was it touched...??

[Brewster_]

Agreed, but the thread isn't about my sour punting experience, nor is it about a non-free to Green. I think it's more about whether or not this particular incident was or wasn't a goal, and then should or should nothave been referred.

There was a moment in the Melbourne game last night that I thought (slightly biased) was a goal, but the goal ump decided it was touched.

I would have thought, after a few referrals I've seen earlier in the season, both of these should have been referred and I'd suggest at least one of the decisions would be different.

Use the video system, or scrap it altogether.

Exactly. That's the issue here. What is the point of having it in place?
I loved how there were no replays too. If it wasn't a goal, fair enough, but at least ****ing show us.

 

[mehow2g]

Ive seen previously umpires love drawing that square and its generally the downfield up doing it.

 

[Smeg Head]

If only it had been in use when Diesel Williams cheatingly claimed that goal that Evans put through for a behind. Probably still would've given it to Williams, just because he put his hand up and claimed it.

Oh god one of my earlier memories from watching footy as kid on the telly. Hated Carlton and Williams for that ever since. Bastard.

 

[eagles rule]

Exactly. That's the issue here. What is the point of having it in place?
I loved how there were no replays too. If it wasn't a goal, fair enough, but at least ****ing show us.

do you think time was the issue for not showing it ?

especially as the qtr was soo long ,just saying as I wanted to see a replay too .

 

[Gizza]

For all we know, from a front on view it might be absolutely blatantly obvious that it came of Darling's knee or something like that, which would explain why they didn't call for the review.

 

[Talon]

Darling was the last player to touch it when he soccered the ball from about 35m out, he celebrated the goal and only slapped the ground when the goal umpire signalled touched, which in turn denied West Coast a 9 point lead with 90 seconds to go, leaving it highly unlikely Brisbane would have won, so to rebut some earlier posts, it was a game changer, I noticed the said goal umpire ran past some West Coast players looking very sheepish at the end of the game, I just can't understand how he got it so wrong especially when he does have the luxury of a replay to help him, unless he didn't want help!

 

[Forward Press]

Having looked at the replay, it only seemed Darling slapped the ground when he saw the goal umpire motion to signal a touched behind.

That being said, vision was inconclusive and if it gone to video review, and the TV umpire says it's inconclusive, it's the goal umpire's call ie a point. So it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.

Unless there was vision available which clearly indicated it wasn't a point?

 

[Shaq attack]

A game of inches! Video review system is flawed but does have a place in footy imo

 

[Truckosaurus]

Would need to see a replay but I didn't think it was touched, nor did the six other people I was watching it with. Mind you, none of us were exactly neutral. Personally I'm more upset at the number of clear holding the balls decisions that weren't paid. And we hadn't even had a coach bitching about us during the week.


Video review would have made a huge difference, even if it had been a point. Would have held Brisbane up and allowed us to get our defence in place. Instead, they got a quick kick out and were down the ground in a flash.

 

[Brewster_]

do you think time was the issue for not showing it ?

especially as the qtr was soo long ,just saying as I wanted to see a replay too .

Well the ball came very quickly back into play so there was no time immediately after the decision, but I actually thought they would show it after the Lions goal that came straight after. Usually with goal line decisions that are unclear to the viewer, they show it again as soon as possible.
I have it on IQ and I've watched it many times, I can't see the Lions player get near it, but the camera angle is not good. A front on angle should show it clearly. If the goal umpire was certain, then fine, I'd just like to see it, that's all.

 

[Prem87]

The big question is: Why was Drummond (IIRC) allowed to play on immediately before the goal umpire had given the signal?

 

[Toshowyouwhy]

As I mentioned in the other thread, it looked a clear goal from where I was. Unfortunately, that was behind the goals at the opposite end.

 

[BrisbaneLion9636]

The big question is: Why was Drummond (IIRC) allowed to play on immediately before the goal umpire had given the signal?

They changed that rule about 5 years ago, if my memory serves me correctly. Good thinking from Drummond too, get it into the danger zone quickly. Best game this season ( for us atleast) I reckon. Can't get any better than that

Also, was Nic Nat injured? I always loved watching him play, but something wasn't right with him, perhaps an injury?

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

They changed the rule so you don't have to wait for the umpire to finish waving his flags, but he's still got to finish signalling the behind. I thought at the time that it should've been called back, probably wishful thinking on my part though.

 

[kranky al]

Darling was the last player to touch it when he soccered the ball from about 35m out, he celebrated the goal and only slapped the ground when the goal umpire signalled touched, which in turn denied West Coast a 9 point lead with 90 seconds to go, leaving it highly unlikely Brisbane would have won, so to rebut some earlier posts, it was a game changer, I noticed the said goal umpire ran past some West Coast players looking very sheepish at the end of the game, I just can't understand how he got it so wrong especially when he does have the luxury of a replay to help him, unless he didn't want help!

if that was a game changer so were some of the other decisions that went in our favour throughout the game - and there were plenty of those.


we weren't good enough to win today. one decision does not make or break a game.

still like to see the tape from every angle - shit thats what all this tech is about.

 

[Alexwce]

Wasn't touched. If you need proof, I'll msg you it, tommorrow evening. Np

 

[kranky al]

Wasn't touched. If you need proof, I'll msg you it, tommorrow evening. Np

'what are you - some sort of catholic priest?

 

[dawsman]

For what it's worth, here is a replay as shown on 7 news (Perth). It's a 5MB download in .mov format:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38342610/Eagles%20vs%20Lions.mov

Nothing wrong with Darling's initial soccer off the ground and I don't believe it was touched on the line...

Edit: Also look's like Drummond's play on after the "behind" was okay.... right on the goal umpire's signal.

 

[Brazen]

They changed that rule about 5 years ago, if my memory serves me correctly. Good thinking from Drummond too, get it into the danger zone quickly. Best game this season ( for us atleast) I reckon. Can't get any better than that

Also, was Nic Nat injured? I always loved watching him play, but something wasn't right with him, perhaps an injury?

They changed the rule so you don't have to wait for the umpire to finish waving his flags, but he's still got to finish signalling the behind. I thought at the time that it should've been called back, probably wishful thinking on my part though.

Yeah he was talking about not finishing the hand signal not the flags. He clearly plays on before the goal umpire has finished making his point signal. But whats the rule, wait til started hand signal or wait til finished?

 

[Ochre]

Meant to wait til he's finished I'm pretty sure.

 

[Eagles>Football]

McKeever's reaction is perplexing. There is no protest or hand gesture towards the goal umpire that he touched it as it happened. The ump was rather quick out of the blocks with his decision so this may in fact be the reason why.

 

[Brazen]

McKeever's reaction is perplexing. There is no protest or hand gesture towards the goal umpire that he touched it as it happened. The ump was rather quick out of the blocks with his decision so this may in fact be the reason why.

But initially hes not even looking at the ump... looks dejected as he goes to ground and no attempt to claim touched, whereas Darling has the best view directly down and immediately starts a fist pump swinging arm like Hill before he slips and sees the signal and slaps the ground in disgust

 

[Eagles>Football]

But initially hes not even looking at the ump... looks dejected as he goes to ground and no attempt to claim touched, whereas Darling has the best view directly down and immediately starts a fist pump swinging arm like Hill before he slips and sees the signal and slaps the ground in disgust

Precisely what I was thinking.

 

[dawsman]

...The ump was rather quick out of the blocks with his decision so this may in fact be the reason why.

^^This^^

But initially hes not even looking at the ump... looks dejected as he goes to ground and no attempt to claim touched...

I don't think we should expect much of a reaction after a gut-run like that in the last minutes of the last quarter. Even after the touched-ball decision he struggles to stand up, clearly spent.

 

[mdenn69]

clearly a goal. yes i'm biased. yes lions deserved the win, but they deserved the win last time we played them here at the gabba. that was a goal to darling, no doubt. congrats to brisbane though, played well, deserved the win. and no that's not sarcasm, i am genuinely happy for lions fans, just pissed at our boys for not putting them away when we were 4 goals up in the last!