Jump to content

  • IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

    The Demonland Terms of Service, which you have all recently agreed to, strictly prohibit discussions of ongoing legal matters, whether criminal or civil. Please ensure that all discussions on this forum remain focused solely on on-field & football related topics.


Recommended Posts

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

  • Like 1
Posted

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?

  • Like 2
Posted

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.

  • Like 1
Posted

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.

  • Like 2
Posted

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.

Posted

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

Posted (edited)

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.

Edited by monoccular
Posted

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.

Posted

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.

Posted

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.

  • Like 2
Posted

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.

  • Like 1
Posted

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%...

Posted

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.

Guest lambtotheslaughter
Posted

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

  • Like 1
Posted

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

Posted

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.

Posted

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?

  • Like 2
Posted

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

Posted

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.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Demonland Forums  

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    TRAINING: Monday 17th February 2025

    Demonland Trackwatchers were on hand at Monday morning's preseason training at Gosch's Paddock to bring you their brief observations of the session. HARVEY WALLBANGER'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Gentle flush session at Gosch's this morning. Absent: May, Pickett (All Stars) McVee, McAdam. Rehabbing: Great to see Kentfield back (much slimmer), walking with Tholstrup, TMac (suspect just a management thing), Viney (still being cautious with that rib cartilage?), Melksham (

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    MATCH SIM: Friday 14th February 2025

    A couple of Demonland Trackwatchers made their way out to Casey Field's for the Melbourne Football Club's Family Series day to bring you their observations on the Match Simulation. HARVEY WALLBANGER'S MATCH SIMULATION OBSERVATIONS Absent: May, Pickett (All Stars), McVee, Windor, Kentfield, Mentha Present but not playing: Petracca, Viney, Spargo, Tholstrup, Melksham Starting Blue 18 (+ just 2 interchange): B: Petty, TMac, Lever, Howes, Bowey Salem M: Gawn, Oliver, La

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    TRAINING: Wednesday 12th February 2025

    Demonland Trackwatchers braved the scorching morning heat to bring you the following observations of Wednesday's preseason training session from Gosch's Paddock. HARVEY WALLBANGER'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Absent: Salem, Windsor (word is a foot rash going around), Viney, Bowey and Kentfield Train ons: Roy George, no Culley today. Firstly the bad news - McVee went down late, which does look like a bad hammy - towards the end of match sim, as he kicked the ball. Had to

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    MATCH SIM: Friday 7th February 2025

    Demonland Trackwatcher Gator ventured down the freeway to bring you his observations from Friday morning's Match Simulation out at Casey Fields. Rehab: Jake Lever and Charlie Spargo running laps.  Lever was running short distances at a fast click as well as having kick to kick with a trainer. He seems unimpeded. Christian Petracca, Kade Chandler, Shane McAdam and Tom Fullarton doing non-contact kicking and handball drills on the adjacent oval.  All moving freely at pace.  I didn’

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports 2

    TRAINING: Wednesday 5th February 2025

    Demonland Trackwatchers were out in force as the Demons returned to Gosch's Paddock for preseason training on Wednesday morning. GHOSTWRITER'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Kozzie a no show. Tommy Sparrow was here last week in civvies and wearing sunnies. He didn’t train. Today he’s training but he’s wearing goggles so he’s likely got an eye injury. There’s a drill where Selwyn literally lies on top of Tracc, a trainer dribbles the ball towards them and Tracc has to g

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports

    THAT WAS THE YEAR THAT WAS: 2024

    Whichever way you look at it, the Melbourne Football Club’s 2024 season can only be characterized as the year of its fall from grace. Whispering Jack looks back at the season from hell that was. After its 2021 benchmark premiership triumph, the men’s team still managed top four finishes in the next two seasons but straight sets finals losses consigned them to sixth place in both years. The big fall came in 2024 with a collapse into the bottom six and a 14th placing. At Casey, the 2022 VFL p

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Special Features

    MATCH SIM: Friday 31st January 2025

    Veteran Demonland Trackwatcher Picket Fence ventured down to Casey Fields to bring you his observations from Friday's Match Simulation. Greetings Demonlanders, beautiful Day at training and the boys were hard at it, here is my report. NO SHOWS: Luker Kentfield (recovering from pneumonia in WA), also not sure I noticed Melky (Hamstring) or Will Verrall?? MODIFIED DUTIES (No Contact): Sparrow, McVee (foot), Tracc (ribs), Chandler, (AC Joint), Fullarton Noticeable events (I’ll s

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports 2

    TRAINING: Wednesday 29th January 2025

    A number of Demonland Trackwatchers swooped on Gosch's Paddock to bring you their observations from this morning's Preseason Training Session. DEMON JACK'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS Beautiful morning at Gosch's Paddock. Very healthy crowd so far.  REHAB: Fullerton, Spargo, Tholstrup, McVee Viney running laps. EDIT: JV looks to be back with the main group. Trac, Sparrow, Chandler and Verrell also training away from the main group. Currently kicking to each other ins

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports 1

    TRAINING: Wednesday 22nd January 2025

    Demonland Trackwatchers were out in force for training at Gosch's Paddock on Wednesday morning for the MFC's School Holidays Open Training Session. DEMONLAND'S PRESEASON TRAINING OBSERVATIONS REHAB: TMac, Chandler, McVee, Tholstrup, Brown, Spargo Brown might have passed his fitness test as he’s back out with the main group.  Sparrow not present. Kozzy not present either.  Mini Rehab group has broken off from the match sim (contact) group: Max, Trac, Lever, Fullarton

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Training Reports
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...