The evidence is beyond doubt. Just because you don't understand it does not weaken it.Whether it was a goal or not, I'm more interested in the fact the goal umpire (once the sole judge of any score, but not any more) determined it was a goal and somebody reviewed it. Now the thing that bothers me, I just cannot see that there was enough conclusive evidence to overturn the original decision. I'd like someone in the AFL to explained who made the call, and on what grounds.
Last edited: