5 hours ago, Melb-A-Toast said:

The third umpire stated that it was clearly touched but could clear declare that it was touched before or after the goal line. 

From the angles I saw on the TV, it was pretty close, and the right call was made.

... next sensational story please...

Im note sure anyone including the ARC could say it was clearly touched. There was no deviation form the ball, no finger bent backwards etc.  You cant state it was clearly touched from a 2D image and the angles that they had. The fact the ARC said it was clearly touched baffled me and I almost put the remote into the TV at the time.

3 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

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.

6 hours ago, FarNorthernD said:

I honestly can’t see the controversy. If it was touched it was clearly after it crossed the goal line. Clear goal, move on.

Any team other than maybe Norf & GC the commentators would have been saying "clear goal".

Even the goal line official in the box said "i think he touched it but there's no clear vision, stay with the umpires call" even though to me there was no clear evidence to suggest how he came to that conclusion.  The ball gained momentum and was just across the line imv even IF he did manage to get a nail on it at some stage.

Everyone's been kicking us for decades not just KC.  Some habits are hard to break and people are like sheep & keep falling in to line with the mainstream kicking.

I'm not even convinced a goal line camera would have been able to see a finger bend back in better clarity than the angles we saw. Pretty confident they would have gone back to umpire's call anyway.

Not that it matters but I've watched the real time footage from that view it looks like the ball bounces and hits the ground over the line then touched. Of course I'm willing to admit there's an outside possibility the ball was only 80% over the line and therefore touched but how any of these experts can definitively jump to this conclusion from the same footage is just silly. 

54 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

Im note sure anyone including the ARC could say it was clearly touched. There was no deviation form the ball, no finger bent backwards etc.  You cant state it was clearly touched from a 2D image and the angles that they had. The fact the ARC said it was clearly touched baffled me and I almost put the remote into the TV at the time.

I think we are both saying that the right decision was made. 

The ball may have been touched, but no person with eyes could argue it was before the line. Should've been a mark anyway. 

1 hour ago, Grimes Times said:

Im note sure anyone including the ARC could say it was clearly touched. There was no deviation form the ball, no finger bent backwards etc.  You cant state it was clearly touched from a 2D image and the angles that they had. The fact the ARC said it was clearly touched baffled me and I almost put the remote into the TV at the time.

Agree, watching it last night I thought you can't even tell if he actually does touch it and it was certainly over the line not to mention he marked it anyway.

Wow, so on 7 News tonight one of the stories will be the action the AFL are taking after a goal line 'blunder' in our game. Absolutely unbelievable, storm meet teacup. 

The AFL review system is much like the others around the world, to go against the on field decision it must be clear as day. It wasn’t, he should’ve been paid the mark anyway, so all good. 

Every team has been on the wrong end of the umpires call, this time we were on the right side. 

If Saints fans are sooking then that makes it sweeter. 

Blunder could only refer to not having a goal line camera. 

Even saints fans admit it was a goal.

Edited August 30, 20205 yr by TheoX

This is a joke, how is this even controversial? I hope someone slugs someone else today so the lead off story from these losers is something else this week

you know (tracc marking it aside), if the umpire had paid holding/over shoulder/chopping arm then it would not be considered controversial, at the very worst a bit soft

so much going on in that short contest

mark, free kick, touched goal, all should have been to our favour yet punters want to shout controversial

And for me what is controversial (but maybe off topic) is that because of the repeated cheap shots by Lynch off the ball we have this Toby Greene situation where for that elbow he SHOULD be suspended but if consistency follows then he’ll get a fine. 

I’m far more ok with an in game extremely close decision remaining umpires call than that sort of non-football act continuing to go unpunished (of course until they decide to punish a Melbourne player). 

FWIW these were not the incidents they brought goal reviews in for, they wanted to fix the glaring mistakes like Hawkins in the Grand Final. 

Goal of the round?

Go get $^#**@( KC you are nothing more then a tool.

52 minutes ago, layzie said:

Wow, so on 7 News tonight one of the stories will be the action the AFL are taking after a goal line 'blunder' in our game. Absolutely unbelievable, storm meet teacup. 

Just saw that. A blunder. So a mistake.

So much for factual, accurate news.

Scoreboard!

One St. Kilda nuffy on social media was claiming that they should take the points away from Melbourne and award the match to St. Kilda.

Another suggested that they should replay the game mid-week. Not sure when mid-week is considering we play again on Thursday.

1 hour ago, layzie said:

Wow, so on 7 News tonight one of the stories will be the action the AFL are taking after a goal line 'blunder' in our game. Absolutely unbelievable, storm meet teacup. 

 

The media have become a parody of themselves.

4 minutes ago, Demonland said:

One St. Kilda nuffy on social media was claiming that they should take the points away from Melbourne and award the match to St. Kilda.

Another suggested that they should replay the game mid-week. Not sure when mid-week is considering we play again on Thursday.

You have to laugh.   FMD there are some extraordinarily stupid oxygen thieves out there.

Cornes would be the worst person to be in a Jury with... Everyone could agree on a verdict and he would go the opposite way just to bring attention to himself...

Can’t be called a blunder unless it can be proven otherwise, so it’s pretty poor reporting from channel 7 .

The replay looked like the ball may have been touched after it crossed the line and the goal umpire called it a goal

Just watched the goal on the replay.

The slow mos show that the goal umpire could not have been in a better position to call the goal

Slow news day

48 minutes ago, Demonland said:

One St. Kilda nuffy on social media was claiming that they should take the points away from Melbourne and award the match to St. Kilda.

On "social media". Enuff said.

Just now, Mazer Rackham said:

On "social media". Enuff said.

Nuffy said ?

47 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

Can’t be called a blunder unless it can be proven otherwise, so it’s pretty poor reporting from channel 7 .

The replay looked like the ball may have been touched after it crossed the line and the goal umpire called it a goal

the "blunder" was not the decision but the lack of goal line cameras. of course it comes across differently