Jump to content

The Neal-Bullen non goal

Elwood 3184
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

12 minutes ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

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

But they took their time with this review as well. The AFL has ticked off on Carlton’s management of Jacob Weitering in Friday night’s semi-final win over Melbourne as the Blues this week prepare for selection “heartbreak.

  • Quote
    • Shocked 1
    • Angry 3
     
    44 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

    But they took their time with this review as well. The AFL has ticked off on Carlton’s management of Jacob Weitering in Friday night’s semi-final win over Melbourne as the Blues this week prepare for selection “heartbreak.

    He was concussed, who are these f wits trying to fool.

    Double standards all-round.

    Edited by YesitwasaWin4theAges

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Love 1
    • Angry 2
    1 hour ago, YearOfTheDees said:

    But they took their time with this review as well. The AFL has ticked off on Carlton’s management of Jacob Weitering in Friday night’s semi-final win over Melbourne as the Blues this week prepare for selection “heartbreak.

    Of course they did. Guy stumbling struggling to stand up and no doctor, trainer, physio. Nothing to see here.

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Clap 1
    • Angry 1
     

    Also, Cripps was allowed to stay on with blood dripping from his nose, and on his jumper.

    Remember that game at Geelong when Touhy kicked their winner after the siren?  (?2018  round 1)

    Max had a tiny cut on his lip(from another head-high non-free), with  a minute to go. He was sent off for the blood rule , and Tmac had to leave the backline to ruck. The ball went down there, they goaled, won, and  at the end of that season we missed making the top 4 by 4 premiership points .

  • Quote
    • Like 7
    • Clap 1

    After the Adelaide debacle, do posters genuinely believe that the AFL are going overturn a goal at the break of play if they're not 500% sure it was or wasn't touched?

     

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    It has been very clear for many weeks that Gil and his merry mob want a Collingwood v Carlton GF and will stop at nothing to achieve it.

    Carlton d Melbourne by overturning Petracca's clear goal - make the top 8 out of nowhere.

    Carlton d Sydney narrowly with some dubious ARC calls.

    Maynard free to play after that disgraceful assault on Angus

    Carlton d Melbourne with (was it) 3 or 4 ARCs in their favour especially the one in question here - I don't remember seeing the Carlton defender pleading a case.  Why can't we see it here?   

    AFL allocating us umpire 22, who crucifies us every time

    I only hope that Brisbane crush Carlton,( or win by a point with a shonky score  review making the difference), and that GW$ demolish Collingwood right from the first bounce.  Toby Greene ironing out Maynard would be the icing on the cake - in a football act of course.

    Edited by monoccular

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Love 1
    1 hour ago, monoccular said:

    It has been very clear for many weeks that Gil and his merry mob want a Collingwood v Carlton GF and will stop at nothing to achieve it.

    Carlton d Melbourne by overturning Petracca's clear goal - make the top 8 out of nowhere.

    Carlton d Sydney narrowly with some dubious ARC calls.

    Maynard free to play after that disgraceful assault on Angus

    Carlton d Melbourne with (was it) 3 or 4 ARCs in their favour especially the one in question here - I don't remember seeing the Carlton defender pleading a case.  Why can't we see it here?   

    AFL allocating us umpire 22, who crucifies us every time

    I only hope that Brisbane crush Carlton,( or win by a point with a shonky score  review making the difference), and that GW$ demolish Collingwood right from the first bounce.  Toby Greene ironing out Maynard would be the icing on the cake - in a football act of course.

    I hope they cop a fisting like the one we gave Geelong in the Prelim in 21.

     

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    5 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

    No  definite evidence in that footage  that was  enough to overturn the soft call .

    Carlton are so lucky so often with adjudications that it really makes you wonder how.

    It wasn’t a soft call. It was a goal and nobody asked them to look at it.

    I’m not usually into this kind of thing but it’s a borderline conspiracy. 

     

  • Quote
    • Clap 1
    • Angry 1

    Yep, this one was touched and seemed clear enough on the second viewing.

    But what fascinated me was the high resolution and high frames-per-second footage available in general play in the middle of the ground compared to the 1980s censorship blur that is available for goal-line decisions.

    Every department at AFLHQ is amateurish except the marketing department which is obnoxious.

  • Quote
    • Vomit 1
    1 hour ago, No10 said:

    ARC said this angle determined the overturning

    FullSizeRender.MOV

    In super slow mo frame by frame and blown up very close it looks touched for mine.

    I can rest easy on this one at least

    Edited by Demon Dynasty

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    19 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

    In super slow mo frame by frame and blown up very close it looks touched for mine.

    I can rest easy on this one at least

    Frame by frame, zoomed in, I’d have to say not touched.

    Doesn’t matter to me in regards to the result, we lost for many other reasons.
    But I do care there isn’t the kind of aggressive pushback that would happen if this was a different club. That’s twice in a month (against the same team) that we’ve lost by less than a goal and ARC has made a critical decision against, with questionable evidence. Zero discussion in the media.

    Would this happen to Carlton or to Collingwood?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Clap 1
    10 hours ago, monoccular said:

    AFL allocating us umpire 22, who crucifies us every time.

    Ask Port Adelaide fans what they think of the same umpire’s handling of their recent games vs Carlton. 

  • Quote

    20 hours 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 wasn’t given a goal there was no time to review. Game had restarted 

  • Quote

    Too many goals and games this year were decided on fuzzy vision of 'fingernail' touches of the ball.  It is guesswork both by the umpire and whoever is viewing ARC.

    The AFL needs to change this.

    An option would be that if the ball is 'touched' by fingers or fingertips while the ball is in the air it is a goal!  It would need to be touched by the palm, back of the hand or arm.  Or have a variation of that with a more substantial definition of 'touched'. 

    A rule change is especially required for when a flimsy touch is on a ball in the air in the goal square. 

    Edited by Lucifers Hero

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    33 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    Too many goals and games this year were decided on fuzzy vision of 'fingernail' touches of the ball.  It is guesswork both by the umpire and whoever is viewing ARC.

    The AFL needs to change this.

    An option would be that if the ball is 'touched' by fingers or fingertips while the ball is in the air it is a goal!  It would need to be touched by the palm, back back of the hand or arm.  Or have some variation of that. 

    A rule change is especially required for when a flimsy touch is on a ball in the air in the goal square. 

    How much easier if it is a goal if it goes through the goals.  No touched, no posters, no guessing. 

    Would also force defenders to keep the ball in play rather than try to put it through. 

    I have never worked out how a "touched goal" is a point, but a "touched behind" is also a point.

    Edited by george_on_the_outer

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    2 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

    How much easier if it is a goal if it goes through the goals.  No touched, no posters, no guessing. 

    Would also force defenders to keep the ball in play rather than try to put it through. 

    I have never worked out how a "touched goal" is a point, but a "touched behind" is also a point.

    Agreed.  It goes thru it is a goal but reckon that might be a bridge to far right now.

  • Quote
    51 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

    Too many goals and games this year were decided on fuzzy vision of 'fingernail' touches of the ball.  It is guesswork both by the umpire and whoever is viewing ARC.

    The AFL needs to change this.

    An option would be that if the ball is 'touched' by fingers or fingertips while the ball is in the air it is a goal!  It would need to be touched by the palm, back of the hand or arm.  Or have a variation of that with a more substantial definition of 'touched'. 

    A rule change is especially required for when a flimsy touch is on a ball in the air in the goal square. 

    Or just design a ball that has the touch / snicko science built into it.

    Until then it's a goal unless proven inconclusively.

    Or if that technology isn't available, as George has highlghted, if it goes through the two sticks (provided the entire ball breaks the plane) then it's a goal, touched or not.

    Snicking of the ball by hand or finger tips really doesn't make alot of sense. 

    The aim of the game is to kick the ball through the big sticks.  If it goes through it goes through, provided the last action was a kick from team kicking for goal.

    So regardless, you would still need the snicko ball technology to ensure hands/knees/head/body hadn't come into play from a ricochet off a fellow player.

    It would seem it's snicko ball or bust then!

    18 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

    How much easier if it is a goal if it goes through the goals.  No touched, no posters, no guessing. 

    Would also force defenders to keep the ball in play rather than try to put it through. 

    I have never worked out how a "touched goal" is a point, but a "touched behind" is also a point.

    Edited by Demon Dynasty

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    No conclusive evidence in that clip! Thinking that it was probably touched, or that it might have been touched is not conclusive, therefore the soft call stands! Stitch up!

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Love 1
    • Angry 1

    It was certainly inconclusive on the big screen, but I don't know if the third umpire had other footage.

  • Quote

    As stated yesterday, the Adelaide V Sydney goal umpiring howler would have had to be the AFL's lowest moment since the competition changed its name in 1990. Cost a side a finals series.

    Do people really think they would have made the most unforced howler 4 weeks later by incorrectly overturning a goal that should not have been overturned. I think not.

    They clearly had conclusive evidence that wasn't available for the broadcaster to show the viewers.

  • Quote
    •  
    10 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

    As stated yesterday, the Adelaide V Sydney goal umpiring howler would have had to be the AFL's lowest moment since the competition changed its name in 1990. Cost a side a finals series.

    Do people really think they would have made the most unforced howler 4 weeks later by incorrectly overturning a goal that should not have been overturned. I think not.

    They clearly had conclusive evidence that wasn't available for the broadcaster to show the viewers.

    Clearly? You jest! Where is this footage that "clearly" shows a touch?

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    22 hours 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.

    The vagaries of the goal line decisions and the inconsistency of the MRO does my head in and I agree we seem to be on the wrong side of these on a regular basis.

    The thing that really irks me is the guessing that goes on when an Umpire is clearly unsighted. There was a great example during the Carlton vs Sydney game. The Goal Umpire gives a soft call of "Behind", "I think it was touched" The ARC reviews and gives an insufficient evidence to overturn ruling. The problem was; during the playback of the vision, the ball clearly obscured the players hand and so it was impossible for the Goal Umpire to tell if it was touched or not.

    Essentially and much like the Kozzie result earlier in the year, the result was determined on suspicion.

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Thanks
      • 86 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

        • Thanks
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 316 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All