The Neal-Bullen non goal

[Elwood 3184 1,298]

Could someone please explain how the review of Alex Neal-Bullen’s “non goal” worked?

It was paid as a goal. The ball was taken to the centre and then a review took place in which it was deemed to have been touched after a quick review. I thought it was inconclusive.

[Roost it far 8,186]

I think that was Fritsch? All goals are reviewed although I’m sceptical about the review system. It was deemed touched although I thought it was inconclusive.

[Rednblueriseing 824]

5 minutes ago, Elwood 3184 said:

Could someone please explain how the review of Alex Neal-Bullen’s “non goal” worked?

It was paid as a goal. The ball was taken to the centre and then a review took place in which it was deemed to have been touched after a quick review. I thought it was inconclusive.

One of the many F ups from the FN Afl and its umpiring systems, somehow we seem to be always on the wrong side of these decisions.... 

I'm still realling from Friday night, but I've had no faith in the umpiresall year they are getting worse, and not just our games 

[DemonWA 3,931]

8 minutes ago, Elwood 3184 said:

Could someone please explain how the review of Alex Neal-Bullen’s “non goal” worked?

It was paid as a goal. The ball was taken to the centre and then a review took place in which it was deemed to have been touched after a quick review. I thought it was inconclusive.

Circus competition making the interpretation of rules and processes up on the fly. 

[layzie 33,752]

8 minutes ago, Elwood 3184 said:

Could someone please explain how the review of Alex Neal-Bullen’s “non goal” worked?

It was paid as a goal. The ball was taken to the centre and then a review took place in which it was deemed to have been touched after a quick review. I thought it was inconclusive.

I have no idea but this is my guess:

At some point they probably decided to review all goals in the finals whether they were on the screen or not, they've done it behind the scenes and then decided it needed to be pulled back. 

I didn't like it at the time but I haven't dared to watch it again to tell if it was the right decision or not. A lot of people told me it was. 

[SPC 3,534]

Saw a photo of it on socials and it showed it clearly touched. Assuming the C7 do not show the footage ARC have.

Edited September 17, 2023 by SPC

[YearOfTheDees 3,266]

All goals are reviewed now but it must be conclusive to overturn. My wife pointed out to me on Friday how easy it is to wiggle your finger when you stick your hand out. Bet that starts to be trained into players. 

[david_neitz_is_my_dad 4,083]

Touched or not Carlton always get the best from the ARC always

[Gunna’s 2,102]

11 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

All goals are reviewed now but it must be conclusive to overturn. My wife pointed out to me on Friday how easy it is to wiggle your finger when you stick your hand out. Bet that starts to be trained into players. 

Lucky wife

[YearOfTheDees 3,266]

6 minutes ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

Touched or not Carlton always get the best from the ARC always

That one in the AFLW yesterday was crazy. No ARC so they asked the Carlton player and that was good enough to over turn a Eagles goal. 

[Gunna’s 2,102]

50 minutes ago, Elwood 3184 said:

Could someone please explain how the review of Alex Neal-Bullen’s “non goal” worked?

It was paid as a goal. The ball was taken to the centre and then a review took place in which it was deemed to have been touched after a quick review. I thought it was inconclusive.

It was only shown once at the game and whilst I was a long way away from the screen it did look touched. 
 

But like others haven’t watched replay to see if it was conclusive or not. 

[layzie 33,752]

21 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

All goals are reviewed now but it must be conclusive to overturn. My wife pointed out to me on Friday how easy it is to wiggle your finger when you stick your hand out. Bet that starts to be trained into players. 

100%

I love how in the absence of sniko or heat sensors or whatever they use that we've all just accepted that a finger moving is definitive proof of touching the ball just like a non-moving finger means that there was no touch. Fingers move quite easily, I can hold out my hand right now and move fingers easily without a ball touching it at super speed. 

I would be practicing to flap all fingers frantically when reaching to touch. It might look silly but they're only going frame by frame so I'd say it plants enough seed of doubt.

I'd also be doing exactly what Marchbank did in Rd 22 and plead with the goal umpire the second you whiff it and put the seed of doubt in his/her head too. You won't be branded too much of a cheat because no-one can really tell anyway.

Yes there is sarcasm in this post but sportsmanship is dead and the rules and technology are there to be gamed. Who cares how you win just win! 🙃

Edited September 17, 2023 by layzie

[ChaserJ 5,009]

All goals get reviewed, if ARC thinks clear mistake, they will overturn decision. Don’t see many overturned this way, but replay at the ground looked like it was touched.

[roy11 3,836]

2 minutes ago, layzie said:

I'd also be doing exactly what Marchbank did in Rd 22 and plead with the goal umpire the second you whiff it and put the seed of doubt in his/her head too. You won't be branded too much of a cheat because no-one can really tell anyway.

It happened it front of me and the Carlton players signaled touch to the umpire immediately on the night and seemed relatively confident they touched it. So my celebration was short-lived.

Just life is cruel giving us two incredibly close calls against Carlton with huge ramifications - 2nd spot and place in a prelim. 

 

 

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,222]

It was touched.

[monoccular 17,413]

Is there available footage of this?

Was thee any protestation by the Cheaters player?

[Deebauched 1,220]

Can anyone imagine a Carlton goal being denied in such a big game simply because Lever said he touched it.? Video inconclusive Goal to Carlton stands!

No , its always going to be teams like Melbourne who cop it in the throat.

Carltons revenge on Melbourne is  now complete. After several years of no wins and several thrashings Carlton get two incredibly lucky wins against us in huge games.

We all knew losing Petty then Melksham was likely season over but the AFL system that shows blatant bias is pushing me away.

God i hope Lions slaughter them next Saturday and GWS win by a point.

[Redleg 40,843]

2 hours ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

Touched or not Carlton always get the best from the ARC always

From the mistake on Tracc's goal against the Blues, which cost us 2nd position and possibly a flag tilt, I believe there have been 7 Arc decisions involving Carlton and guess what, every single one of them went Carlton's way. 

Luck, coincidence, or interference in a game?

PS. Re the ANB goal, which was called a goal by the Goal Umpire and not called touched by any field Umpire, it was a reversal of a goal, touched apparently, which again would have won us the game and which I can't recall seeing similar before.

Adopting my MFCSS hat I could say every new ruling always seems to go against us, Moloney weeks for non contact, Trengove 4 weeks for a sling tackle, where victim best on ground next week, Kozzie 2 weeks for a high bump with no injury and victim laughing, Sparrow sling where victim's head didn't contact the ground, etc, etc, etc. I am sure you can all come up with countless more examples.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Redleg

[Clintosaurus 7,838]

There was a replay shown at half time that clearly indicated it was a goal. Gap between hand and ball. We are getting into similar territory where cricketers at lower levels have clickers in their pockets and give it a go when the ball passes close to the bat. Have seen a lot of batsmen given out in this way.

[whatwhat say what 22,700]

clearly touched; non-story

[Elwood 3184 1,298]

My concern with faceless officials making decisions such as these is the random way with which events can be picked up and decisions arrived at which can influence the outcome of a game. In addition, there’s the question of where you draw the line. If you can review goals that have been missed by your on field officials – four field umpires, two goal and two boundary umpires, then why not review whether a player in the vicinity was pushed in the back or taken high?

There are enough officials on the ground as it is without complicating the game further with these reviews.   

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ChaserJ said:

All goals get reviewed, if ARC thinks clear mistake, they will overturn decision. Don’t see many overturned this way, but replay at the ground looked like it was touched.

Then how on earth did the Ben Keays goal vs Sydney remain a behind?

For mine, that was the biggest howler of the season since there was absolutely no question it was a goal, a fact that was confirmed when the AFL came out and apologised for it. At the time someone on here said who cares it’s Adelaide, I hate ‘em anyways. But that’s not the point. Even disregarding the fact that it cost Adelaide a chance to play finals, it was the most outrageous goal decision we’ve seen in a long time. 

[YearOfTheDees 3,266]

12 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Then how on earth did the Ben Keays goal vs Sydney remain a behind?

For mine, that was the biggest howler of the season since there was absolutely no question it was a goal, a fact that was confirmed when the AFL came out and apologised for it. At the time someone on here said who cares it’s Adelaide, I hate ‘em anyways. But that’s not the point. Even disregarding the fact that it cost Adelaide a chance to play finals, it was the most outrageous goal decision we’ve seen in a long time. 

Because it was called a point they don't review it. That is the silly part. 

[titan_uranus 24,975]

1 hour ago, Clintosaurus said:

There was a replay shown at half time that clearly indicated it was a goal. Gap between hand and ball. We are getting into similar territory where cricketers at lower levels have clickers in their pockets and give it a go when the ball passes close to the bat. Have seen a lot of batsmen given out in this way.

Want to find this and share it?

I was at the ground and what they showed on the screen at the time suggested his fingers touched it. 

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,685]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

From the mistake on Tracc's goal against the Blues, which cost us 2nd position and possibly a flag tilt, I believe there have been 7 Arc decisions involving Carlton and guess what, every single one of them went Carlton's way. 

Luck, coincidence, or interference in a game?

PS. Re the ANB goal, which was called a goal by the Goal Umpire and not called touched by any field Umpire, it was a reversal of a goal, touched apparently, which again would have won us the game and which I can't recall seeing similar before.

Adopting my MFCSS hat I could say every new ruling always seems to go against us, Moloney weeks for non contact, Trengove 4 weeks for a sling tackle, where victim best on ground next week, Kozzie 2 weeks for a high bump with no injury and victim laughing, Sparrow sling where victim's head didn't contact the ground, etc, etc, etc. I am sure you can all come up with countless more examples.

They took their time with Carlton’s review, they couldn't give a rats when the shoe was on the other foot.