Bombertalk

what kind of bullcrap is this?!

how can they have all that tech(HD TV, slow motion replay and multiple camera angles) not to mention a real live human being standing on the bloody goal line and they still get it wrong. its pathetic. it was clearly a goal.

what if thats a final or even worse a grand final. they need to sort that crap out.

As I said in the other thread, from what I remember the goal umpire was initially overruled by the field umpire. That's what turned that goal into a point. I would question if any television footage could overrule what they thought to be a goal on the ground unless it was a obvious error.

That said, it doesn't help that Channel 7 shoot Friday Night Football with a bunch of Nokia 3210's

I can't agree. My initial instinct wad that hd grazed the post. I thought goal ympire called behind. I thought field umpire agreed but wanted to check. I thought video was inconclusive but not in favor of a clear goal.

Having said that I see no point havIng the video. Just let the ump call it as they see it, even if they are wrong.

dom_105 wrote:As I said in the other thread, from what I remember the goal umpire was initially overruled by the field umpire. That's what turned that goal into a point. I would question if any television footage could overrule what they thought to be a goal on the ground unless it was a obvious error.

That said, it doesn't help that Channel 7 shoot Friday Night Football with a bunch of Nokia 3210's

Nokie 3210s didnt have cameras... Ohhhhhh riiiiight

I saw it clearly brush the post from where I was & I had a good angle at ground level.

Clearly hit the post. In person was obvious. Well from my angle.

I didn't think anything of it - from where i was viewing - post.

The ones who are saying it was a robbed goal are only saying so because of the review. The goal umpire signaled a behind didn't he?

robrulz5 wrote:The ones who are saying it was a robbed goal are only saying so because of the review. The goal umpire signaled a behind didn't he?

No he walked to the line for goal. Whilst it looked a point the field umpire overruled the goal umpire which is not what their meant to do.

boncer34 wrote:

robrulz5 wrote:The ones who are saying it was a robbed goal are only saying so because of the review. The goal umpire signaled a behind didn't he?

No he walked to the line for goal. Whilst it looked a point the field umpire overruled the goal umpire which is not what their meant to do.

That's exactly what I thought happened. Staggering decision in the end.

boncer34 wrote:

robrulz5 wrote:The ones who are saying it was a robbed goal are only saying so because of the review. The goal umpire signaled a behind didn't he?

No he walked to the line for goal. Whilst it looked a point the field umpire overruled the goal umpire which is not what their meant to do.

But what did the boundary umpire at the other end think?

F111 wrote:I watched some of the Dawks/Swans tonight.

Dawker kicks a goal, awarded by the GU.
BU says he thinks it was touched, tells FU.
FU calls for review.
Review says inconclusive, GU's call.
Result. Point!

LMAO.

Turned tellie orf!

It's a f****** farce. It should be the "controlling umpire's" call. In that instance (like for us on Friday night) the goal umpire initially called a goal. If it is "inconclusive", then the goal umpire's decision should stand.

However, FWIW, it looks like both decisions turned out right. Those in better positions at the ground said Kommers kick for goal brushed the post. And one of the cameras on the Jordan Lewis goal showed, IMO, the ball being touched on the line. The ball wasn't completely over the line. Not sure why they said "inconclusive" on that one. If they can't determine if a ball is touched in those circumstances, then the camera footage is useless and they should do away with it and let the umpires control the game.

And, they've gotta get it right as to what "umpires" call means. It should be the controlling umpires call. Not an umpire who is further away.

The issue is BD is that when its inconclusive you have to go the lesser penalty. Which to me makes sense.

The thing that I disagree with was the goal umpire was certain Kommer kicked the goal. Reviews should ONLY br called by the goal umpire and f****** boundaries shouldn't be involved.

boncer34 wrote:The issue is BD is that when its inconclusive you have to go the lesser penalty. Which to me makes sense.

It should be the original decision rather than the lesser penalty IMO.

The thing that I disagree with was the goal umpire was certain Kommer kicked the goal. Reviews should ONLY br called by the goal umpire and f****** boundaries shouldn't be involved.

The only time boundary umpires should have a say is where the ball is near the behind post. Otherwise, the goal umpire has control over anything that is between the big sticks.

BenDoolan wrote:

boncer34 wrote:The issue is BD is that when its inconclusive you have to go the lesser penalty. Which to me makes sense.

It should be the original decision rather than the lesser penalty IMO.

The thing that I disagree with was the goal umpire was certain Kommer kicked the goal. Reviews should ONLY br called by the goal umpire and f****** boundaries shouldn't be involved.

The only time boundary umpires should have a say is where the ball is near the behind post. Otherwise, the goal umpire has control over anything that is between the big sticks.

Agree with BD that if inconclusive it should be the original decision by the GU and only if GU has clearly got it wrong should it be turned over...
However, I think field umpires if they are in a good position (i.e. behind the line of trajectory of the ball) should be able to call for a review...the Kommer one, I don't think the GU would have seen a deflection because of where he was positioned on the line...

As for Kommer's 'non' goal, I thought on one angle it appeared to brush the post and whilst it robbed us of much needed momentum and was not handled well, was ultimately the right call...that said, the maggots were very shitful on the night...

The decision was the correct one of just a point. However, the Goal umpire was about to award a goal when the field umpire intervened because he thought it hit the post and called for a review. The result of the review was inconclusive, so it's the umpires call. So it was a goal. I thought we had gotten away with a goal and I was shocked to see him call a point after the review came back inconclusive. Surely it isn't the field umpires call and if it is that's ridiculous. The umpires fu**ed it up but got the right result.

Isn't it great when we need people on a footy show panel to point out the actual rules... no explanation from the AFL

when 2 umpires are conflicted with a decision, such as this one the lesser score is always applied, so the review being inconclusive meant the lesser score was to be applied

"their" system worked as it should... that being said their system is absolute crap but the fans are just fed the crap they dish up

Jazz_84 wrote:Isn't it great when we need people on a footy show panel to point out the actual rules... no explanation from the AFL

when 2 umpires are conflicted with a decision, such as this one the lesser score is always applied, so the review being inconclusive meant the lesser score was to be applied

"their" system worked as it should... that being said their system is absolute crap but the fans are just fed the crap they dish up

Wow that actually makes sense. It will always be a shit system though if the review can come back "inconclusive". The AFL need to get a better review system which means better technology. Something like Tennis and Crickets hawkeye system is the only way to solve this debacle.

ZeroEffect wrote:

Jazz_84 wrote:Isn't it great when we need people on a footy show panel to point out the actual rules... no explanation from the AFL

when 2 umpires are conflicted with a decision, such as this one the lesser score is always applied, so the review being inconclusive meant the lesser score was to be applied

"their" system worked as it should... that being said their system is absolute crap but the fans are just fed the crap they dish up

Wow that actually makes sense. It will always be a shit system though if the review can come back "inconclusive". The AFL need to get a better review system which means better technology. Something like Tennis and Crickets hawkeye system is the only way to solve this debacle.

Better yet, get rid of it all together and leave it with the umpires...in the past, field umpire could over-rule goalie, so no change needed...