Eddie's goal that wasn't

[Vagg 2,425]

Just watched the video of the goal that Eddie Betts had disallowed, because the ball slammed into the Goal Umpire, and cannoned back into play, not having crossed the goal line. I know it's the rule. But, if that happened during the Season, and cost a team the game, they would be screaming bloody murder. And, with good reason!

How dirty would you be? Screaming into goal, pick up the ball and blaze away from point blank range, and see the stinkin' ball ricochet back into play, and the Ump calls "play on".

Sometimes, there's just no justice in our game!

[Deestroy All 14,262]

It's a completely moronic rule. If he wasn't there it was going in, so call it a goal.

Same with when it hits a boundary umpire and stays in, logic and common sense says it was going out, so call it out.

There's the odd chance a flash hurricane may appear and blow the ball back into the field of play, so perhaps they have the rule right...

[What 18,810]

When the F did this rule come in?

Thats a goal every day of the week. just WTF

[Deeoldfart 7,864]

A little COMMON SENSE please!

[hardtack 10,187]

It's a completely moronic rule. If he wasn't there it was going in, so call it a goal.

Same with when it hits a boundary umpire and stays in, logic and common sense says it was going out, so call it out.

There's the odd chance a flash hurricane may appear and blow the ball back into the field of play, so perhaps they have the rule right...

It should be awarded a 9 point goal... just like in cricket if the ball hits the fielders helmet (if placed on the ground) a boundary is awarded.

[Deestroy All 14,262]

It should be awarded a 9 point goal... just like in cricket if the ball hits the fielders helmet (if placed on the ground) a boundary is awarded.

Now that would bring some entertainment. Players trying to ping the goal umpires from point blank range for bonus points. I'd like to see that.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,050]

Now that would bring some entertainment. Players trying to ping the goal umpires from point blank range for bonus points. I'd like to see that.

Yeah, and give the umpy a bat or something, and if he swats the ball back, it is only three points ...

[hardtack 10,187]

Now that would bring some entertainment. Players trying to ping the goal umpires from point blank range for bonus points. I'd like to see that.

The thought did cross my mind as I was typing that response :-)

[daisycutter 28,728]

what was the goal umpire doing on the wrong side of the line?

[jnrmac 19,509]

what was the goal umpire doing on the wrong side of the line?

Exactly. Who tells them to be in field of play?

[DeeSpencer 23,689]

Exactly. Who tells them to be in field of play?

No one. They admitted he was in the wrong spot.

Tbh I'm probably in favour of the rule staying the same because what happens if the ball hits the goal umpire on the line but the ball has taken a big high bounce and might just have spun backwards or even at a crazy sideways angle.

I probably prefer rules that are clean cut and equal for all sides than rules that are 'fair' so to speak.

If Eddie Betts wants a reason that he had bad luck then call it karma for drilling the ball at a goal umpire. Anyway, it's another reason preseason footy is important, they umps need preseasons as well and this goal umpire has to shape up or be dropped.

[DeeSpencer 23,689]

Ideally we'd probably have 2 goal umpires. Each hiding safely behind each post and therefore away from players and the ball. Plus then they'd only have to rule on one goal post (and one point post) plus share the goal line between them.

Goal umpiring isn't quite as easy as it looks, I've done it a few times in local footy. It's certainly easier this time of year without a boggy goal square. But really the umps have to stand a good metre or so back behind the line, keep out of players and the balls way but also have the ability to rush up and slot in front of a goal post to then look across the goal line to determine if the ball has crossed. You have to be on the ball with your movements to get to the right spots.

Either way, be thankful this happened now and the good goal umpires will be picked for big games, the rest will have learned from this and be in the right spots this week!

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Another reason to have two goal umpires at each end, one on each goal post.

[daisycutter 28,728]

well watching the replay 10 times i don't see how the goal umpire could adjudicate whether the ball was over the line or not.

it hit his left shoulder which was leaning back from his left foot which was close to the line (his right was definitely behind the line)

but....he had his head turned away from the ball as he ducked. ...so he didn't see the contact.

nor was he looking at the goal line

so....he just guessed......which is not good enough in this particular case

Edited March 2, 2015 by daisycutter

[DeeSpencer 23,689]

well watching the replay 10 times i don't see how the goal umpire could adjudicate whether the ball was over the line or not.

it hit his left shoulder which was leaning back from his left foot which was close to the line (his right was definitely behind the line)

but....he had his head turned away from the ball as he ducked. ...so he didn't see the contact.

nor was he looking at the goal line

so....he just guessed......which is not good enough in this particular case

If he isn't sure then play on is the right call. He made one terrible mistake in not being comfortably behind the line, anything after that is just part of the original bad decision.

[wretched.sylph 164]

Toump vs Port. 2014, Round 11, 4th quarter, 1st minute. goal (to regain the lead) disallowed after umpire interference.

[praha 10,575]

If he wasn't there it was going in, so call it a goal.

If the goal umpire wasn't there, then the match wouldn't be played.

Umpires are part of the game. They are part of the ground. In any and all sports if the balls hits the ref it is a neutral decision. Simples.

Solution: try and avoid the ump.

[Deestroy All 14,262]

If the goal umpire wasn't there, then the match wouldn't be played.

Umpires are part of the game. They are part of the ground. In any and all sports if the balls hits the ref it is a neutral decision. Simples.

Solution: try and avoid the ump.

There's always one.

"Wasn't there" meaning 2 feet to the left or right, or better still as close to the post as possible. Not literally not there, christ.

If the ball hits the ref in the middle of the field then fair enough. Not when their job is not on the field.

How many times has a zebra holding a line marker in the NFL knocked a ball back into play? Zero.

Solution: the umpire should stay the [censored] out of the way. If he can't, he makes a simple judgement call and says a ball travelling 50kmh that just hit me was going through the goals, it's a goal. Simples.

[Vagg 2,425]

Good to see the AFL are considering a change of rule so that, in future, should the same thing happen, common sense will prevail, and it will be called a goal. Well done, AFL. Let's just hope they carry through with it!

[daisycutter 28,728]

Good to see the AFL are considering a change of rule so that, in future, should the same thing happen, common sense will prevail, and it will be called a goal. Well done, AFL. Let's just hope they carry through with it!

agreed

the goal umpire effectively made no decision (his eyes were not on the ball or line as he ducked)

the central umpire(s) also made no decision

next time the central umpire should call a halt and interrogate all umps, check video etc

then make a decision which includes probability/common sense

so either a score or

ball-up

[hardtack 10,187]

agreed

the goal umpire effectively made no decision (his eyes were not on the ball or line as he ducked)

the central umpire(s) also made no decision

next time the central umpire should call a halt and interrogate all umps, check video etc

then make a decision which includes probability/common sense

so either a score or

ball-up

I can't remember, that umpire who marked the ball a few seasons ago... did he call play on, or go back and take a set kick?

[daisycutter 28,728]

I can't remember, that umpire who marked the ball a few seasons ago... did he call play on, or go back and take a set kick?

couldn't kick to save himself, hardtack

[hardtack 10,187]

couldn't kick to save himself, hardtack

Yeah, but had a great set of mitts!

[daisycutter 28,728]

Yeah, but had a great set of mitts!

true, could teach dawes a thing or two about marking - lol

[Tony Tea 2,792]

I played in a premiership where one of our blokes (Reggie Stack) kicked a scrubby ball towards the forward pocket boundary, but the ball hit the opposition's runner, bounced sideways and dribbled through the goals for six points. The runner and other team protested, but the umpies and goal umpy were adamant it was a goal, so it was given. (About 5 minutes later I took a mark about 25 out on a 45 and kicked it straight through the points, but it was given a goal. Sun shined on us that day. Very unDemoneque.)