Could Elliott win two awards and not really deserve either?

[PhiloBeddoe]

A solid point raised on AFL 360 last night - Why was there no review of Elliott's goal re: boundary line?

If we are going upstairs for everything else why not that?

I didn't see any conference occurring between the relevant umpires therefore no need for the review.

 

[Pedro]

A solid point raised on AFL 360 last night - Why was there no review of Elliott's goal re: boundary line?

If we are going upstairs for everything else why not that?

Because they don't review umpiring decisions. Only scores. And there was no reason to review it as it clearly went through the posts without hitting the post, being touched etc. Otherwise you would be reveiwing every action leading to a goal. I'm not suggesting that he wasn't OOB, but there is nothing in the rules to review this. Would you review a goal because a bloke ran 17m without bouncing the ball? No. Same sort of thing. Its an umpiring error that occured prior to the score

 

[JeffDunne]

Lots of saints supporters in this thread...

Go figure?

"Lots" in the sense Collingwood supporters have "lots" of teeth?

I count two.

 

[Prestigerrycomo]

"Lots" in the sense Collingwood supporters have "lots" of teeth?

I count two.

Or St Kilda has "lots" of Premierships?

 

[JeffDunne]

"Lots" would require more than one.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Watch it again, definite mark. "Two actions"

First time I've seen it. For mine, not a mark, but the sort of thing that gets paid most of the time.

It was definitely three actions. The first to get hands there which blocked the ball but did not control it, the second to try and hug it to the chest on the way down, and the third a desparate attempt to grab it. Often these get paid, but at no point did he control the ball.
Then again, Ablett Sr won "mark of the century" for a similar non-mark.

 

[MarkT2]

It wasn't a mark and it wasn't a goal but when Collingwood benefits, who cares?

That's simply "maximising revenue" so it's all good. I've been told we all benefit in such an outcome so "go Pies"!!!!

Of course it's a conspiracy.

 

[Halftimehero]

I didn't see any conference occurring between the relevant umpires therefore no need for the review.

Every goal is meant to be checked whether the on field umpires request it or not. They can then advise that a review is taking place.

 

[Leviathan Pie]

Good OP, would read again

 

[iGNITER]

Or St Kilda has "lots" of Premierships?

Another one is just around the corner

 

[Schauermann]

I don't care. Umpire's decision makes it an legimate goal and mark in the end. Ballanyne deserved it in 2012 as well: Hard to get a goal without kicking the ball after all...

 

[wce4premiership]

Watch it again, definite mark. "Two actions"

I can't believe you post a video that proves it wasn't a mark. He lost control as he tried to bring it to his chest. It's not a mark. If it had come out upon hitting the ground then sure, but no, he didn't have it under control when he hit the ground.

Not a mark.

Doesn't matter anyway, it wont win anything.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Every goal is meant to be checked whether the on field umpires request it or not. They can then advise that a review is taking place.

How so? Someone runs into a open goal, puts it straight through the middle and it gets checked?

 

[Halftimehero]

How so? Someone runs into a open goal, puts it straight through the middle and it gets checked?

Yep

 

[Halftimehero]

How so? Someone runs into a open goal, puts it straight through the middle and it gets checked?

Obviously it would take about 1 second to determine it was a goal, but they are all meant to be checked while the ball is going back to the middle.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

Obviously it would take about 1 second to determine it was a goal, but they are all meant to be checked while the ball is going back to the middle.

Wasn't aware of that, thanks.

 

[JeffDunne]

Of course it's a conspiracy.

A conspiracy would mean it's a secret.

A "natural outcome" would be a better description.

 

[Halftimehero]

Wasn't aware of that, thanks.

Mind you, it wouldn't matter in this instance as they only check the goal umpire's decision, whether it was touched, hit the post or what side of the post it went. It was up to the boundary umpire to call him out of bounds.

 

[BEEG]

Don't think either will win but it's like saying this team shouldn't get the 4 points because they got a free kick that wasn't there paid which resulted in a goal

 

[Whiskers]

The goal is actually more miraculous as it was out of bounds, making it an even tighter angle, he executed the skill.
The mark however isn't really a mark as he doesn't hold onto it imo.
If he took a mark like that outside the boundary line and held onto it, I would be impressed, even if it was out of bounds.

 

[Halftimehero]

Don't think either will win but it's like saying this team shouldn't get the 4 points because they got a free kick that wasn't there paid which resulted in a goal

Yes I agree, they were paid as a mark and a goal so that's what they need to be judged on.

 

[Looney]

Elliot should be awarded both Mark of the year and Goal of the year as a square up for that non-mark Gary Ablett took over Pert, and the Goal of the year that was not awarded to Dale Thomas.

 

[Looney]

Yes I agree, they were paid as a mark and a goal so that's what they need to be judged on.

It doesn't work like that though. If there are any doubts or controversy, it goes down in rankings.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Elliot should be awarded both Mark of the year and Goal of the year as a square up for that non-mark Gary Ablett took over Pert, and the Goal of the year that was not awarded to Dale Thomas.

I don't understand the argument against that mark, Ablett unquestionably held it against his body on the way down.

 

[Looney]

I don't understand the argument against that mark, Ablett unquestionably held it against his body on the way down.

Not really. Elliott had more control of the ball than Ablett did.