AFL wrongly supports Goal Umpires from the SYdney/Kangaroos game.

[yaco55]

There was 3 debatable goal umpiring decisions from the Syd/NM game on Saturday evening.

1) Brent Harvey kick off the ground from the goal square. The Umpiring Department claims that the whole ball wasnt over the goal line ( it looked to be clearly over the line ) before harvey kicked the ball. The problem is that Harvey's kicking action resulted in his foot being over the goal line which is a behind.

2) Vezpremi shot for goal was clearly touched by Gibson in the goal square, and would have been signalled a goal by the Goal Umpire, except that he was overruled by the field umpire.

3) Campbells shot for goal which clearly didn't hit the goal post as signalled by the goal umpire. The Umpiring Department agreed that this was an incorrect decision.

In summary there was 3 incorrect decisions by Goal Umpires but the Umpiring Department only acknowledges one decision as incorrect.

I now understand how Umpires achieve an 87% success rate.

 

[Cohzee]

You need to move on to the Umpires board.

 

[Swanstar]

There was 3 debatable goal umpiring decisions from the Syd/NM game on Saturday evening.

1) Brent Harvey kick off the ground from the goal square. The Umpiring Department claims that the whole ball wasnt over the goal line ( it looked to be clearly over the line ) before harvey kicked the ball. The problem is that Harvey's kicking action resulted in his foot being over the goal line which is a behind.

2) Vezpremi shot for goal was clearly touched by Gibson in the goal square, and would have been signalled a goal by the Goal Umpire, except that he was overruled by the field umpire.

3) Campbells shot for goal which clearly didn't hit the goal post as signalled by the goal umpire. The Umpiring Department agreed that this was an incorrect decision.

In summary there was 3 incorrect decisions by Goal Umpires but the Umpiring Department only acknowledges one decision as incorrect.

I now understand how Umpires achieve an 87% success rate.

For the Campbell goal the goal umpire did not signal that it hit the post.

 

[Brazen]

yeah he did signal that it hit the post - I saw it clearly on the game live and was wondering what the hell the commentators were going on about saying he didnt signal it hit the post

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

That Brent Harvey non-goal was the worst decison since not calling the ball out of bounds when McPhee had a kick from the 5th row last season.

Just shocking.

 

[yaco55]

I agree.

Even if Harvey kicked the ball before it crossed the goal line, his foot was clearly over the line.

And the Umpiring Department reported it was a correct decision.

And why do nearly all the goal umpiring decisions occur at interstate venues.

 

[Hinkley29]

I agree.

Even if Harvey kicked the ball before it crossed the goal line, his foot was clearly over the line.

And the Umpiring Department reported it was a correct decision.

And why do nearly all the goal umpiring decisions occur at interstate venues.

Where Harvey's foot was is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is whether the ball was over the line. If he "shinned" it from behind the line but his foot was over the line it is a goal.

I am not saying that the goal umpire was right, just that what you have written is wrong.

 

[Hinkley29]

That Brent Harvey non-goal was the worst decison since not calling the ball out of bounds when McPhee had a kick from the 5th row last season.

Just shocking.

Campbell's non-goal was far worse than this.

At least with Harvey it was close, and it all happened very quickly (not defending the decision, just that you could almost understand how it was stuffed up). Campbell's on the other hand was just blatantly wrong, no mitigating circumstances.

 

[silky-smooth]

Agree with Hinkley. A matter of centimetres and a fraction of time involved in Harvey's one, whereas the Campbell one was just blatantly wrong. Didn't go near the post. About as bad, if not worse, as the Aker touched one a few weeks back.

 

[TwisTz]

There was another one also from a Medhurst snap in the Pies/Crows game.

Was a goal from the footage.

 

[silky-smooth]

That was one of those ones where it's not easy to tell on the tv footage whether it's a goal or not. Looked like a goal but the umpiring department will most likely (or have) side with the goal umpire based on inconclusive evidence.

 

[Virgil]

I agree.

Even if Harvey kicked the ball before it crossed the goal line, his foot was clearly over the line.

And the Umpiring Department reported it was a correct decision.

And why do nearly all the goal umpiring decisions occur at interstate venues.

How could he have kicked the ball before it crossed the line if his foot was clearly over it? I think the Harvey one was contentious, one of those 50-50 decisions that could have gone either way. I think too much blame is being put on the umpire for that one.

Campbell's one was pretty horrible. I'm think the umpire actually guessed whether it was a behind or not, because it quite clearly went through the goals.

Veszpremi's I actually thought should've been paid a goal, didn't look like Gibson touched that one at all, although Voss was pretty convinced, as was the field umpire.

 

[jimmymetch]

There was another one also from a Medhurst snap in the Pies/Crows game.

Was a goal from the footage.

no it wasnt..it was inconclusive..you would need snicko or something to accurately determine whether or not that was a goal or it hit the post by video..and in that instance i think the goal umpire was in the best possible viewing/hearing position..

 

[shintemaster]

The Campbell one was the worst by a long shot. The others were at least contentious and had some sort of mitigating circumstances. Campbell's sailed through the goals with a good foot to spare. Just plain old wrong.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

no it wasnt..it was inconclusive..you would need snicko or something to accurately determine whether or not that was a goal or it hit the post by video..and in that instance i think the goal umpire was in the best possible viewing/hearing position..

Medhurst has been quoted as saying the goal umpire hit the post with his head as he was watching it go over and that may have made him think that the ball hit the post.

The Brent Harvey one I thought was a goal, if you watch the replay the umpire is in absolutely perfect position. It looked to me like he made contact with the ball before it went over the line and as his foot and ball went over the line completely they were no longer in contact with each other.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Let's clarify a couple of things here.

First the Campbell 'point'. The goal umpire on the night definately signalled that it hit the post. It's muppets like Walls who have spread as gospel that he didn't. Every replay shown since you don't see him tapping the post, as they cut the replay off prior. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that prior to the second ball and immediate kick in, if it hit the post the goal umpire tapped the post first...now they tap their chest, signal the point THEN tap the post last. So the decision has been acknoweledged as wrong, but the goal umpire did not miss the fact that the ball went through the goal area, he mistakenly adjudged it to have grazed the post on the way through.

Secondly, this nonsense about the AFL 'siding' with the umpires. Fact, there are x number of goals umpires (in this case) still in contention for two spots on the ground in the Grand Final. They are a competitive bunch and umpiring a GF is a massive honour. The biggest. The umpires department would have mayhem internally let alone externally if they ignored a blatant error.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Let's clarify a couple of things here.

First the Campbell 'point'. The goal umpire on the night definately signalled that it hit the post. It's muppets like Walls who have spread as gospel that he didn't. Every replay shown since you don't see him tapping the post, as they cut the replay off prior. The confusion seems to stem from the fact that prior to the second ball and immediate kick in, if it hit the post the goal umpire tapped the post first...now they tap their chest, signal the point THEN tap the post last. So the decision has been acknoweledged as wrong, but the goal umpire did not miss the fact that the ball went through the goal area, he mistakenly adjudged it to have grazed the post on the way through.

Secondly, this nonsense about the AFL 'siding' with the umpires. Fact, there are x number of goals umpires (in this case) still in contention for two spots on the ground in the Grand Final. They are a competitive bunch and umpiring a GF is a massive honour. The biggest. The umpires department would have mayhem internally let alone externally if they ignored a blatant error.

The umpiring department only really sides with the field umpires, goal umpires regularly get hung out to dry, dropped etc.

 

[SirJimi05]

There was 3 debatable goal umpiring decisions from the Syd/NM game on Saturday evening.

1) Brent Harvey kick off the ground from the goal square. The Umpiring Department claims that the whole ball wasnt over the goal line ( it looked to be clearly over the line ) before harvey kicked the ball. The problem is that Harvey's kicking action resulted in his foot being over the goal line which is a behind.

Actually, the whole ball needs to cross past the padding around the goal post. The padding came out further from the line. I reckon the umpire got this one right.

2) Vezpremi shot for goal was clearly touched by Gibson in the goal square, and would have been signalled a goal by the Goal Umpire, except that he was overruled by the field umpire.

The field umpire has the power to overrule any decision and he got this one spot on. Great call to overule in a finals match.

3) Campbells shot for goal which clearly didn't hit the goal post as signalled by the goal umpire. The Umpiring Department agreed that this was an incorrect decision.

Yes, this was definitley an incorrect decision.


In summary there was 3 incorrect decisions by Goal Umpires but the Umpiring Department only acknowledges one decision as incorrect.

I now understand how Umpires achieve an 87% success rate.

One incorrect decision, one was right and the other debatable but correct in my opinion. We all love to bag the umpires department but i reckon they were spot on this time.

 

[.Shotties.]

Cambpells goal didn't fly through with a foot to spare, it went just past the upsight and because it was a mongrel punt, the umpre could have assumed it was nicknig the post that put it's spin off.

Easy to judge sitting at home with multiple replays. Same with the touched call, the North players just barely got a finger to it and the commentators were unsure until they had the benefit of a slow motion replay.

 

[SM]

Well the funny thing is that I know Brent Harvey's behind wasn't a goal, because I was in the best position to tell - at the ground. At an angle behind the goals, all the Sydney fans thought it was a point, as it was, until the goal umpire signalled a goal. It was pathetic, and clearly wrong. No ifs or buts about it.

And I'm not being biased because it's NM, Campbell's was a goal - but they cancel each other out, and we'd have still won, which is why I'm not being biased, I'm just saying, Harvey's was definately not a goal.

 

[SCARD]

The fact that the AFL supports the Goal Umpire involved in the Harvey decision tells us why the Umpiring across the board is so bad. Gieschen, Sawers et al need to resign now and let someone with common sense like Glen James and Peter Cameron take over.

 

[Coach Bombay]

Well the funny thing is that I know Brent Harvey's behind wasn't a goal, because I was in the best position to tell - at the ground. At an angle behind the goals, all the Sydney fans thought it was a point, as it was, until the goal umpire signalled a goal. It was pathetic, and clearly wrong. No ifs or buts about it.

And I'm not being biased because it's NM, Campbell's was a goal - but they cancel each other out, and we'd have still won, which is why I'm not being biased, I'm just saying, Harvey's was definately not a goal.

Jesus. Why do we even bother with goal umpires if we have people like you in the crowd? Here i was thinking the goal umpire had the best position. Silly silly me.

 

[Jonesi]

Secondly, this nonsense about the AFL 'siding' with the umpires. Fact, there are x number of goals umpires (in this case) still in contention for two spots on the ground in the Grand Final. They are a competitive bunch and umpiring a GF is a massive honour. The biggest. The umpires department would have mayhem internally let alone externally if they ignored a blatant error.

Not to mention the financial incentives for umpiring in a GF.

Field Umpies get $10,000
Goals get close to $3500 - up from their regular $1000 per game.

 

[Taffetta]

Not to mention the financial incentives for umpiring in a GF.

Field Umpies get $10,000
Goals get close to $3500 - up from their regular $1000 per game.

Christ.... not a bad gig hey - but then again they do have to put up with the amount of crap flung at them from everywhere!!

 

[Stinger...]

Well the funny thing is that I know Brent Harvey's behind wasn't a goal, because I was in the best position to tell - at the ground. At an angle behind the goals, all the Sydney fans thought it was a point, as it was, until the goal umpire signalled a goal. It was pathetic, and clearly wrong. No ifs or buts about it.

And I'm not being biased because it's NM, Campbell's was a goal - but they cancel each other out, and we'd have still won, which is why I'm not being biased, I'm just saying, Harvey's was definately not a goal.

Oh well that settles it then...

I think you'll find the goal umpire was in the best position!