6 minutes ago, Demonland said:

The only touched controversy with this goal should be whether it was touched before Trac marked the ball. 

 Clear mark in my book. 

 Goes back and kicks a regular goal. 

 The fact that Saints supporters and others like Cornes are upset only makes me hope it was touched before the line. 

 Pay back for all the other crappy decisions and non decisions that have not gone our way in my Footy lifetime. 

If we want payback, there’s a fair bit to come back our way. Wouldn’t want to settle for just Tracs goal.

Just now, CYB said:

If we want payback, there’s a fair bit to come back our way. Wouldn’t want to settle for just Tracs goal.

Oh I’m not finished yet. I have a mental list. This is not over. 

there is only one person who can say, and that was the goal umpire, and he was perfectly positioned.

any one else is just guessing, the video vision is just not good enough

besides, the real issue is why was tracc's mark not paid? why isn't media discussing that?

Even if it was judged a point there is no guarantee they would have got the next goal.  It would have been a kick-in instead of a centre bounce. 

We defended the kick-ins very well.  They spent a lot of the game switching back and forth in our i50 so there is every chance we would have locked it in or kicked a goal ourselves and we still would have won.

There was six minutes to go with any number of outcomes if it had been a point.  It wasn't.  We won.  End of story!

Commentators saying we escaped with a lucky goal are being disingenuous.

Edited August 30, 20205 yr by Lucifer's Hero

1 hour ago, Deestroy All said:

Hope it was touched, makes it even sweeter. 
Even if it was a point, Trac would’ve intercepted the kick in and kicked a goal anyway. 

Kane Cornes looks like chewed bubblegum. 

This.

FWIW . . . there is not one post on the St. Kilda boards (that I could find) where their supporters were commenting on the goal. It's as if it didn't happen. 

A non-controversy IMO.   Goal umpire in perfect position and a simple situation.

The technology (even at regularly used grounds) is not good enough and may never be.   Just go with the umpire's call. Umpires make bad calls all the time, many of which gift goals (or vice versa) to teams so why focus on the goal umpire's decisions?

The only reason they single out the goal umpire for review is that there is natural break in play.   But even that can lead to bad consequences as we saw a few weeks back when our very late mark on the full back line was reviewed and we lost forward momentum and a chance to win the game. 

It looked to be touched over the line but I am dissapointed the AFL has not put money into goal line technology. Do it properly or not at all.

 

Kane Cornes . . . 

• Doesn’t understand the laws of the game
• Obsessed with his own image
• Has a cross hanging in the background
• Doesn’t watch the games he comments on
• Contradicts himself every week
• Vacuous, fatuous and asinine . . . sprouts out the last thought that crosses his mind
• Complete and absolutely no idea of the 2020 game and the way it’s played
   

This goal personifies everything that every MFC Player has to do to win, for every minute of every game from here on in......

26 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

holding the man

3 minutes ago, Elegt said:

holding the man

or over the shoulder.

or chopping the arm.

There is merit to the argument that no AFL game should be played at a ground that doesn't have a goal line camera. Goodwin has said this and said it again last night.

But that issue aside, there are no other issues with this. The reason we have an "umpire's call" system with score reviews is to ensure the goal umpire still has a role to play. In this instance, he made a decision that it was a goal. He was the only person on the ground who could have known. Let's back that call in and celebrate what IMO should be goal of the week and is every bit a good as any other goal this year given the importance of the situation.

PS: agree with all those who say it was a mark AND a free kick to Petracca.

4 hours ago, pitmaster said:

Kane Cornes rediscovered his inner [censored] and declared Trac's final, crucial goal touched.

 

https://www.afl.com.au/video/492533/i-m-starting-to-turn-the-emerging-star-who-now-has-the-complete-game?videoId=492533&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1598711631001

I normally approach score reviews with trepidation but I had no doubt last night we were OK on that one. The goal umpire was right on the spot.

Anyone agree with KC?

Am I paranoid thinking he just wants to have a dig against us?

Who cares what he or anyone else thinks?  Ratten gracefully accepted the decision as he understands that the system is not perfect and that they have to respect the umpire's decision (I think he used that old chestnut "it is what it is").  The technology is not perfect (far from it, in fact) and is even less perfect at remote grounds where the logistics involved probably make it impossible for them to implement the full system.

Essentially, they are doing what they did before the technology and review system were available; that is, the umpires are having to make the call based on how they actually see things.  Based on the vision available, none of us will ever know if the umpire got it right or wrong.

 

Controversial goal? The umpire could not have been in a better position and called it a goal. 
 

 

To paraphrase cricketers. It doesn't matter a [censored] what you think or say - it's what's in the scorebook that counts.

5 hours ago, deanox said:

GOTY.

1 on 3 clutch goal at crucial time.

Genuinely, one of the great goals. I was cursing the play as the ball came in to a 1 on 3 and then what unfolded after that was an example of absolutely freakish skill and strength.

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

The only touched controversy with this goal should be whether it was touched before Trac marked the ball. 

 Clear mark in my book. 

 Goes back and kicks a regular goal. 

 The fact that Saints supporters and others like Cornes are upset only makes me hope it was touched before the line. 

 Pay back for all the other crappy decisions and non decisions that have not gone our way in my Footy lifetime. 

Thank you Andy, Trac could easily have had 2 marks late in that game that were both called touched in a time where any jugglers seem to be paid marks. Very little talk about it and I thought Trac did well to defy the possible no call and kick the goal anyway.

10 minutes ago, FarNorthernD said:

Controversial goal? The umpire could not have been in a better position and called it a goal. 
 

 

That image shows the ball over the line and yet to be touched.

Also, he marked it so the result was justified either way.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

There is merit to the argument that no AFL game should be played at a ground that doesn't have a goal line camera. Goodwin has said this and said it again last night.

But that issue aside, there are no other issues with this. The reason we have an "umpire's call" system with score reviews is to ensure the goal umpire still has a role to play. In this instance, he made a decision that it was a goal. He was the only person on the ground who could have known. Let's back that call in and celebrate what IMO should be goal of the week and is every bit a good as any other goal this year given the importance of the situation.

PS: agree with all those who say it was a mark AND a free kick to Petracca.

Its a disgrace that there is no goal line cameras at every venue, ffs you could just put a cheap go pro on the post 

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

There is merit to the argument that no AFL game should be played at a ground that doesn't have a goal line camera. Goodwin has said this and said it again last night.

But that issue aside, there are no other issues with this. The reason we have an "umpire's call" system with score reviews is to ensure the goal umpire still has a role to play. In this instance, he made a decision that it was a goal. He was the only person on the ground who could have known. Let's back that call in and celebrate what IMO should be goal of the week and is every bit a good as any other goal this year given the importance of the situation.

PS: agree with all those who say it was a mark AND a free kick to Petracca.

The problem is that time and time again we only seem to made aware of these things after a controversial incident. If the AFL was hell bent on having score reviews there needs to be standards adhered to and resources made available across all AFL games. It really needs to be as standard as having enough goal umpire flags on hand and at the ground or making sure the white lines are painted correctly. To me saying they didn't have a goal line camera is really just saying that in the Alice they only have 3 goal umpire flags so he could only wave one.

 

The importance  about the Goal , was that one of our Stars , actually kicked a clutch goal , when it was needed, to win the game !!

6 hours ago, pitmaster said:

Kane Cornes rediscovered his inner [censored] and declared Trac's final, crucial goal touched.

 

https://www.afl.com.au/video/492533/i-m-starting-to-turn-the-emerging-star-who-now-has-the-complete-game?videoId=492533&modal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1598711631001

I normally approach score reviews with trepidation but I had no doubt last night we were OK on that one. The goal umpire was right on the spot.

Anyone agree with KC?

Am I paranoid thinking he just wants to have a dig against us?

 

Kane Cornes is a moron.  That ball was touched a foot over the line.   Calling for a replay and holding up the result for a minute took the excitement out of what was an epic goal.