Brettmcg

Just watched the replay and got a little oozy in the pants watching the reactions of ScullGove at the final siren. I think it's fair to say they're enjoying their first AFL season with the mighty Demons!!

i have never been to the bentleigh club to watch a game, how is the atmosphere there? do many dees people get there to watch a game?

Yeah, we are usually up in the Members' Bar (ie. away from the plebs) with 100% Demons. Last few times there have probably been 20 or 30 there, but I would expect maybe a few more tonight!? Apparently they will be serving fingerfood and other nibbles at half time, which is pretty good as no entry is charged.

please just go to your local pub and watch it, it seems the bentleigh club is a bad omen for you

I really should invest in a Foxtel subscription, but I hate the idea of having to pay for television WITH advertising! Plus, the atmosphere at the social club is always better than on the couch at home.

I will be at the Bentleigh club for the game-hope to see a few demonlanders there in full voice.

Shall see you there in that case. I love screaming at that hopeless rear-projection TV they have up in the Members' Bar.

I offer my sincere condolences for my error, thought this was a footy forum, not an English course by correspondence

Don't take me too seriously! Just thought you might like to know for future reference. I certainly understand that this is a footy forum.

If not I apologise for the inferrence

It's an implication. Only the listener can infer.

CamSchwab

@opeth1 Definitely wearing our jumper vs Essendon round 15 at the G.

28 minutes ago via TweetDeck in reply to opeth1

/close thread

We are suppose to win 8 - 10 games this year. I would be happy with 9 wins. We are not going to make top 4.

Are we? According to whom? 10 games will almost put teams in the 8 this year.

Some very positive signs from Jack today. Interested on your opinions, I thought he looked a bit slow at times, remembering he was the fastest caucasian ever measured at the AFL Draft Camp.

Interesting to see how the back setups panned out during the game, especially after having attended Before the Bounce beforehand. Seemed to me as if we persisted with matchups which were failing for too long.

Rivers was killed by Kennedy and I reckon Grimes probably should have taken Le Cras (even though the Frenchman had an average day by his standards). Whole team seemed flat and lacking energy. I reckon the wet slog last Friday night really took it out of their legs.

Well I know the obstetrician that delivered Jack, as well as his paediatrician when he was a young lad. Met his hairdresser last week and even got talking to the cashier at the local supermarket where his mum buys milk.

But seriously...can we stop with the mindless speculation. I don't care if it's about his height, weight, playing ability or off-field behaviour, lets just bloody give the kid ago. James Brayshaw made the point on TFS last night that Jack has - over the last year and a half - been one of the most unfairly treated players by the media and even his own supporters.

He either will or won't make it. For us to waste energy speculating on this is nonsense as what we say is not going to change this fact in the slightest. That the club believes he was worth a first pick suggests that they believe he will make it, based on many assessments made throughout a long and trying season. At a time when everything else at the club seems to be running smoothly, why should we have any reason to doubt they are wrong on this?

The issue I have, as a current VFL-listed goal umpire, is that the Goal Umpire said he "saw the ball come off Brad Green's boot", and umpire Rob Findlay said he "thought it was touched".

If one saw something, and the other "thought" he saw something, then surely the goal umpires decision stands.

This has been agreed upon by several high-up umpiring coaches.

On video, it is inconclusive.

The goal umpire is sure its a goal. The field umpire "thinks" it may have been touched.

The goal umpire pretty much needs to argue the point more - the field umpire was incorrect to continue arguing and effectively demand a 'touched' decision.

The final decision still rests with the goal umpire.

Yup, exactly.

Just quickly draw your attention to the fact that the Goal Umpire in question, Peter Gonis, won't be umpiring this weekend.

I'd suggest everyone get along to the 'Walk to the G' on the morning of the Queens Birthday Clash. Grab a kid, mum, dad, grandparent and bring them along. The club decks you out in colours and provides flags etc. Absolutely great day and a chance to develop some networks among fellow Demons.

I'll give you a hot tip regarding this "appreciation round" garbage. It is a waste of time that has been forced upon local leagues as well. A number of my colleagues I have spoken with, including myself, are embarrassed to be involved with it - I'm just glad I'll be at the G supporting the Dees on Saturday rather than lining up and having my hand shaken by some sweaty neanderthal who, 5 minutes later, will abuse the CARP out of me something!!!

Sure, at junior level where UPS (Ugly Parent Syndrome) is a real issue, it might be appropriate, but if you've come through junior ranks and are still umpiring at a senior level then your skin has been thickened adequately to deal with any abuse as being directed at the position and not the person. Furthermore, weren't we always told growing up that you don't demand respect, but that you have to earn it?? Last time I checked being an umpire didn't automatically make you worthy of respect. There are people who are take up umpiring purely because it is their only chance in life to demonstrate control over others and abuse their powers accordingly. Don't place umpires on a pedestal and make them holier than thou. We have an important role to play that is best surrounded by as little hype/noise/publicity/media attention as possible.

The less we are noticed, the better job we are doing!

PS - we were informed last Thursday night at training that one S. McBurney would be coming to talk to the group in the next few weeks. This was met by protestation and claims that umpires simply won't turn up to training that night. Even umpires can hate other umpires!

If we have been rolled over this time it will be interesting as to who gets rolled if we win the Soccer World Cup. I bet it wont be Eddiewood. Does anyone know the details as to how they are going to compensate MFC and others.Sorry should hae started another thread.

By that time the MFC is on track to be a powerhouse. The club's Red and Blueprint envisages a number of premierships between now and 2018/2022. Plus, I think the chances of Australia being awarded the World Cup are as slim as Richmond making the 8 this year. With the next two being in the southern hemisphere, Sepp Blatter has already indicated they will be looking at Europe and then China or somewhere else in Asia.

No and they won't.

They never could. It's all about saving face and the AFL are known for doing that at any cost.

I would have thought the field umpire acted within the realms of your statement here.

I think you should give up thinking. It clearly doesn't do you any favours.

If we weren't in the financial position that we currently find ourselves in, I'd back the club to go all out and make a huge deal about this and really put the onus back on the AFL administration. That's what a club like Collingwood would do. Unfortunately we are simply not in a position to speak up.

This is the real issue to come out of these incidents. Cam Schwab and Jim Stynes are between a rock and a hard place in terms of their response. They can't afford to go out and actively criticise the AFL for fear of losing our funding, but really need to somehow take a stand in terms of how the MFC have been treated in this farce.

You sound highly credentialled so here's my question.

Obviously even from your description, the field umpire had "doubt". If the goal umpire was absolutely certain, what are the options? (noting that it still could have come off Green's boot yet been touched as the field umpire thought possible)

In your understanding of the current rule, does the field umpire's "doubt" trump the goal umpire's certainty? This is a fairly important point to clarify.

Up the other end, the "doubt" arose from a boundary ump and opposition player (Brian Lake), primarily I think (haven't heard the sound). What do you think should have happened there?

You say you are an accredited goal umpire's skills coach. What do you train goal umpires to do in such situations (or are we in fact in uncharted territory)?

Sure the field umpire had doubt, but it is not his place to exert that kind of influence. You don't see a goal umpire run out of the goal square when he was sure there were no hands in the back when a field umpire has paid a push. The laws of the game are pretty clear in defining each category of umpire's sphere of influence:

8.2.4 Goal Umpire

(a) Duties

Unless otherwise determined by the relevant Controlling Body, the duties of a goal Umpire include:

(i) judging whether a Goal or Behind has been scored;

(ii) signalling that a Goal or Behind has been scored

upon being given the All Clear or Touched All Clear

by a field Umpire;

etc.

(d) Goal Umpire Unsure

If a goal Umpire is unsure whether the ball crossed the Goal or Behind Line, or is Out of Bounds; he or she shall seek the assistance of the Field and boundary Umpires. If the correct decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser score.

12.1.5 Goal Umpire to Judge Goal or Behind

(a) The goal Umpire shall decide whether a Goal or Behind has been scored but may, before deciding, consult with the field or boundary Umpires. The decision of the goal umpire shall be final. The goal umpire shall only signal that a Goal or Behind has been scored when the field Umpire signals “All Clear” or “Touched All Clear”, as the case may be.

(B) Law 12.1.5 (a) does not apply if a Controlling Body prescribes that a field Umpire may overrule the decision of a goal Umpire who has not been appointed by the Controlling Body.

So, lets discuss what these mean.

The whole point of the goal umpire being out on the ground is to be the sole judge of whether a ball has crossed a line in a manner which qualifies it to score a goal. We have ALWAYS, ALWAYS been taught and told to teach that the all-clear is simply a confirmation from the field umpire that he is satisfied that no infringement has occurred between the kick and the ball crossing the line. The "all clear" should act to the goal umpire only as a reference point of what the field umpire thinks he has seen. Take for example a field umpire who might give an "all clear" for a behind when a ball has sailed near or over the post. The goal umpire makes the ultimate decision as to which side of the post the ball transversed and does not look to the field umpire for clarification.

Furthermore, the directive from higher umpiring bodies has been that field umpires are to simply give an "all clear" when unsure or in doubt. This involves them placing their hands behind their back and giving a simple verbal confirmation. The purpose of this is to place the onus back on the goal umpire, whose appointed duty it is to be the final determiner of score. In reality the point probably had to stand because no concrete decision could be reached after consultation. My argument, however, is that there should never have been consultation in the first place. We are instructed to teach our goal umpires to only seek a dialogue with fellow umpires when they cannot immediately come to a decision, which the goal umpire clearly already had done. Otherwise he would not have promptly moved to the line ready to signal, but instead immediately sought consultation OR have gone straight up for the touched-signal. From a technical point of view the goal umpire was NOT perfectly positioned, contrary to popular media comment. He should have been "ballside" (ie. straddling the line on his left-hand goal post) rather than "playerside", however, I am convinced he had a clear view despite this. My conclusion in the Green incident is as follows:

• Goal umpire convinced goal had been scored and sought all-clear
  
• Field Umpire should have paid the 'unsure' all-clear, allowing the goal umpire to make ultimate ruling
  
• Had Boundaries or other umpires seen something to suggest contrary, this would have been immediately raised before the score had been waved off (the time when a score is officially recorded)
  
• Field Umpire has become caught up in his own confusion and forced the Goal Umpire to buckle under the pressure
  

The Dunn non-goal is slightly different in that the Boundary has actively brought to the attention of the other two umpires that he has seen something which has affected the score when the goal umpire had indicated he was out-positioned or blocked in view by the players (listen to the audio). Here, consultation NEEDED to occur which has resulted in the lower score being awarded.

I hope I have clarified everything your post raised. If not, please ask again and I will have another go.

Never been a fan of Anderson but he admitted a mistake and thats all we could realistically expect

Do think he does things for doing things sake though

The One Week At A Time team called for Anderson to "fine himself" and make a $20,000 donation to BCNA. Rob Walls even brought up the fact that if we miss the finals because of it that we could potentially lose hundreds of thousands of dollars and that some kind of apology should be forthcoming.

The all clear means that the field umpire is satisfied to rely on the goal umpires decision and is not aware of any matter that may have due bearing on the matter. A goal umpire can be legitimately blind sided at 1 metre as well as 50 metres. The situations where it happens are exceptions to the norm but that does not make inappropriate. A field umpire has every right to make a goal umpire of any evidence that may impact on the goal umpires decision.

You should find a sunny place.

Thanks for that, but as a former VFL-listed goal umpire and current AFL Level 2 Accredited umpire and goal umpire skills coach your attempt to justify/explain is probably wasted on me.

As for the incident in question. What makes it inappropriate is the fact that the goal umpire saw it come off the boot and said so. There was no "doubt" in the incident until the field umpire decided to stick his nose in where it didn't belong. Had some contact with current high-level umpires today who were shocked at how the situation was handled.

Based upon that, it would seem that judging whether the call should be "Touched All Clear" is in fact the duty of the field umpire, in which case he was within his rights to seek the assistance of the goal and boundary umpires before reaching his decision, which in this case, was "Touched All Clear".

Once this ruling is made by the field umpire, the goal umpire cannot award a goal.

The all-clear is simply confirmation from the field umpire that no infringement has occurred prior to- or after the shot at goal has cleared the line. The only time a field umpire can overrule with a touched call is when the shot comes from a field kick which may have been touched at a distance which the goal umpire may not have notice (ie. 50m out). Interestingly the goal umpire involved, P. Gonis, was dropped in 2005 for an incorrect decision involving Dean Solomon (http://www.carltonfc.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/4311/Default.aspx?newsId=9751).

You will find very few situations in all levels of football where a field umpire will be daring enough to overrule a goal umpire, especially at such close range, and even then it usually only occurs if the goal umpire has been blindsided or knocked out of position. If you listen carefully to the audio you will hear the field umpire say something along the lines of "I'm pretty sure it was touched so I'll give you a touched all-clear which means you have to..." That is purely and simply WRONG. If Gieschen and his mob can't at least acknowledge it as a mistake then we may as well all pack our bags and head somewhere sunny...

For me:

1; 30,000 people to turn up.

2; Watts to play and kick 2 or 3 goals and a good team contribution.

3; Melbourne to roll the Eagles by 5 to 10 goals.

30,000 people turn up, 28,000 of which are decked out in red & blue and scream the house down.

Putting aside the improbability of an indefinite winning streak with no players dropping in form or becoming injured. The idea that players of Morton & Jurrah's calibre once match-fit would be held out of the team is misguided.

It's terrific that players like Bail, Dunn, Bartram & Bennell are playing good football, in a couple of those cases it's about time. But unless they're flat out dominating games and render themselves somehow invaluable, they are the kinds of players who will unluckily find themselves making way for superior players like Cale & Liam. These are the realities of playing in successful side.

Sorry, but Dunn aint playing good football. He should be dropped ASAP. I'd even be keen to throw Gysberts in the deep end if Morton, Watts or Bail aren't ready. Dunn certainly had no forward impact on Friday night, so it's not as if we lose anything be selecting a midfielder over a lazy half-forward.

PS - to the author of that grammar thread from the other day, the "aint" was intentional.