"The goal umpire was in perfect position"

[sherb]

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.

No, keep it as it is. Otherwise we are just aligning ourselves with other codes and removing a unique aspect of our game.

 

[DO IT TO IT]

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.

the milburn call was a square up and that is the only reason it was paid.

 

[grimface_87]

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.

But the problem with that is they also need to be in line with the goal line in case the ball may be touched.

 

[Righteo]

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.

Maybe I need to see this footage again but I recall watching this incident, and the several replays shown afterwards and it clearly hit the ground first

 

[PrideOf]

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.

This. I've umpired at senior level and can tell you that it does throw you if you're set to give a goal/point and you see the fieldie run in giving a different opinion.

If there's any doubt, he should have run out and conferred: 'I thought it hit the post etc etc'. But with 99,000 people screaming and at a key moment in the game, he snuffed it.

 

[PrideOf]

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

Razor Ray should try to get his own decisions right before trying to be a goal umpire as well. Shits me when field umpires set up a committee on the field, especially when most of these discussions go nowhere.

 

[cancat]

The umps gifted the Pies 2 other goals also. The holding the ball against Kelly followed by the 50 metres, then the 'high tackle' by Ottens.

Made it even sweeter to win despite decisions going against us.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Maybe I need to see this footage again but I recall watching this incident, and the several replays shown afterwards and it clearly hit the ground first

It didn't hit the ground first, but he had his arms parallel out in front with a decent gap between them. It is entirely likely that the point of the ball hit the ground between his arms and then his arms closed around the ball more. Think of it like the ball being on rails, but the point of it is running along the ground and the fat part of the ball is wedged between Swan's arms. So if the ground wasn't there, does Swan trap the ball or does the ground break the fall of the ball and enable Swan to trap it. Does being trapped between the forearms and hitting the ground simultaneously constitute a benefit of the doubt? Wiser heads than mine might know. It could have gone either way (only saw it twice though).

 

[Feerits Elf]

If there's any doubt, he should have run out and conferred: 'I thought it hit the post etc etc'. But with 99,000 people screaming and at a key moment in the game, he snuffed it.

Did he died?

 

[Jules Winnfield]

The umps got the Pies over the line the previous week but credit to Geelong, they were good enough to overcome the handicap.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

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.

The game I watched Dane Swan wasn't paid a good mark but it however resulted in a ball up. Subsequently Jolly stupidly hit it over the boundary is what cost you, perhaps blame Jolly for that one? Can't compare to a poster being adjudicated as a goal....

A real example of costly error is Coreys elbow fend off on Pendelbury and not paid. Though it would have been very hard for an ump to see it with 20 congested players in the mix....

And some more, Enright being tackled and throws it on his boot, could see his shoe hit the ball from a mile away and spin away but got done for incorrect disposal and a shot on goal for Pies. Terrible umpiring, wasn't even congested.

And Ottens tackle - really high was it?, another shot on goal for the Pies.

Daisy doing a superman impersonation and getting a free - another very poor decision but at least not a shot on goal.


Give us a break on the poor Swan not getting a fair go hmmm......

 

[PrideOf]

Did he died?

His career did.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

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.

This still cracks me up. How can you blame the non-goal for your ruckman and midfielders being shit enough to allow a clear centre clearance for a goal. Do we blame the decision for every goal from that moment on?

Are you forgetting it was from a St Kilda possession that the ball was coughed up for the goal anyway?

If you seriously think this cost you the game, you've got to stop torturing yourself.

You were completely gifted a goal anyway. Will never see that again in a GF.

 

[YellowandBlackBlood]

I'd like to think I'm impartial in this argument as I don't have any feelings for either teams. IMHO I believe that umpiring mistake did make a huge difference to the game. Why? Because it created that well used word, "momentum".
We've all been to enough games to see what happens when a side gets a run on. They can be almost impossible to reel in. This run on is often created by a selfless or heroic act and that invigorates the team. On the odd occasion its created by an umpiring error and I believe that is what happened on this occasion. Sure the saints fought their way back but that took a lot of energy out of them.
I think that mistake cost the saints the flag. But then again it's only an opinion and it's all history now.......