Goal Umpires against Richmond

[jnrmac 19,393]

Was reading something that made me think further about this. The umps made three mistakes.

The ball bounces off the umpire (mistake #1)

No replay is called (mistake #2)

The ball remains in play yet Hill picks it up and walks casually back across the line a la the Hawks in the 2008 Grand Final. Under no pressure and exactly the thing the rule was brought in to try and stop (mistake #3)

They could not have ballsed this up more if they tried.

ANd last week in Melb against the GWS Byrnes kicked a goal that was disallowed in the first minute of the last quarter.

The goal umpire called it a goal (and wanted to check it hadn't hit the post)

A third umpire comes in and says he thinks it hit the post

The video review says it hit the post and calls it a point when it is unclear and goal umpires call should stand.

It looks highly likely that in fact the ball did not hit the goal post but Byrnes hand when he pulled the ball back towards him. Hence should have been a goal and our quarter would have been 13 goals not 12.

When are these idiots running the game going to get it right. Its a debacle in this day and age that they cant get their processes right.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Was reading something that made me think further about this. The umps made three mistakes.

The ball bounces off the umpire (mistake #1)

No replay is called (mistake #2)

The ball remains in play yet Hill picks it up and walks casually back across the line a la the Hawks in the 2008 Grand Final. Under no pressure and exactly the thing the rule was brought in to try and stop (mistake #3)

They could not have ballsed this up more if they tried.

ANd last week in Melb against the GWS Byrnes kicked a goal that was disallowed in the first minute of the last quarter.

The goal umpire called it a goal (and wanted to check it hadn't hit the post)

A third umpire comes in and says he thinks it hit the post

The video review says it hit the post and calls it a point when it is unclear and goal umpires call should stand.

It looks highly likely that in fact the ball did not hit the goal post but Byrnes hand when he pulled the ball back towards him. Hence should have been a goal and our quarter would have been 13 goals not 12.

When are these idiots running the game going to get it right. Its a debacle in this day and age that they cant get their processes right.

Don't forget when Harry O'Brien got booked during the game when under the new sliding rules he should have been given a free kick:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/afl-admits-mistake-and-declares-collingwoods-harry-obrien-should-have-received-a-free-kick/story-e6frf9jf-1226621034758

[Robot Devil 1,895]

And the Billy Smedts one from last night.

[Ted Lasso 17,198]

This could quite easily be the difference between finals and missing out for one of those sides, think they will formally protest this?

[daisycutter 28,709]

This could quite easily be the difference between finals and missing out for one of those sides, think they will formally protest this?

no point. it would still be inconclusive

but like richmond i would be furious if it was us

[Bitter but optimistic 21,560]

no point. it would still be inconclusive

but like richmond i would be furious if it was us

But it was pleasant listening to Softwicke snivell about the injustice of it all.

[binman 39,185]

But it was pleasant listening to Softwicke snivell about the injustice of it all.

Which was weird as there is no way that ball crossed the goal line and therefore no way it was a goal.

[titan_uranus 22,912]

This could quite easily be the difference between finals and missing out for one of those sides, think they will formally protest this?

Stupid reactionary crap.

I agree that the umpire should have called for a review. What would have happened, though? The video was inconclusive. You could not tell from it whether or not the whole ball had crossed the line. So it would have reverted to the umpire's call, which was that it didn't cross the line, hence play on. So Richmond would have ended up with their behind, no change.

As for the deliberate rushed behind against Hill, there was a player right next to him, and they were all confused about what was going on with the behind/goal/review situation. To call that a free is insane.

Richmond should be applauded for their PR job here. All anyone is talking about from that game is the behind fiasco. Instead, we should be focusing on the fact that, once again, Richmond cracked under pressure, and once again, lost a lead late in the fourth quarter.

[dee-luded 2,958]

Was reading something that made me think further about this. The umps made three mistakes.

The ball bounces off the umpire (mistake #1)

No replay is called (mistake #2)

The ball remains in play yet Hill picks it up and walks casually back across the line a la the Hawks in the 2008 Grand Final. Under no pressure and exactly the thing the rule was brought in to try and stop (mistake #3)

They could not have ballsed this up more if they tried.

ANd last week in Melb against the GWS Byrnes kicked a goal that was disallowed in the first minute of the last quarter.

The goal umpire called it a goal (and wanted to check it hadn't hit the post)

A third umpire comes in and says he thinks it hit the post

The video review says it hit the post and calls it a point when it is unclear and goal umpires call should stand.

It looks highly likely that in fact the ball did not hit the goal post but Byrnes hand when he pulled the ball back towards him. Hence should have been a goal and our quarter would have been 13 goals not 12.

When are these idiots running the game going to get it right. Its a debacle in this day and age that they cant get their processes right.

Don't forget when Harry O'Brien got booked during the game when under the new sliding rules he should have been given a free kick:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/afl-admits-mistake-and-declares-collingwoods-harry-obrien-should-have-received-a-free-kick/story-e6frf9jf-1226621034758

so many rule changes over the last few years, compounded by definition changes each year... nobody knows whats going on, the players don't the supporters don't & the umpires forget.

..... go back to how we had it 10 Yrs back, & sort it out from there. & reduce the interchange bench, & add more subs.

[Ted Lasso 17,198]

Stupid reactionary crap.

I agree that the umpire should have called for a review. What would have happened, though? The video was inconclusive. You could not tell from it whether or not the whole ball had crossed the line. So it would have reverted to the umpire's call, which was that it didn't cross the line, hence play on. So Richmond would have ended up with their behind, no change.

As for the deliberate rushed behind against Hill, there was a player right next to him, and they were all confused about what was going on with the behind/goal/review situation. To call that a free is insane.

Richmond should be applauded for their PR job here. All anyone is talking about from that game is the behind fiasco. Instead, we should be focusing on the fact that, once again, Richmond cracked under pressure, and once again, lost a lead late in the fourth quarter.

In any case the position of the goal umpire needs to be reviewed because this has the potential to have cost a team a game of football which i think you will agree is not acceptable,

[Chook 14,618]

Does anyone else actually really like the "no sliding" rule? I thought it would herald the end of "get the ball at all costs" play, but all it's done is stop players from sliding in and holding the ball up while they're lying on the ground. I really have grown to love it.

[Ted Lasso 17,198]

Does anyone else actually really like the "no sliding" rule? I thought it would herald the end of "get the ball at all costs" play, but all it's done is stop players from sliding in and holding the ball up while they're lying on the ground. I really have grown to love it.

They should bring in a joel selwood can't duck every time he gets the ball and get soft free kicks rule

[dee-luded 2,958]

I've always thought the Goal umpires should never have been standing inside the goal posts.

I think they should stand behind the Goal posts when its going to be close, ('Behind' side of post) looking around the post & along the goal line, using the post as protection.

to me the best Umpire configuration is to have 2 main Field Umpires, 2 Goal umpires.... & 4 boundary riders... 2 each side.

the boundary riders should be between 60 - 70 Mtrs apart at all times. one ahead of the play & the other following the play...

... the 'Forward of play Boundary Umpire', could run all the way to "the Behinds area" ahead of the play, to assist the Goal umpires when required.

... the 2 Field umpires should patrol along the corridor, one ahead of the play, & the other following behind the play.

Edited April 28, 2013 by dee-luded

[Robot Devil 1,895]

They should bring in a joel selwood can't duck every time he gets the ball and get soft free kicks rule

Needs the Ashton Hams "No Stooging" sub-clause as well.

[titan_uranus 22,912]

In any case the position of the goal umpire needs to be reviewed because this has the potential to have cost a team a game of football which i think you will agree is not acceptable,

I agree that goal umpires getting in the way of the ball is a bad thing and, yes, in an extreme situation could obviously cost a team a game of football.

But there's no solution to it.

People are screaming for goal umpires to stand behind the line. Well, that sounds nice, until you stop and think about why they're told to straddle the goal line in the first place. They do this because, if they're not on the goal line, they can't tell when the ball is touched or crosses the line, and as such, they can't adjudicate on kicks being touched, or when the ball crosses the line and is dead (for either a goal or a behind). They have to be on the goal line, otherwise they're going to make errors regarding when a ball is touched or when it's a goal or not.

[Ted Lasso 17,198]

I agree that goal umpires getting in the way of the ball is a bad thing and, yes, in an extreme situation could obviously cost a team a game of football.

But there's no solution to it.

People are screaming for goal umpires to stand behind the line. Well, that sounds nice, until you stop and think about why they're told to straddle the goal line in the first place. They do this because, if they're not on the goal line, they can't tell when the ball is touched or crosses the line, and as such, they can't adjudicate on kicks being touched, or when the ball crosses the line and is dead (for either a goal or a behind). They have to be on the goal line, otherwise they're going to make errors regarding when a ball is touched or when it's a goal or not.

you certainly do have a point, my idea was to stand slightly behind the line and use the camera's more but that would just make the game drag out too much

[jnrmac 19,393]

I agree that goal umpires getting in the way of the ball is a bad thing and, yes, in an extreme situation could obviously cost a team a game of football.

But there's no solution to it.

People are screaming for goal umpires to stand behind the line. Well, that sounds nice, until you stop and think about why they're told to straddle the goal line in the first place. They do this because, if they're not on the goal line, they can't tell when the ball is touched or crosses the line, and as such, they can't adjudicate on kicks being touched, or when the ball crosses the line and is dead (for either a goal or a behind). They have to be on the goal line, otherwise they're going to make errors regarding when a ball is touched or when it's a goal or not.

Sorry that is just rubbish and wrong.

[jnrmac 19,393]

Does anyone else actually really like the "no sliding" rule? I thought it would herald the end of "get the ball at all costs" play, but all it's done is stop players from sliding in and holding the ball up while they're lying on the ground. I really have grown to love it.

Fairly typical AFL - its not the rule. It was brought in to stop the lindsay thomas gary rohan situation (a 1 in 150 year event perhaps??).

They just continually mis-adjudicate it. Just lie the deliberate OOB rule. some of the ones paid this year are shocking.

As for Hill being confused and walking the ball back over the line . tough. There was no pressure as Vickery was behind the goal line. Can't justify that.

[CHAMP 347]

Clearly Hill was not involved in any contest and under no pressure. His decision was to ensure that the ball did cross the line and his action was deliberate.

If Hill had considered that a behind had already been scored and that the ball had to be kicked-in there was no need to take the backward step.

A very valid case could be made for awarding Richmond a further 2 points (and the match).

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

The funiest thing is that Hardwick is being a Goal umpire in a kids game today.....

[Nasher 33,186]

Sorry that is just rubbish and wrong.

Wow, you sure showed him!

[monoccular 16,497]

But it was pleasant listening to Softwicke snivell about the injustice of it all.

It was unjust but not because it crossed the goal line, which it didn't.

It was unjust because the moronic goal umpire crossed the goal line and interfered with the ball.

Surely there is no way that the goal umpire should ever need to cross the line during play - no need whatsoever. Poor coaching. Maybe some of those who are calling for Neeld's blood could call for Geishen's instead?

[stuie 7,374]

Feel for the umps (and players) at the moment. There seems to be 1 or 2 major rule changes, and another 3-4 minor ones, every year. These guys aren't full time, need to be super fit, and perform a high pressure job in front of 30,000 on a regular basis. The rules committee and Vlad need to stop mucking around with the game and restrict any rule changes to at least only every 2 years or so. Giving it to the umps is part of the game, but I just feel sorry for them these days.

[Bitter but optimistic 21,560]

It was unjust but not because it crossed the goal line, which it didn't.

It was unjust because the moronic goal umpire crossed the goal line and interfered with the ball.

Surely there is no way that the goal umpire should ever need to cross the line during play - no need whatsoever. Poor coaching. Maybe some of those who are calling for Neeld's blood could call for Geishen's instead?

I believe the goal umps are instructed to straddle the line in certain circumstance.

[leucopogon 1,494]

i'd like to see a new rule brought in, I think if a ball is touched off the boot a mark should still be paid if it travels the required 15 m distance. I'm so sick of the spectacle of seeing players take great grabs from kicks that were touched and not hearing the umps call of "touch ball" only to then suffer the ignominy of claiming the mark looking all confused while they get mercilessly tackled resulting in what would 9 times out of ten be a holding the ball decision but which is usually balled up as they are given the benefit of the doubt of not hearing the "play on" call. Happens at least once a game and it tarnishes the brand for mine.

Obviously, if a shot at goal is touched off the boot it shouldn't be a goal.

Edited April 28, 2013 by leucopogon