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.

"... lead to me dacking myself"??? did you rip your own pants off in frustration?

I hope you were at the game.

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?

The whole ball has to be over the line and I don't like your interpretation of the person touching the part of the ball behind the line.

They prevented the whole ball from going through unhindered - that's a point.

If the ball is lying straight on the ground with most of the ball over the line and I pick it up from the goal side, I expect that to be 'play on' - not 'you picked it up from the part of the ball that was outside the field - that's a goal'...

The onus is on the goalkicker to get the whole ball through the goal cleanly - if anyone interrupts that - it's a point.

Remember in Round 5 when Dal Santo kicked a point right through the middle of the behind posts and they reviewed it? And Milne as well?

Then when an actual close call occurs, they dont go to it. It actually beggars belief

I though if anyone was going to be given the benefit it should have been Nicho because the ball looked over, surely its just obviously a case where the review system is needed

But credit to the boys, any team could have dropped their heads and fallen away after the incident

In fact a review system may have let Essendon regroup rather than let us carry our momentum

Edited June 4, 201213 yr by JT9

From the Laws of AFL Football:

12.1.1 Scoring a Goal

Subject to Law 12.2, a Goal is scored when the football is kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team without being touched by any other Player, even if the football first touches the ground.

12.1.3 Clarification and Examples

For the avoidance of doubt:

...

(d) a football passes over a Goal Line or Behind Line only when the entire football has passed over the Goal Line or Behind Line, as the case may be.

The goal line is the white line marked on the ground. It has a few inches width. You can see from this photo (goals at Aurora Stadium) that the back of the goal line is virtually level with the back of the posts.

In regard to Nicho's kick, if the Essendon player touched it before the entire ball had passed behind the back of the posts, it's a point.

Would it have been reviewed if it was called a goal???

I prefer it if the umpires back themselves in with a decision. If the goal umpire was adamant it was touched then so be it.

I really dislike unnecessarily stopping play. I think since the third umpire has been brought in to cricket that the umpires defer to it too often and has made them lazy.

I'm happy with the call.

The whole ball has to be over the line and I don't like your interpretation of the person touching the part of the ball behind the line.

They prevented the whole ball from going through unhindered - that's a point.

If the ball is lying straight on the ground with most of the ball over the line and I pick it up from the goal side, I expect that to be 'play on' - not 'you picked it up from the part of the ball that was outside the field - that's a goal'...

The onus is on the goalkicker to get the whole ball through the goal cleanly - if anyone interrupts that - it's a point.

LOL

I knew my argument was struggling and if I was a bummer supporter i'd probably have argued the opposite in the heat of the moment (and after glow)

should definitely been a vid referral but unless they had other angles would have been inconclusive and goal umps first decision would have stood

maybe in the future we will replace goal posts and padding with brightly lit laser posts only a millimetre wide?

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.

It's absolutely an overccorection. Misguided.

Both the Nicholson decision and the Monfries decision deserved to be reviewed. The logic for this has nothing to do with the vision available, rather it has to do with the ambiguity of the event to which the decision is being made. Neither goal was conclusively touched within the field of play. The only person to be in a position to have a correct judgement is the goal umpire, however, given precedence and the field umpires predominance - as the field umpire could not conclusively tell, he must use the replay. Field umpires overrule often. I'm not sure if either decision was correct (though I am inclined to sense both were points), but the ambiguity demands that the umpire goes to the tape.

It would also be interesting to know who, or how, the West Coast point at the end of the Lions game was touched.

Not that I am against West Coast getting stitched up by the umpires. They deserve every single piece of bad luck they get, since they keep getting gifted frees over at Paterson's Curse. Even yesterday they were on the right side of the free count - 20 to13.

Great information re what is a goal Thanks all

I thought the goal umpire made excellent position so given the poor quality of the replay went with him

Akum asks woiuld it be reviewed if called a goal and thats a most interesting pointWho actually calls the referral??

It shows the flaws in the system as already pointed out by others.

I guess if the disgust at the decision made our team more more determined to win it may even have been valuable.

And did Essendon think its ok we still get the advantage and not regroup they had many disappointing shots themselves and may have felt satisfied that this squared the ledger in their favour.

A dely to rview may have interrupted the tempo and momnentum of the game which was swinging in our favour.

I know at home watching I was thinking a mix of emotion and was just so pleased that we won despite it knowing we could never cite this as a reason for loss.

"... lead to me dacking myself"??? did you rip your own pants off in frustration?

I hope you were at the game.

I certainly did, but fortunately this was in the privacy of my own lounge room in front of my confused fiance.

It'll cost us percentage.

Yes that could be vital to our chances come late August!

Love it JR

Edited June 4, 201213 yr by old dee

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

I think it was Jamar that touched a ball at the city end that I - and others around me - thought was an Essendon goal, but was called a behind. I was watching it live, though, so my angle may have been misleading.

It seems to me the following is true

Interesting post, but remember that you can have your entire body out of bounds and have the ball that you're holding still be in play if you hold the ball inside the boundary despite you being outside (eg. to run around someone).

LOL

I knew my argument was struggling and if I was a bummer supporter i'd probably have argued the opposite in the heat of the moment (and after glow)

should definitely been a vid referral but unless they had other angles would have been inconclusive and goal umps first decision would have stood

maybe in the future we will replace goal posts and padding with brightly lit laser posts only a millimetre wide?

Bloody players would still manage to hit the posts DC

I certainly did, but fortunately this was in the privacy of my own lounge room in front of my confused fiance.

Your reaction has got to be the funniest reaction I've ever heard of. I've started giggling each time I read it. What the hell, man?!

Looked a goal to me

We all know why these reviews have been ignored over the past 2 weeks

Smells of Adrian Anderson intervention to me

I feel as though the goal umpires have been told to be more assertive with their decisions. The goal umpire obviously was convinced Hardingham had touched it before it crossed the line. From the replays I have seen, I can't see how he could have been so sure. I'm confident the ball had crossed the line.

Having said that, since the replay wasn't conclusive, they were going to come back with the same decision anyway, so referring it wouldn't have changed anything. But as has been noted, I'm fairly sure they're trying hard to not use the review system unless there is serious doubt. It's just annoying when field or boundary umpires get involved in certain decisions where there isn't much doubt and they waste time reviewing, then when there is a case of doubt like this one, the fact that the field/boundary umpires didn't have any doubt means the decision isn't reviewed. The system is too subjective.

Get rid of reviews altogether, I say.

In fact a review system may have let Essendon regroup rather than let us carry our momentum

Exactly. I'm glad they didn't review and thought so the first time I watched the replay.

I think it was Jamar that touched a ball at the city end that I - and others around me - thought was an Essendon goal, but was called a behind. I was watching it live, though, so my angle may have been misleading.

Yeah, from my angle it looked to be a goal.

Why don't they just put a camera in the goal umpire's hat, instead of faffin about trying to stick one in a ball (worst. idea. ever btw)

The thing that annoys me is why have the system there in the first place if the review is inconclusive? FFS fix the technology first...ie put the cameras in a position so that from the replay there is a CLEAR result! Surely in this day and age that is possible!!

Why don't they just put a camera in the goal umpire's hat, instead of faffin about trying to stick one in a ball (worst. idea. ever btw)

Now thats an idea that ch 7 boffins should love

Dont know that the afl would like it as it may show the incosistencies too clearly

The thing that annoys me is why have the system there in the first place if the review is inconclusive? FFS fix the technology first...ie put the cameras in a position so that from the replay there is a CLEAR result! Surely in this day and age that is possible!!

The problem is that often where the goal umpire doensn't know it's because they were in an awkward spot or had someone block their vision etc.

Maybe they could have someone sitting at a PC running Google Earth, getting the perfect aerial view from a satellite positioned above each goal line?

If they can have 'stump cam', surely they can have 'post cam'? Not like it has to be HD Broadcast quality or anything.