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.

I don't like changing rules unless necessary, but if this rule change were implemented then perhaps a mark could be awarded unless the umpire deems that the ball has deviated significantly in its trajectory as a result of the touch.

Sorry that is just rubbish and wrong.

Really?

Please explain. I'm all ears.

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

That is correct. So they should be instructed to umpire from behind the line. They should not be in-play. ie. straddle the line - one foot in play one foot out; bum crack against the goal post....

All those years prior the goal umpire has umpired behind the line not on it. I gather all or most (there is always some Maverick umpire exception who has had too much caffeine) aus-kick goal umpires umpire from behind the line on weekends - and I reckon they make less errors.

Then if something needs to be looked at like the ball shaving the post. Use the review system - that's what it's there for.

Edited April 28, 201312 yr by H_T
spell error

That is correct. So they should be instructed to umpire from behind the line. They should not be in-play. ie. straddle the line - one foot in play one foot out; bum crack against the goal post....

All those years prior the goal umpire has umpired behind the line not on it. I gather all or most (there is always some Maverick umpire exception who has had too much caffeine) aus-kick goal umpires umpire from behind the line on weekends - and I reckon they make less errors.

Then if something needs to be looked at like the ball shaving the post. Use the review system - that's what it's there for.

I just can't believe people think this is a better solution.

You'd rather have the umpire behind the line? This necessitates that he/she cannot see down the line, meaning they cannot see when the ball crosses the line, meaning they can't accurately decide if the ball is touched/marked/etc.

That is going to cause far, far more problems/errors than the tiny amount of times the ball touches the umpire.

I just can't believe people think this is a better solution.

You'd rather have the umpire behind the line? This necessitates that he/she cannot see down the line, meaning they cannot see when the ball crosses the line, meaning they can't accurately decide if the ball is touched/marked/etc.

That is going to cause far, far more problems/errors than the tiny amount of times the ball touches the umpire.

So you prefer them on field/in-play like these instances?

They don't have to be far back from the line - as long as they are behind the post and out of play. It's common sense and it prevents debacles like we've seen in the last 2 weeks.

If they still can't accurately decide - they may as well get someone else to do their job. Or they can elect for the review.

So you prefer them on field/in-play like these instances?

They don't have to be far back from the line - as long as they are behind the post and out of play. It's common sense and it prevents debacles like we've seen in the last 2 weeks.

If they still can't accurately decide - they may as well get someone else to do their job. Or they can elect for the review.

Yes, I do.

Think about it HT. If they aren't on the line, we open the game up to continual referral of decisions because the umpire simply cannot know what's going on on the line.

Yes, it's not ideal to have the ball touch the umpire, but to ask the umpire to stand behind the line only serves to increase the errors they will make and the number of reviews they will call for, increasing the length of the game and putting more decisions in the hands of the video referees (who are struggling, if their work on the Byrnes decision last week is anything to go by).

Your last line is unfair.

I just can't believe people think this is a better solution.

You'd rather have the umpire behind the line? This necessitates that he/she cannot see down the line, meaning they cannot see when the ball crosses the line, meaning they can't accurately decide if the ball is touched/marked/etc.

That is going to cause far, far more problems/errors than the tiny amount of times the ball touches the umpire.

That's what we have the 3rd umpire for.

Goal umpires should act the way they have for 10 years, and if there is an issue - go to the video review!

That's what we have the 3rd umpire for.

Goal umpires should act the way they have for 10 years, and if there is an issue - go to the video review!

The third umpire can't be there for every decision though, that's unhealthy, slow, and will just lead to more errors and laziness from goal umpires.

Yes, I do.

Think about it HT. If they aren't on the line, we open the game up to continual referral of decisions because the umpire simply cannot know what's going on on the line.

Yes, it's not ideal to have the ball touch the umpire, but to ask the umpire to stand behind the line only serves to increase the errors they will make and the number of reviews they will call for, increasing the length of the game and putting more decisions in the hands of the video referees (who are struggling, if their work on the Byrnes decision last week is anything to go by).

Your last line is unfair.

What is the big difference in looking straight down the line (the straddle view against the post) and standing just to one side of the post out of play with a similar view (but for a couple of inches off the line)? Is it really that significant that it would result in an increase in errors?

It's my contention with the review there to fall back on in "some instances" (no effect in lengthening the game that what it is today), that there would not be an increase in errors.

The third umpire can't be there for every decision though, that's unhealthy, slow, and will just lead to more errors and laziness from goal umpires.

Doesn't need to be there for every decision - just the tough calls that come in once and a while

Yes, I do.

Think about it HT. If they aren't on the line, we open the game up to continual referral of decisions because the umpire simply cannot know what's going on on the line.

Yes, it's not ideal to have the ball touch the umpire, but to ask the umpire to stand behind the line only serves to increase the errors they will make and the number of reviews they will call for, increasing the length of the game and putting more decisions in the hands of the video referees (who are struggling, if their work on the Byrnes decision last week is anything to go by).

Your last line is unfair.

"on the line" doesn't mean in front of the line

they can have their body behind the line with their head inches behind the line when necessary

there is no situation they need to be in front of the line and in the field of play

boundary umps have to decide line decisions too and they can do it with going into the field of play

"on the line" doesn't mean in front of the line

they can have their body behind the line with their head inches behind the line when necessary

there is no situation they need to be in front of the line and in the field of play

boundary umps have to decide line decisions too and they can do it with going into the field of play

This is what I mean titan in terms of umpire technique. It should not result in an increase in errors and it takes away the risk of ball contact on goal umpires legs/body in field of play.

What is the big difference in looking straight down the line (the straddle view against the post) and standing just to one side of the post out of play with a similar view (but for a couple of inches off the line)? Is it really that significant that it would result in an increase in errors?

It's my contention with the review there to fall back on in "some instances" (no effect in lengthening the game that what it is today), that there would not be an increase in errors.

See, I think it would be a big issue. Once you're not on the line, it's that much harder to know for sure, and with the third umpire, the goal umpires are just going to be unsure every time and second guess themselves.

"on the line" doesn't mean in front of the line

they can have their body behind the line with their head inches behind the line when necessary

there is no situation they need to be in front of the line and in the field of play

boundary umps have to decide line decisions too and they can do it with going into the field of play

Difference between boundary and goal umpires, though, is that goal umpires are dealing with scores, and boundary umpires don't have giant goal posts blocking their view, so they can stand a few metres away from the play.

See, I think it would be a big issue. Once you're not on the line, it's that much harder to know for sure, and with the third umpire, the goal umpires are just going to be unsure every time and second guess themselves.

Difference between boundary and goal umpires, though, is that goal umpires are dealing with scores, and boundary umpires don't have giant goal posts blocking their view, so they can stand a few metres away from the play.

yes there are differences with boundary umpires.

they don't have posts in their way but no one is suggesting the goal umpire stand outside the posts

boundary umpires also have the curve of the boundary in the distance to contend with

ask wayne harmes and collingwood whether boundary decisions affect scores

anyway, i didn't intend the comment re boundary umpires to be a major point, just that decisions can be made without being in the field of play

See, I think it would be a big issue. Once you're not on the line, it's that much harder to know for sure, and with the third umpire, the goal umpires are just going to be unsure every time and second guess themselves.

Well it's a difference of opinion, I don't think it would be a big issue. I certainly don't think the goal umpires would be second guessing themselves as a result of the existence of a third umpire rview system. It's only there as a safety net if they cannot determine the result for themselves ie. if their view was obstructed by another player.

yes there are differences with boundary umpires.

they don't have posts in their way but no one is suggesting the goal umpire stand outside the posts

boundary umpires also have the curve of the boundary in the distance to contend with

ask wayne harmes and collingwood whether boundary decisions affect scores

anyway, i didn't intend the comment re boundary umpires to be a major point, just that decisions can be made without being in the field of play

No I know, I didn't mean to sidetrack.

I guess what worries me is that goal umpires behind the line just aren't able to be correct on all the decisions that require them to see down the line.

Well it's a difference of opinion, I don't think it would be a big issue. I certainly don't think the goal umpires would be second guessing themselves as a result of the existence of a third umpire rview system. It's only there as a safety net if they cannot determine the result for themselves ie. if their view was obstructed by another player.

The reason why the system exists is irrelevant. It's there. IMO, if goal umpires were behind the line, which necessarily means they won't be able to tell 100% of the time whether a ball is touched or not, they'll resort to saying 'look, I think it was touched, but I'm not sure because I can't see down the line', leading field umpires to call for reviews more often than is currently the case.

I just can't believe people think this is a better solution.

You'd rather have the umpire behind the line? This necessitates that he/she cannot see down the line, meaning they cannot see when the ball crosses the line, meaning they can't accurately decide if the ball is touched/marked/etc.

That is going to cause far, far more problems/errors than the tiny amount of times the ball touches the umpire.

The rule says that the ball must cross the line completely. AN umpire standing behind the line can see perfectly whether or not it has crossed the line.

A goal umpire in the field of play is ridiculous. The number of times they get hit by a ball or player shows it is a problem.

It worked for 140 yrs until some genius changed it.

The rule says that the ball must cross the line completely. AN umpire standing behind the line can see perfectly whether or not it has crossed the line.

A goal umpire in the field of play is ridiculous. The number of times they get hit by a ball or player shows it is a problem.

It worked for 140 yrs until some genius changed it.

Google 'parallax error'. Then get back to me.

Question is, if the ball had not hit the goal umpire, would it have gone through for a goal? Looked to me like it would have. In my humble opinion, the logical thing to do in such a situation would be to give it as a goal...!

The reason why the system exists is irrelevant. It's there. IMO, if goal umpires were behind the line, which necessarily means they won't be able to tell 100% of the time whether a ball is touched or not, they'll resort to saying 'look, I think it was touched, but I'm not sure because I can't see down the line', leading field umpires to call for reviews more often than is currently the case.

As was the case with Chelsea when she stradled the post...she was on the line and couldn't tell 100%!

As a goal umpire in the NT, I completely agree with everything titan is saying.

To be able to see if the ball has crossed the line fully, the best position is to straddle.

Sure, we could stand behind the line and arch our necks to the point of imbalance, but it just wouldn't be natural, causing even more mistakes and goal umpires becoming more and more uncertain of their decisions.

What annoys me about the situtation in Richmond vs. Fremantle game is that over 200 games of AFL are played yearly, and this is the first time this has been an issue to the point of "costing" the team a win (but we could also argue this point).

With the Byrnes goal from the GWS game, Chelsea clearly stated that she thought it was a goal and was going to call it so until the field umpire ran in from however far out to reverse her decision. Because the two could not come to an agreement, it went to review. IMO the fieldy was in the wrong here. For goodness sakes, she was ON TOP OF THE BALL.

Edited April 30, 201312 yr by WhateverItTakes

Have to say i haven't seen it. Anyone have a link?

As a goal umpire in the NT, I completely agree with everything titan is saying.

To be able to see if the ball has crossed the line fully, the best position is to straddle.

Sure, we could stand behind the line and arch our necks to the point of imbalance, but it just wouldn't be natural, causing even more mistakes and goal umpires becoming more and more uncertain of their decisions.

What annoys me about the situtation in Richmond vs. Fremantle game is that over 200 games of AFL are played yearly, and this is the first time this has been an issue to the point of "costing" the team a win (but we could also argue this point).

With the Byrnes goal from the GWS game, Chelsea clearly stated that she thought it was a goal and was going to call it so until the field umpire ran in from however far out to reverse her decision. Because the two could not come to an agreement, it went to review. IMO the fieldy was in the wrong here. For goodness sakes, she was ON TOP OF THE BALL.

it may be the best position, but it can still be an acceptable position to just be marginally behind the line

its not acceptable to have the goal umpire hit by the ball in the field of play

btw, shouldn't the correct decision be play on if the ball hits the umpire (until/if the ball crosses the line)?

As a goal umpire in the NT, I completely agree with everything titan is saying.

To be able to see if the ball has crossed the line fully, the best position is to straddle.

Sure, we could stand behind the line and arch our necks to the point of imbalance, but it just wouldn't be natural, causing even more mistakes and goal umpires becoming more and more uncertain of their decisions.

What annoys me about the situtation in Richmond vs. Fremantle game is that over 200 games of AFL are played yearly, and this is the first time this has been an issue to the point of "costing" the team a win (but we could also argue this point).

With the Byrnes goal from the GWS game, Chelsea clearly stated that she thought it was a goal and was going to call it so until the field umpire ran in from however far out to reverse her decision. Because the two could not come to an agreement, it went to review. IMO the fieldy was in the wrong here. For goodness sakes, she was ON TOP OF THE BALL.

^ This is correct regarding the field umpire actually. I guess if there wasn't the review system in place, Chelsea's call would have been correct.

I agree with dc, that you don't have to be necessarily on the line stradled to see down the line, you could be just behind the post looking towards the other post to get as accurate a call.

The preventative measure is - to not be on the field of play, to not have the ball hit the goal umpire when in play.

That is the point we're making here.

The preventative measure is - to not be on the field of play, to not have the ball hit the goal umpire when in play.

That is the point we're making here.

Yes, but all you're doing is preventing one problem while enhancing another.