Roast The Non Goal: F*** the AFL, court injunction?

[treeman]

Did the the umps get hoodwinked by Sydney bringing the ball back in so quickly? Maybe they were considering it, but the in-bound happened so fast and the moment had passed before they could do anything.

This is another thing we need to talk about. If you are going to have a score review system, we MUST go back to players having to wait for the flags to be waved before kicking in.

I was thinking perhaps with 4 umpires everyone thought the other one would review it but then no one did and it became too late.
Still not good enough.

Sent from my SM-T220 using Tapatalk

 

[Mattrox]

We know the source of the noise. What remains completely unexplained is the goal umpire's other statement - that they observed a visible deviation in the ball's flight path...

How could they have observed a deviation, when the ball didn't hit a damn thing on the way through? WTF was he watching, that he thought he saw a (non-existent) deviation?

Olsen intimated in his 5AA interview that the AFL spent all Saturday night trying to investigate evidence that it was a behind.

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Corvidae]

Did the the umps get hoodwinked by Sydney bringing the ball back in so quickly? Maybe they were considering it, but the in-bound happened so fast and the moment had passed before they could do anything.

This is another thing we need to talk about. If you are going to have a score review system, we MUST go back to players having to wait for the flags to be waved before kicking in.

Would be a good change to go back to the original rule, it’s just another contrived way to speed up the ‘flow’ (Gil’s word) of the game. AFL can’t help themselves when it comes to rule changes, and they rarely if ever fully think them through. Why should you be able to run the ball out of defence so easily after coughing up a point? And if it means we never see a repeat of Saturday night because there’s time for a review to be called before play resumes so much the better.

 

[BRL121]

Anyways, it's all Keays' fault.

If he didn't kick it so close to the goalpost there wouldn't have been a problem.

It wasn't close to the post: that's the whole point.

 

[MsTopG]

Did the the umps get hoodwinked by Sydney bringing the ball back in so quickly? Maybe they were considering it, but the in-bound happened so fast and the moment had passed before they could do anything.

This is another thing we need to talk about. If you are going to have a score review system, we MUST go back to players having to wait for the flags to be waved before kicking in.

In other sports they let the game go on and then at the next stoppage they would say that we kicked the goal after review and there would be a centre bounce. Time would be wound back. The fact that the afl doesn't do that already is amateur hour.

 

[Bearded Clam]

It wasn't close to the post: that's the whole point.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I was thinking perhaps with 4 umpires everyone thought the other one would review it but then no one did and it became too late.
Still not good enough.

Sent from my SM-T220 using Tapatalk

This season has been proof that more umpires makes for worse decision making.

Better off with properly resourcing the ARC to support the onfield umpires.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Olsen intimated in his 5AA interview that the AFL spent all Saturday night trying to investigate evidence that it was a behind.

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Surely they are not that stupid as only needed 1 replay to see it was a clear goal.

Guess they missed the Sydney umpire handling the post...

 

[BunjiMC]

View attachment 1781517

 

[Mattrox]

Agree. It’s such a stupid argument to say we didn’t deserve and weren’t good enough. Guess what. We were. Sydney play 2 good quarters. We played 2 good quarters. Simple. Hate the excuse of we didn’t start well

The criticism of our 1st GWS loss was we ran out of steam.... This time, Sydney ran out of steam and we came back to win.

We can't deserve to lose in both scarios.

Every team that is good enough to come back and win* is praised for their tenacity and fight... never gave up... responded to the coach..... etc etc.... Never ever is it in the conversation that they were woeful for 3 quarters and deserved to lose.

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[cleanhands]

Would be a good change to go back to the original rule, it’s just another contrived way to speed up the ‘flow’ (Gil’s word) of the game. AFL can’t help themselves when it comes to rule changes, and they rarely if ever fully think them through. Why should you be able to run the ball out of defence so easily after coughing up a point? And if it means we never see a repeat of Saturday night because there’s time for a review to be called before play resumes so much the better.

Is a simple solution, even if it hits the post as long as it goes between the goalpost it’s a goal, been one of my bugs for years

 

[Bearded Clam]

Poor bastard eventually kicks a goal only to be called a point

Bout the only decent thing he did all game (the rest of his game was utterly deplorable) and the ump screwed him over for it..he even tripped over thin air at one point!..

gotta feel for the lad..

 

[robboaustralia]

Apparently sportsbet paid out on a crows win

Bit disappointed this one came to an abrupt end

 

[arrowman]

Love the passion. Politician or not he is a good get. I can't see any of our recent CEO or Chairmen standing up like this.

I think it's partly because he is a politician.

 

[Bearded Clam]

View attachment 1781522View attachment 1781522

So.. you don’t think footy4eva was taking the piss with their post?..

 

[arrowman]

Field umpires apparently don't have authority over goal umpires, but they should be able to call a review & I'm sure we have seen plenty of examples where they have insisted on a review for less.

I was going to say this was uncharted waters for the field umps, but I could be wrong? Would certainly be a rare occurrence.

 

[rabidcrow]

Heard John Olsen on 5AA. All bullshit as usual.

In the AFL press conference Gill said the goal umpire believed there was “a clear noise and a clear deflection”, but on review “that wasn’t right”.

The only sound he could've heard was Mills slapping the goal post at the exact same time the ball went past. You can see on the replay the indent of Mills hand on the padding. This is a breach of the AFL Law 18.12

18.12 INTENTIONALLY SHAKING, CLIMBING OR OTHERWISE INTERFERING WITH A GOAL POST OR BEHIND POST
18.12.1 Free Kicks – Intentionally Shaking, Climbing or Otherwise Interfering with a Goal Post or Behind Post
Unless Law 18.12.3 applies, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player or Official who intentionally shakes, climbs or otherwise interferes with a goal or behind post (either before or after a Player has disposed of the football).

The AFL have hung the goal umpire out to dry with this. Yes, he should have called for the review, but he was deceived by Mills slap of the goal post. What else could've he possibly heard? It is not difficult to be deceived by sight.

I think this is the legal angle the club should be able to take to go further with this.

Maybe a bit of stretch but remember when Rampe jumped on the goal post against Essendon. I reckon they train to create a bit of confusion - slap or knock the post, play on quickly etc. twice now in a couple of years they have had controversy with the goal post


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[cleanhands]

Bout the only decent thing he did all game (the rest of his game was utterly deplorable) and the ump screwed him over for it..he even tripped over thin air at one point!..

gotta feel for the lad..

 

[BunjiMC]

So.. you don’t think footy4eva was taking the piss with their post?..

I think they both were.

 

[Bearded Clam]

I think they both were.

It wasn't close to the post: that's the whole point.

Where‘s the joke though?..

it was close to the post.. very close.. it just narrowly missed by less than a ball width..

footy4ever was..

ahhh, fxxk it.. i give up.. its not even worth the arguement!..

 

[robboaustralia]

Anyways, it's all Keays' fault.

If he didn't kick it so close to the goalpost there wouldn't have been a problem.

mcadam dropping the mark just prior to Keays kick. Wonder if he would have kicked it if he did mark it. Would have been in pain with fractured cheekbone.

 

[Kezza86]

Bit disappointed this one came to an abrupt end View attachment 1781525

Do they void all multi’s that include crows for top 8?

 

[Kezza86]

Field umpires apparently don't have authority over goal umpires, but they should be able to call a review & I'm sure we have seen plenty of examples where they have insisted on a review for less.

But field umpire has to call all clear. So, the umpire could hold off and has chat with the goal umpire.

 

[Bearded Clam]

mcadam dropping the mark just prior to Keays kick. Wonder if he would have kicked it if he did mark it. Would have been in pain with fractured cheekbone.

Yeah.. you’d have to think mcadams cheek being broken wouldve made playing harder..

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

But field umpire has to call all clear. So, the umpire could hold off and has chat with the goal umpire.

True, but apparently the field umpire can't force the goal umpire to review... when they should be able to.