View Full Version : Alwyn Davey's "goal"
Noddy Holder
29 Mar 2009, 20:01
In the long run it didn't matter that it wasn't counted but it stopped any momentum that we had. You wouldn't want that happening in a grand final. Why should the defending team get the benefit of the doubt?
Chad Cornes not being penalised for deliberate out of bounds was appalling too. The umpire said there was a teammate there yet the nearest teammate was 20 metres away.
Port were better than us today but the umpiring sure didn't help.:thumbsd:
Johnny619
29 Mar 2009, 20:03
Yep agree. After that we just stop fighting. So I think it made a difference on at least the margin.
lemon chicken
29 Mar 2009, 20:06
The most intelligent thing ive ever heard the ox say. They were not playing cricket. One ump clearly indicated the ball came off the boot but the rest all seemed to say they werent sure if it was touched. If nobody saw it was touched it had to be a goal.
Kaiser Powser
29 Mar 2009, 20:12
In the long run it didn't matter that it wasn't counted but it stopped any momentum that we had. You wouldn't want that happening in a grand final. Why should the defending team get the benefit of the doubt?
Chad Cornes not being penalised for deliberate out of bounds was appalling too. The umpire said there was a teammate there yet the nearest teammate was 20 metres away.
Port were better than us today but the umpiring sure didn't help.:thumbsd:
Chad's was so deliberate, you could tell he knew what he was doing.
Generally though I thought the umpiring was pretty good. There were a couple of dodgy decisions, but that can be expected with the whole crowd baracking for the opposition.
After watching Alwyn's "goal" I wasn't to perturbed, it was a very close thing, so faur enough. But I do think it is suspect that if the umpires are unsure whether or not the ball was touched, then they just assume it is. Surely, if no one saw it clearly be touched then it should be assumed it wasn't. Why make stuff up, if no one saw it occur, then it should be ruled that it did not happen.
they were annoying little wrong decisions but they weren't that bad. if they were the worst umpiring decisions of today then the umpiring must've been pretty good.
retroparty
29 Mar 2009, 20:24
The goal umpire should have made a decision instead of referring to the other umpires for multiple opinions. He was right there, no-one else in the stadium (expect for a couple of players) had a better look at it. It's not good enough to say 'I don't know' or 'I'm not sure.
yodellinhank
29 Mar 2009, 20:36
The strange thing about the decision, for mine, was that the doubt was on whether or not the ball was touched off the boot. If the umpires were of the opinion "I can't say for certain if the ball was touched or not", then surely it should be adjudicated as a goal. They knew Alwyn got boot to ball, could not clearly see the ball being touched, then they should call it on what they seen, not what they think they might have missed.
The strange thing about the decision, for mine, was that the doubt was on whether or not the ball was touched off the boot. If the umpires were of the opinion "I can't say for certain if the ball was touched or not", then surely it should be adjudicated as a goal. They knew Alwyn got boot to ball, could not clearly see the ball being touched, then they should call it on what they seen, not what they think they might have missed.
yeah, they said "i didn't see him touch it" and then pay it touched "just incase"
red n black
29 Mar 2009, 20:55
The strange thing about the decision, for mine, was that the doubt was on whether or not the ball was touched off the boot. If the umpires were of the opinion "I can't say for certain if the ball was touched or not", then surely it should be adjudicated as a goal. They knew Alwyn got boot to ball, could not clearly see the ball being touched, then they should call it on what they seen, not what they think they might have missed.
This is the smartest comment I have read about the "goal". It made no logical sense not to pay it a goal. If you saw boot, and weren't too sure if you saw a touch, then pay the boot! Pay the boot!
Anyway, I reckon Alwyn Davey will be a star.
Coobk001
29 Mar 2009, 20:56
hahaha, Chad shanked that kick like you wouldn't believe, there was never any chance f it being deliberate. he was aiming for 40 metres the other way and sprayed it completely but thats obviously just the stuff you dont see watching on TV at home.
I didn't see the Davey goal so wont comment but it appeared to be kicked off Pettigrews arm which makes it a point if it is kicked off of the opposition, but if it wasn't in contact with Pettigrews arm then it was a goal.
BringBackCransberg
29 Mar 2009, 21:02
I didn't see the Davey goal so wont comment but it appeared to be kicked off Pettigrews arm which makes it a point if it is kicked off of the opposition, but if it wasn't in contact with Pettigrews arm then it was a goal.
Oh, now I understand.
bombre-boy
29 Mar 2009, 22:33
[quote=Raskolnikov;14022985]In the long run it didn't matter that it wasn't counted
YES it did....i back port by UNDEr 39.5.....bloody idiot umpires
bruce abernethy implied there is a ruling that the defence gets the benefit of the doubt if they are not sure if it is touched.
i've never heard this before - was he spinning crap?
surely as others have said if one umpire said he was certain he kicked it and they all agreed they weren't sure if it was touched then it should be a goal. the process they went thru seemed alright but the final decision baffled me.
all the 50-50 decisions went ports way which is generally the case when you play interstate. lets hope we get a better run from the umps next week.
P.A.F.C
30 Mar 2009, 00:08
I was first row, behind the goals and the immediate reaction from me and those around was that it was touched. Sounded like it, looked like it. On replay, it looked hard to tell. But yeah, the umpiring was pretty poorly executed with that. It's happened quite a few times where all umpires clearly have no idea, yet pull some odd reasoning and desicions out.
And Chad Cornes would have been fairly unlucky to be paid deliberate for that.
stay true
30 Mar 2009, 00:43
Lol ofcourse opposition supporters are going to claim it was touched. You must have some pretty swoit hearing if you picked that up.
Should have been a goal but the umps are muppets.
P.A.F.C
30 Mar 2009, 00:55
You can hear a solid smother quite a fair way away from where it happens. I don't think it's unreasonable to say you could have heard this from 10 metres away.
stay true
30 Mar 2009, 00:59
Yeah but it wasn't smothered...
thebigboy
30 Mar 2009, 07:17
I was first row, behind the goals and the immediate reaction from me and those around was that it was touched. Sounded like it, looked like it. On replay, it looked hard to tell. But yeah, the umpiring was pretty poorly executed with that. It's happened quite a few times where all umpires clearly have no idea, yet pull some odd reasoning and desicions out.
And Chad Cornes would have been fairly unlucky to be paid deliberate for that.
Your kidding right?
He picked it up and kicked it out of bounds, his teammate wasn't near him at all. Still i wasn't expecting it to be paid.
Kaiser Powser
30 Mar 2009, 12:51
You can hear a solid smother quite a fair way away from where it happens. I don't think it's unreasonable to say you could have heard this from 10 metres away.
Well the goal umpire didn't hear it from 1 metre away.
Still, strange logic that if you didn't see something happen, then you assume it did.
MotleyOne
30 Mar 2009, 13:04
In the long run it didn't matter that it wasn't counted but it stopped any momentum that we had. You wouldn't want that happening in a grand final. Why should the defending team get the benefit of the doubt?
Chad Cornes not being penalised for deliberate out of bounds was appalling too. The umpire said there was a teammate there yet the nearest teammate was 20 metres away.
Port were better than us today but the umpiring sure didn't help.:thumbsd:
I was at the game.... pretty hard to tell if it was a goal or not.
Hope to watch the replay tonight.
On the umpires, in 50/50 situations like that where it may have or may not have been touched, they are always instructed to err on the side of caution and it will be awarded a point. Thats how its been for a long time. You see one or two of those a year.
hahaha, Chad shanked that kick like you wouldn't believe, there was never any chance f it being deliberate. he was aiming for 40 metres the other way and sprayed it completely but thats obviously just the stuff you dont see watching on TV at home.
I didn't see the Davey goal so wont comment but it appeared to be kicked off Pettigrews arm which makes it a point if it is kicked off of the opposition, but if it wasn't in contact with Pettigrews arm then it was a goal.
I can see why they gave it a behind, but why can't they go to a reply for that? It took them 30 seconds-1 minute to call it a behind, they could of done it quicker with the reply and got the correct decision.
Cornes kicked it straight out of bounds. He meant that. You miss a lot of stuff when you are at the ground as well. The replies clearly showed him look directly at the boundry, and kick it there.
Big Jim
30 Mar 2009, 17:42
Got no idea how the four umpires couldn't pick it up. The goal umpire was only 10 metres away and couldn't tell. Looks like a trip to opsm for him. Yeah, the Port player did touch it, but i reckon had foot to ball after the ball was touched.
The Donners
30 Mar 2009, 17:47
The most intelligent thing ive ever heard the ox say. They were not playing cricket. One ump clearly indicated the ball came off the boot but the rest all seemed to say they werent sure if it was touched. If nobody saw it was touched it had to be a goal.
Couldn't have said it any better myself. There was a Collingwood supporter where I was watching it, he said it was the most rediculous decision he's seen in AFL football and that it tarnished the professionalism of the sport. It was amateurish.
Sir James
31 Mar 2009, 14:51
Could it be karma?
Monfries "goal" against Hawthorn........ ok were even now:p
Andre 2000
31 Mar 2009, 15:41
Wasn't the worst decision the no call on Chaplin charging Lloyd at the top of the goalsquare? At a crucial stage too.
loopy_cam
31 Mar 2009, 18:14
For those of you saying Cornes deliberately kicked it out of bounds I can assure you that he didn't. I was sitting right behind him when he kicked it and you could clearly see him kick it off the side of the boot. There was a Port player about 25 metres to the right of where he kicked it, totally free. That's who he was aiming for. Totally shanked it.
fodzilla
31 Mar 2009, 19:18
Definite goal, strange rule, but rules are rules.