Brown Mark - Marks on the Goal/Behind Line

[Bob_vic]

When it's to do with a mark on the line, it's the field umpire's discretion to make the call of a mark or not. If he chooses the boundary umpire's opinion over the goal umpire, he can do that.

This one isn't a case of the boundary umpire or field umpire "overruling" the goal umpire. It's the field umpire who makes the final call on paying a mark or not.

14.2 Particular Circumstances
(b) The field Umpire may consult with the boundary or goal Umpire
before deciding whether a Mark has been taken before the
football passed completely over the Boundary Line,
Goal Line or Behind Line.

Only when there's no mark or free kick involved, does the goal umpire have the final call on whether a goal or behind is scored (or supposed to by the laws).

 

[ManWithNoName]

So even though the goal umpire was side on, and thus had perfect view, and immediately signalled a behind, while the field umpire was front on and would've had NFI, that was the right call?

Why even bother with the pretext of goal umpires anymore. Clearly field umpires know all. Even if they're watching the ball and not the line. They can use Jedi like powers to sense it and make the correct call. We'll just install flag waving robots and get on with the game.

Bullshit.

 

[The Prosecutor]

When it's to do with a mark on the line, it's the field umpire's discretion to make the call of a mark or not. If he chooses the boundary umpire's opinion over the goal umpire, he can do that.

This one isn't a case of the boundary umpire or field umpire "overruling" the goal umpire. It's the field umpire who makes the final call on paying a mark or not.

14.2 Particular Circumstances
(b) The field Umpire may consult with the boundary or goal Umpire
before deciding whether a Mark has been taken before the
football passed completely over the Boundary Line,
Goal Line or Behind Line.

Only when there's no mark or free kick involved, does the goal umpire have the final call on whether a goal or behind is scored (or supposed to by the laws).

But the goal umpire was sure it was a behind. Surely when both are in a good position, you go with the goal umpire?

 

[Bob_vic]

But the goal umpire was sure it was a behind. Surely when both are in a good position, you go with the goal umpire?

Yes, normally the field umpire would go with the goal umpire, but there's no obligation to do so. But the law states the field umpire can consult with the boundary or goal umpire before making his call. Therefore, one can't say the field umpire didn't follow the correct process.

Not saying the field umpire made the right call or not because you can't tell by the camera angle.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Yes, normally the field umpire would go with the goal umpire, but there's no obligation to do so. But the law states the field umpire can consult with the boundary or goal umpire before making his call. Therefore, one can't say the field umpire didn't follow the correct process.

Not saying the field umpire made the right call or not because you can't tell by the camera angle.

Nobody's saying he didn't follow the right process. They're just calling him an incompetent, arrogant campaigner who clearly rates himself as a better judge than a colleague in a much better position.

 

[D-N-R]

So it's the field umpire overruling the goal umpire (who is, presumably, in the best position) by taking the word of a field umpire.

This particular incident I haven't seen, but how does the field umpire decide which umpire's decision is correct? If the results are inconclusive by video, then the field umpire should take the opinion of the umpire in best position? Again, I haven't seen this incident, but I would presume the closest umpire was the goal umpire?

 

[ManWithNoName]

So it's the field umpire overruling the goal umpire (who is, presumably, in the best position) by taking the word of a field umpire.

This particular incident I haven't seen, but how does the field umpire decide which umpire's decision is correct? If the results are inconclusive by video, then the field umpire should take the opinion of the umpire in best position? Again, I haven't seen this incident, but I would presume the closest umpire was the goal umpire?

Correct. And he immediately signalled a behind.

 

[Bob_vic]

Nobody's saying he didn't follow the right process. They're just calling him an incompetent, arrogant silly who clearly rates himself as a better judge than a colleague in a much better position.

I generally agree. If the field umpire didn't have a good view of it or wasn't sure, and the goal umpire and boundary umpires disagree, it's better to go with the goal umpire.

 

[Hornberger]

So it's the field umpire overruling the goal umpire (who is, presumably, in the best position) by taking the word of a field umpire.

This particular incident I haven't seen, but how does the field umpire decide which umpire's decision is correct? If the results are inconclusive by video, then the field umpire should take the opinion of the umpire in best position? Again, I haven't seen this incident, but I would presume the closest umpire was the goal umpire?

Boundary umpire was closer and had the unobstructed view. The Goal umpire was standing behind the goal post

 

[Bob_vic]

So it's the field umpire overruling the goal umpire (who is, presumably, in the best position) by taking the word of a field umpire.

This particular incident I haven't seen, but how does the field umpire decide which umpire's decision is correct? If the results are inconclusive by video, then the field umpire should take the opinion of the umpire in best position? Again, I haven't seen this incident, but I would presume the closest umpire was the goal umpire?

If you look at the replay, it was actually the boundary umpire who had a slightly better view, which was noted by the commentators. The goal umpire moved his head to look around the goal post, which would have altered the angle of the line and mark.

I guess that's could be partly why the field umpire went with the boundary umpires opinion.

One of those ones where the field umpire where there field umpire has to use his discretion and there's always going to be an argument about the call.

Even if the boundary umpire did have a slightly better view, it doesn't necessarily mean it was "more correct" than the goal umpire. I think that what it comes down to.

Perhaps it can be seen as the field umpire overrulling the goal umpire, if you like...

 

[D-N-R]

If you look at the replay, it was actually the boundary umpire who had a slightly better view, which was noted by the commentators. The goal umpire moved his head to look around the goal post, which would have altered the angle of the line and mark.

I guess that's could be partly why the field umpire went with the boundary umpires opinion.

One of those ones where the field umpire where there field umpire has to use his discretion and there's always going to be an argument about the call.

Even if the boundary umpire did have a slightly better view, it doesn't necessarily mean it was "more correct" than the goal umpire. I think that what it comes down to.

Perhaps it can be seen as the field umpire overrulling the goal umpire, if you like...

That's fine then. If the field umpire is choosing the umpire who is in best position then that's good.

I'm not a great fan of this technology. When it was introduced to cricket umpires were asking for replays even when it was absolutely clear players were out of the crease. It seemed to put a lot of doubt in their minds.

The same thing has happened in AFL. The umpires now question everything, when the technology was brought in to resolve 2 or 3 calls per year - those ones that were called points when they were clearly goals. Now it is used a couple of times a game sometimes and the results have often been dubious.

I'm moving to the idea that the players should request the calls, like in tennis, or we should just go back to having a few stuff-ups per year.

 

[lemon chicken]

ITT. People making excuses because the old bloke upstairs farked up again.

 

[kosifantutti]

Nobody's saying he didn't follow the right process. They're just calling him an incompetent, arrogant silly who clearly rates himself as a better judge than a colleague in a much better position.

He didn't follow the right process IMHO.

At first he was going to go ahead and pay the mark despite the goal umpire being of a different view.

Second he went ahead and called the review only after Fletcher reminded him of what the goal umpire said.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Surely its either a goal or a mark (when we are discussing a one grab mark).

 

[kosifantutti]

Surely its either a goal or a mark (when we are discussing a one grab mark).

Not when it's between the goal and point post.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Not when it's between the goal and point post.

Aaah, ok didnt see, cheers

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Surely its either a goal or a mark (when we are discussing a one grab mark).

Unless your name is Darren Goldspink, anyway.

Did the goal umpire signal "touched?" or the 'missed' signal? I thought they did the arm signal regardless, to inform the central umpire, and waited for the all clear in response for the score signal.

 

[Bob_vic]

Unless your name is Darren Goldspink, anyway.

Did the goal umpire signal "touched?" or the 'missed' signal? I thought they did the arm signal regardless, to inform the central umpire, and waited for the all clear in response for the score signal.

The goal umpire never indicates "touched" if it goes through for a behind. It's always the "mine" (it doesn't specifically mean "missed", but I guess it's the same) signal to indicate the ball has crossed the behind line (or these days, hit the post too).

The "mine" signal was actually a signal to the boundary umpires to stop running towards the goals, which is why they still don't use that signal when a goal is scored. The original use of the signal has been made a bit redundant with 4 boundary umpires.

Before the quick kick-in rule, if both boundary umpires were at the posts, the goal umpire didn't indicate "mine". Now, they use the "mine" signal even if the boundary umpires are already at the posts to indicate to the boundary umpires to run (backwards) away from the posts, giving them a head-start for a quick kick-in.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Atrocious decision. Simply baffling.

Goal umpire over ruled for the second time in two weeks, both times incorrectly.

Whats the point of them?!

 

[Lifetime ban]

The replay clearly shows that the ball was over the line. From the angle of the camera, the behind line was open i.e. the point post was in front of the goal post, which is why you can clearly see the boundary umpire between the two posts. To then watch Brown take the mark directly behind the goal post is conclusive evidence that the ball had crossed the line. It is a case of parrallax error on behalf of the umpire upstairs and is unforgivable given the vision he was seeing. To also have the goal umpire clearly call point not once but twice, and then have the central umpire refer the decision saying "We think it is a mark, is not just beyond belief, but borders on outright deceit. "We" did clearly not think it was a mark, "You" thought it was one, whereas the official in the best position, and no that was not the boundary umpire, had clearly informed you twice that it had crossed the line before the mark was taken, which is why he signalled for a point. You would be justified in asking why the central umpire thought his was the most valid opinion, noting that a) he wasn't in a position to judge whether the ball had crossed the line or not and B) his vision was partially obstructed by the players in front of Brown as well. Will love to see how the Geisch tries to spin doctor this one, because it truly is appalling.

 

[KissKiss]

The goal umpire never indicates "touched" if it goes through for a behind. It's always the "mine" (it doesn't specifically mean "missed", but I guess it's the same) signal to indicate the ball has crossed the behind line (or these days, hit the post too).

The "mine" signal was actually a signal to the boundary umpires to stop running towards the goals, which is why they still don't use that signal when a goal is scored. The original use of the signal has been made a bit redundant with 4 boundary umpires.

Before the quick kick-in rule, if both boundary umpires were at the posts, the goal umpire didn't indicate "mine". Now, they use the "mine" signal even if the boundary umpires are already at the posts to indicate to the boundary umpires to run (backwards) away from the posts, giving them a head-start for a quick kick-in.

I was sitting just behind the goals here and I was pretty certain the goal umpire signaled touched first. I thought at the time it was odd as it looked like a one grab mark. So thought if he was saying touched it was a mark and if it wasn't "touched" it was over the line and a point. Either was not sure the goal umpire did have the best view

 

[KissKiss]

The replay clearly shows that the ball was over the line. From the angle of the camera, the behind line was open i.e. the point post was in front of the goal post, which is why you can clearly see the boundary umpire between the two posts. To then watch Brown take the mark directly behind the goal post is conclusive evidence that the ball had crossed the line. It is a case of parrallax error on behalf of the umpire upstairs and is unforgivable given the vision he was seeing. To also have the goal umpire clearly call point not once but twice, and then have the central umpire refer the decision saying "We think it is a mark, is not just beyond belief, but borders on outright deceit. "We" did clearly not think it was a mark, "You" thought it was one, whereas the official in the best position, and no that was not the boundary umpire, had clearly informed you twice that it had crossed the line before the mark was taken, which is why he signalled for a point. You would be justified in asking why the central umpire thought his was the most valid opinion, noting that a) he wasn't in a position to judge whether the ball had crossed the line or not and B) his vision was partially obstructed by the players in front of Brown as well. Will love to see how the Geisch tries to spin doctor this one, because it truly is appalling.

I think the goal umpire called it touched and therefor a point, that tends to suggest that he thought Brown grabbed it before the line. As it was a one grab mark that means his input was it was a mark.

Im not certain if it was on/over the line, but I think the goal umpire called it touched initially

 

[Lifetime ban]

I think the goal umpire called it touched and therefor a point, that tends to suggest that he thought Brown grabbed it before the line. As it was a one grab mark that means his input was it was a mark.

Im not certain if it was on/over the line, but I think the goal umpire called it touched initially

Nah, he tapped his chest to say mine and called it a point, before being over ruled by the central umpire who was in no position to make that call. The central ump was going ahead to pay the mark to Brown, even though the goal umpire had called a point. That was when Fletcher clearly states to the central umpire that the goal umpire called it a point, because up until then, the central umpire didn't even acknowledge the goal umpires call. How do you explain the fact that the central umpire ignored the call from the best placed umpire to see the event. If you look at the vision, the boundary umpire is outside the boundary looking back at the goal post, introducing parrallax error. Only the goal umpire sighted from one post to the next in a straight line. Only he had a view that had no parrallax error, meaning his was the only clear view, and he was certain that the ball was over the line, something the video review clearly supports, yet the central umpire ignored that not once, but twice. The decision was clearly wrong and had a major impact on the game.

 

[KissKiss]

Nah, he tapped his chest to say mine and called it a point, before being over ruled by the central umpire who was in no position to make that call. The central ump was going ahead to pay the mark to Brown, even though the goal umpire had called a point. That was when Fletcher clearly states to the central umpire that the goal umpire called it a point, because up until then, the central umpire didn't even acknowledge the goal umpires call. How do you explain the fact that the central umpire ignored the call from the best placed umpire to see the event. If you look at the vision, the boundary umpire is outside the boundary looking back at the goal post, introducing parrallax error. Only the goal umpire sighted from one post to the next in a straight line. Only he had a view that had no parrallax error, meaning his was the only clear view, and he was certain that the ball was over the line, something the video review clearly supports, yet the central umpire ignored that not once, but twice. The decision was clearly wrong and had a major impact on the game.

Fair enough, I haven't seen a replay of it yet. I was just behind the goals and had thought he had called touched first then the behind signal and thought it was an odd call. I do agree that the boundary and field umpire didnt have great views. And the goal umpire was slightly unsighted by the post but had the best view.

It does seem to be a policy that the goal umpire has the least input on these decisions and constantly gets over ruled. I dont agree with that.

 

[KissKiss]

Nah, he tapped his chest to say mine and called it a point, before being over ruled by the central umpire who was in no position to make that call. The central ump was going ahead to pay the mark to Brown, even though the goal umpire had called a point. That was when Fletcher clearly states to the central umpire that the goal umpire called it a point, because up until then, the central umpire didn't even acknowledge the goal umpires call. How do you explain the fact that the central umpire ignored the call from the best placed umpire to see the event. If you look at the vision, the boundary umpire is outside the boundary looking back at the goal post, introducing parrallax error. Only the goal umpire sighted from one post to the next in a straight line. Only he had a view that had no parrallax error, meaning his was the only clear view, and he was certain that the ball was over the line, something the video review clearly supports, yet the central umpire ignored that not once, but twice. The decision was clearly wrong and had a major impact on the game.

No you're right I finally got round to watching the replay and he clearly called point not touched. Must have been seeing things at the game (I was a few beers down by then).

Though in this case both the boundary umpires and the goal umpire were on similar angle and had a similar view. Still think its wrong that the boundary umpire's opinion over rules the goal umpires. Dont understand that