also had a dubious one ruled touched.