"The goal umpire was in perfect position"

[oliebol]

When goal umpires make mistakes, people often say "I don't understand, the goal umpire was in perfect position!"

But think about it, if you're trying to track a moving object (like a ball), the closer it gets to you, the faster it appears to move. For example, imagine standing on the side of a road, and watching a car drive past. As it's coming towards you, you can easily track it's movement. But when it passes right by you, it's moving "fastest" according to your perception.

So really, I think the position goal umpries are standing in (directly under the goal) is pretty much the worst possible place to spot deviation in movement, like what happens when a ball grazes the behind post.

 

[Geoffa32]

He cost me my Geelong over 39.5 bet.....

 

[TheStinger]

I think when it is purely a which side of the post did it go decision, then being right at the post and looking straight up is the best position. But you are right, when it comes to a slight deflection, especially a ball travelling at speed at a height near the top of the post and with a wobbly trajectory, it can be very hard to detect it.

The best spot to see that is actually the perspective the down the ground camera gives you, so around 30 metres out from goal straight in front.

Having said that though, the goal umpire in this instance did see the deflection and went to signal for it but was unnerved by the field umpire giving the goal signal (two hands to the face for a goal, one for a point, hands behind the back if unsure) and second guessed himself and went for the goal.

He basically screwed the pooch on the decision. The positioning had nothing to do with it. He just bottled it.

 

[yebbo]

I think when it is purely a which side of the post did it go decision, then being right at the post and looking straight up is the best position. But you are right, when it comes to a slight deflection, especially a ball travelling at speed at a height near the top of the post and with a wobbly trajectory, it can be very hard to detect it.

The best spot to see that is actually the perspective the down the ground camera gives you, so around 30 metres out from goal straight in front.

Having said that though, the goal umpire in this instance did see the deflection and went to signal for it but was unnerved by the field umpire giving the goal signal (two hands to the face for a goal, one for a point, hands behind the back if unsure) and second guessed himself and went for the goal.

He basically screwed the pooch on the decision. The positioning had nothing to do with it. He just bottled it.

Yeah i agree, something funny happened in the poor guys head. He saw it as he went to slap his chest and then like you say the field umpires with all their authoritah was having none of it.

He was in a much better position than the Hawkins goal in 09 anyway...that guy had no chance of seeing it and maybe they can go on the kicker and crowd reaction when in doubt, i dont know. If you hear the crowd their was the cheer for the ball about to sail through and then a groan when most of them saw it hit the post.

I dont know but its a good advertisement for a 10 second review cos thats all it would take. Look at cricket, its just needed, easy to implement and you will get the right decision so why dont they do it for the football.

 

[db swannie]

When goal umpires make mistakes, people often say "I don't understand, the goal umpire was in perfect position!"

But think about it, if you're trying to track a moving object (like a ball), the closer it gets to you, the faster it appears to move. For example, imagine standing on the side of a road, and watching a car drive past. As it's coming towards you, you can easily track it's movement. But when it passes right by you, it's moving "fastest" according to your perception.

So really, I think the position goal umpries are standing in (directly under the goal) is pretty much the worst possible place to spot deviation in movement, like what happens when a ball grazes the behind post.

Where else could they stand? It's the best of possible positions for them to stand.

As for that goal umpire yesterday- Chelsea wouldn't have made that error! Back to the VFL for you nuff-nuff!

 

[nohairandfair]

Seriously, if a goal umpire can't see that then they shouldn't be in the caper.

What was interesting was that there was clearly enough doubt for at least the field, boundary and goal umpires to confer.

But no, the field umpire was very quick on giving the all clear verdict.

 

[filly]

I thought the goal umpire had final say on a goal umpiring decision !

Is this not so !!

If it is so,how can one of the best goal umpires be unnerved by a decision he was in perfect position to see ? and in fact did...

 

[grimface_87]

Having said that though, the goal umpire in this instance did see the deflection and went to signal for it but was unnerved by the field umpire giving the goal signal (two hands to the face for a goal, one for a point, hands behind the back if unsure) and second guessed himself and went for the goal.

He basically screwed the pooch on the decision. The positioning had nothing to do with it. He just bottled it.

Yep should have gone with his own decision and not what the field umpire thought. From the field umpire's view it would have looked like a goal

 

[Powerstufff]

When goal umpires make mistakes, people often say "I don't understand, the goal umpire was in perfect position!".....

I've goal umpired at junior level and it's not that easy. Admittedly it's usually hardest when the play is right in front of goals and so there are lots of players there and the ball is moving back and forth across the goals so it is hard to be in the right position for a snap. If you add looking into the sun (or yesterday the lights) it is yet another problem.
But yesterday the ball (Sidebottom?) was kicked from a fair distance out, getting into position should not have been and did not look to be an issue. Then we had three field umpires, at least one of whom should have been watching and should have overruled it. That is where the system really fell down yesterday, I'd like to know why the umpires did not confer which is something we see half a dozen times a season.

 

[pjcrows]

Don't look into it too much. The umpire plain f*cked up.

 

[Lowlyf]

But the umpire clearly went to put his arm across his body to signal a behind and then changed his mind?
Oh well it doesnt worry me, the game didnt come down to 6 points so it is irrelevant.

And in 2009 Tom Hawkins CLEARLY hit the post in one of his goals, but it was awarded a goal. Take them when they come your way I guess.

 

[StFly]

I thought the goal umpire had final say on a goal umpiring decision !

Is this not so !!

If it is so,how can one of the best goal umpires be unnerved by a decision he was in perfect position to see ? and in fact did...

Yes they do, with exceptions.

L2 Field Ump manual, module 5 covers associations with other umpires (Unit 1, Unit 2 being Match Officials);

When the ball passes across the behind line resulting in a behind, the Goal Umpire will clearly tap his chest three times. This will indicate to the Boundary Umpires that if the Goal Umpire receives an "all clear" from the Field Umpire, he will be signalling a behind, therefore informing the Boundary Umpires that they do not have to run to the goal area to pick up the ball.

Goal Umpires are the final judge of a score.

The following situations require the Goal Umpire and Field Umpire to be co-operating with each other:

I'll simply give the sub headings of the exception segments.

Where a mark is taken on or just before the goal line.
Where a mark is taken just behind the goal line
When the Field Umpire awards a free kick or a 50 metre penalty to a forward concurrent with there being a score (e.g.: a player is infringed after kicking but the ball goes through for a score) (i & ii goal behind scored)
(iii) In the event that the infringement occurs after the ball crosses the goal or behind line (or hits the goal post)
When the Field Umpire is 100% sure the ball has hit the goal post
When the Field Umpire sees the ball go out of bounds on the full close to the behind post and the Goal Umpire is caught out of position
Mark or Free Kick in the Goal Square

Given the applicable scenario the only one bothered with arguments is the 100% sure the ball hit the post, considering the Goal Umpire was of that opinion and either getting mixed messages or capitulating under pressure;

The Field Umpire will give “all clear” whilst tapping
one forearm with his other hand three times. If the Field Umpire gives this signal and it appears obviously incorrect (out of context) the Goal Umpire
is to run out and talk to the Field Umpire before making a decision.

So summary being Goal ump was well in his right to tell the field ump to "GTFO" after giving the all clear and give it a behind, field ump is well in his right to give baseball signals drop his pants and then wait for the goal ump to twig what the crap is going on and everyone has the right to think it's a bit of a farce sometimes.

 

[regpies]

What goes around comes around, it didn't cost the cats the game, but the exact same error cost the Saints in 09. The Dane Swan non mark call which resulted in a Bartel goal squared it up during the game.

 

[Squida25]

What goes around comes around, it didn't cost the cats the game, but the exact same error cost the Saints in 09. The Dane Swan non mark call which resulted in a Bartel goal squared it up during the game.

I didn't realise a goal was worth 12 points .

 

[Plugger35]

I didn't realise a goal was worth 12 points .

Well Geelong got another goal directly from the next centre bounce when it should have been St Kilda possession from a kick out, so in effect it did cost us 12 points.

 

[HurlsMeister18]

Razor Ray would have called a meeting and got the right decision.

 

[Spitta09]

In defence of the goal umpire i could have swore i saw him move his arm upward for a second to signal a behind but changed his mind. Possibly the field umpire effected his decision or something?
Anyway sh*t happens. The Hawkins one of 2009 was a lot worse from memory.

 

[Thermo]

They are human and make errors, even in the perfect spot this is still going to happen. Just like an ump can miss a plum lbw, or a linesman can miss an offside in soccer. If you really want to take out that kind of error you'd have to be pro goal technology.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Well Geelong got another goal directly from the next centre bounce when it should have been St Kilda possession from a kick out, so in effect it did cost us 12 points.

No, can't buy this one.

A poor free kick taken before defenders are in position, or a missed free kick allowing the opposition to kick inside 50, you can make a case for.

Play stopping, going back to the centre, everybody taking up their positions = St Kilda should have controlled the centre bounce better.

That behind kick out might have been a turnover, or it might have made its way to the centre bounce area and formed a stoppage, and then you have to deal with the same centre break possibility.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Razor Ray would have called a meeting and got the right decision.

And beat his chest, saying 'don't you know who I am' before awarding another shot at goal.

 

[YellowandBlackBlood]

Can't wait to hear the spin Gieshen will put on this. Maybe he'll say the tv footage is an optical illusion caused by the rare earth glass that has anomylous partial dispersion and is used in tv camera lenses!
Come to think of it he may admit an error as the mistake didn't change the result! But if it had, the former explanation probably would have been rolled out!

 

[Topper Harley]

No, can't buy this one.

A poor free kick taken before defenders are in position, or a missed free kick allowing the opposition to kick inside 50, you can make a case for.

Play stopping, going back to the centre, everybody taking up their positions = St Kilda should have controlled the centre bounce better.

That behind kick out might have been a turnover, or it might have made its way to the centre bounce area and formed a stoppage, and then you have to deal with the same centre break possibility.

Some common sense right here,

If you say it cost them the Chapman goal, then Saints fans must also concede the 3 goals they got to finish the quarter.

Or you can just say it cost them 5 points and move on wih it.

 

[Hawkinspired]

He cost me my Geelong over 39.5 bet.....

Me too. I had that into Manly 13+. Paying 20/1 and I had a motza on it too!

 

[sherb]

So really, I think the position goal umpries are standing in (directly under the goal) is pretty much the worst possible place to spot deviation in movement, like what happens when a ball grazes the behind post.

I agree and I've thought this for quite a while.

To spot a deviation in movement off the post, the goal umpire would be far better placed standing a couple of metres behind the post, not directly next to/underneath it.

 

[winty]

Well Geelong got another goal directly from the next centre bounce when it should have been St Kilda possession from a kick out, so in effect it did cost us 12 points.

Funny how after all that, you were still in front at 3/4 time.

Maybe it's time we got rid of the hit the post rule. If the ball hits the post and goes through for a goal, it's paid a goal. If it goes through for a behind, it's counted as a behind, and if it bounces back into play, it's play on.