Stanley's kick, blocked by goal umpire?

[Squizz]

Yes.

It appears one of the umpires from the game (Daniel Wilson) did not get a gig in Round 12.

Maybe he has a wooden leg and didn't feel it?

 

[goodie23]

Surprised Big Stan wasn't reported for inconveniencing an umpire, clearly it was all his fault, he should've kicked it over the goalie.

Well there are a few issues here. Whether or not he actually kicked it (in other words below the knee) and whether or not it crossed the goal line on the full. It was definitely a score, because it not only hit the goal umpire, it ricocheted off him and glanced off the goal post.

Just a good old-fashioned case of bad umpiring. Fortunately it didn't impact the result.

 

[ChrisL#12]

Geischen is like the mad scientist down there at the AFL. The guy is a complete nutjob and wouldn't know what was going on in his own backyard if it was on fire. He is useless. So are some of the other cronies at AFL House at the moment to be honest. Adrian Anderson=inept, Gillon McLachlan=inept.

And the way they change the rules every 5 seconds. They better not make it a shootout instead of a draw next year. That would really be the topper. I can't believe people are even considering it. It's the way it's always been and the way it always should be. If neither team is good enough to win during the allotted time, then they get a draw. End of rant.

 

[Squizz]

Actually, with Kazak's dodgy holding the ball and this one, he probably isn't getting the best run at it:

 

[ChrisL#12]

Actually, with Kazak's dodgy holding the ball and this one, he probably isn't getting the best run at it:

He's a tall forward at St. Kilda, he'll have to get used to it.

 

[Papa Juggs]

Came off his knee.

OP is on crack.

 

[Squizz]

Came off his knee.

OP is on crack.

Think the main point was why the umpire didn't know it had crossed the line (given it made contact with the umpire's leg).

 

[bluejay]

Think the main point was why the umpire didn't know it had crossed the line (given it made contact with the umpire's leg).

I disagree Squizz. I think the umpire thought it hadn't crossed the line because he was half inside the field when it happened. Hence, the main point is: why the hell he was half inside the field?

If you gotta jump out of the trajectory of the ball, jump sideways and backwards.... and DO NOT go inside the game field and DO NOT cross the boundary line. If you do so, these kind of things are "bound" to happen...

 

[Squizz]

Once it made contact with him, I don't think the umpire had any reasonable alternative but to assume it would cross the line (regardless of whether he was inside the field of play).

 

[the emergency]

I saw this, and assumed that the goal umpire's goal was to always stand behind the goal line, thus Kazak's shot being a goal...
As long as we dont see crap like this in close games where every goal is vital, i guess we all have to forgive and forget

 

[StFly]

The rule as it stands does dictate that if a goal umpire is truck by a ball and the ball rebounds into play it is indee dplay on. The sticking point with the decision is that of 4 umpires (goal, 2x boundry and controlling) no one saw it hit the post to register a behind.

Guaranteed if that happens in a grand finals which is decided by 5 points the AFL will be forced to alter the rule to one of common sense that the trajectory of the ball will be taken instead of "play on".

 

[bluejay]

The rule as it stands does dictate that if a goal umpire is truck by a ball and the ball rebounds into play it is indee dplay on. The sticking point with the decision is that of 4 umpires (goal, 2x boundry and controlling) no one saw it hit the post to register a behind.

Guaranteed if that happens in a grand finals which is decided by 5 points the AFL will be forced to alter the rule to one of common sense that the trajectory of the ball will be taken instead of "play on".

What you're saying is regardless of whether the goal umpire is inside the field or outside? Because if the goal umpire is outside, the ball crosses de line and then it bounces off his body, it should be a goal. And that is what i was complaining about... his positioning.

 

[StFly]

What you're saying is regardless of whether the goal umpire is inside the field or outside? Because if the goal umpire is outside, the ball crosses de line and then it bounces off his body, it should be a goal. And that is what i was complaining about... his positioning.

I was paraphrasing since I didn't have the pdf open, actual rule reads as follows;

12: Scoring: Goals and Behinds
12.1.3: Clarification and Examples
For the avoidance of doubt;
(a) if the football touches an umpire or any official and then passes over the goal or behind line, a goal or behind, as the case may be, shall still be recorded;
(b) if the football touches an umpire or any official and does not pass over the goal or behind line, the football shall remain in play;
(c) relates to a touched kick from the boot.
(d) relates to the entire ball needing to pass over the line to count.

So yes, theoretically the goal umpire could come off the line into play, obstruct a player and effectively shepherd the ball through. They would most likely be fired after the game, but as you can see there is no mention of positioning in the ruling. So also theoretically, a goal umpire can camp the post and allow a ball to strike their leg before preceding over as opposed to the post and a goal will be called.

It's why in my view it should be altered to trajectory, as the goal ump can, through no fault of their own or through malice, become a goal keeper and directly impact the result of a game.