LukeH10
Team Captain
- Jul 19, 2015
- 342
- 489
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Even if the ball wasn't touched, should still have not been overturned. The process was a rabble.
Player kicks ball, umpire screams touched touched touched, ball goes through goal, should be paid a point for being touched, nope umpires calls for a review which should not have happened. For example, if the ball is marked by a player instead of going through the goals then the umpire would call play on as he has already screamed touched 10 times. So now we call for a review... The goal umpire then says he believed it was touched also so now we have two umpires believing it was touched. Then we go through the replays. Not one replay gave anything anywhere near conclusive evidence of the ball not being touched so now what should happen is we stick to the original call which was touched.
Nope... We go against the whole process & precedent of what has happened before and call a goal.
Utter joke. Sending a please explain to the AFL.
Player kicks ball, umpire screams touched touched touched, ball goes through goal, should be paid a point for being touched, nope umpires calls for a review which should not have happened. For example, if the ball is marked by a player instead of going through the goals then the umpire would call play on as he has already screamed touched 10 times. So now we call for a review... The goal umpire then says he believed it was touched also so now we have two umpires believing it was touched. Then we go through the replays. Not one replay gave anything anywhere near conclusive evidence of the ball not being touched so now what should happen is we stick to the original call which was touched.
Nope... We go against the whole process & precedent of what has happened before and call a goal.
Utter joke. Sending a please explain to the AFL.