Eddie Betts Decision - Right or wrong?

[hcd199]

Which he wasn't ... he was standing behind the goal line at the moment the ball rebounded off him ... according to screenshots I captured of paused video.

Could you upload the screenshots? I had a look at the footage again but, whilst the goal umpire is clearly mostly behind the line, it's hard to see whether the ball fully crosses or not - the angle of the footage means it's hard to say definitively.

 

[Reservoir tiger]

By the rule it is correct call IF the ball did not cross the goal line. I have taken a few screenshots which show that the goal umpire was actually standing a little way behind the line when the ball rebounded off him, and so I think the ball possibly did cross the line, and so I don't think this call was actually correct according to the rule.

There's no way in the world the whole ball completely crossed the line

 

[ok.crows]

Could you upload the screenshots? I had a look at the footage again but, whilst the goal umpire is clearly mostly behind the line, it's hard to see whether the ball fully crosses or not - the angle of the footage means it's hard to say definitively.

Using the imgur link:

https://imgur.com/hNMI9B9,ncPSQhQ

... flip between the first and second image (just before and just after the rebound off the umpire).

In the first image:

Look at the shadow starting at the umpires right foot and following along the length of the shadow. The goal line intersects the umpires shadow at about 25% of the length of the shadow. I'm pretty sure this means the umpire is behind the line by a distance equivalent to 25% of the umpires height.

 

[Quad22]

I guess the media isn't wrong when they suggest the A-League is taking the Aussie sporting landscape by storm.

 

[Quad22]

But seriously, shouldn't it boil down to the essence of kicking a goal: to kick it through the two big sticks.
Whether the ball hits the goal umpire between these two sticks should be irrelevant.
Overall, a ludicrous decision.

 

[Tas]

That's what you're taught, because you need to be on the line to see if it's kicked before the line or not.

You can't tell from 30cm away?

 

[DarkPhoenix]

You can't tell from 30cm away?

30cms difference in your line of vision can make a huge difference to how you perceive something. An umpire standing back from the line MAY get the call right most of the time but statistically would not be as accurate as one straddling the line in repeated testing.

Logically it should have been a goal.

By the rules however it is not.

It's that simple. The rule is s**t, but until it's changed that's how it is.

In cases like this I think it should logically be given as a goal however if umpires started making logic calls in situations like this people would be outraged that they weren't following the rules and were "making it up as they went".

It's good it happened in a preseason match that is worth nothing because now the rule will be discussed and possibly changed as a result.

 

[RePete]

It's always between Eddie Betts and North Melbourne that this s**t happens.

 

[hcd199]

Using the imgur link:

https://imgur.com/hNMI9B9,ncPSQhQ

... flip between the first and second image (just before and just after the rebound off the umpire).

In the first image:

Look at the shadow starting at the umpires right foot and following along the length of the shadow. The goal line intersects the umpires shadow at about 25% of the length of the shadow. I'm pretty sure this means the umpire is behind the line by a distance equivalent to 25% of the umpires height.

The shadow argument doesn't really work - shadows vary according to the position of the sun (and/or other light source), they don't remain constant in length. As I understand it, a person's shadow is only going to be the exact height the person is if the angle of the light is exactly 45°. (Also, you're measuring the shadow being cast from the right foot, but the umpire is being hit on the other side of his body, which is further forward).

From the screenshots you link to, I'm fairly sure the ball didn't cross the line - the umpire's shoulder looks to be either on the line or in front of it (certainly no room for the whole ball to have crossed the line), and his motion is carrying him forward.

 

[ok.crows]

The shadow argument doesn't really work - shadows vary according to the position of the sun (and/or other light source), they don't remain constant in length. As I understand it, a person's shadow is only going to be the exact height the person is if the angle of the light is exactly 45°.

Agree with both of your comments but not your conclusion. I do not expect the length of the shadow to be any particular length or the same as the umpire's height ... what I do say is that if 25% of the length of the shadow is behind the line (no matter how long the actual shadow is) this means that the umpire must be behind the line by 25% of his height. This is by pure ratios alone. The ratio of the umpire's height versus the whole length of the shadow is necessarily the same ratio as the distance the umpire is behind the line versus the length of the shadow behind the line. I am not using the shadow as a measuring stick ... I am using ratios.

Here is a math problem to illustrate this for you. Even though the pole is not the same height as the length of it's shadow we can still use the ratio information to calculate the height of the tree given the length of the tree's shadow.

the umpire's shoulder looks to be either on the line or in front of it (certainly no room for the whole ball to have crossed the line)

PS: Estimating that the umpire is a relatively short 176 cm tall this means his right foot is 44 cm behind the goal line. This is enough room for the ball to have fully crossed the line even if the umpire is half-turned-sideways.

 

[PrideOf]

You can't tell from 30cm away?

Nope. You get hauled over the coals if you aren't what they call "Straddling the line" when a player is within a metre or two of the goal line.

 

[Mattrox]

Listen at the 7:25 mark.

So in the home and away it would have been called a goal?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Not according to the rules or even the idea of what a goal is. When the ball is kicked into the field umpire in the centre square -- they don't stop play and set the ball down field where it would have gone -- it's play on because s**t happens.

The two scenarios are completely different.

There is so many factors to take into account should a ball get booted into a central umpire. It's not likely that anyone can say with any conviction where the ball was going to end up.

By calling play on in the Betts situation, what we are saying is that although the ball is traveling directly between the goal posts with nothing else between it and eternity other than an umpire's heads, we'd rather hide behind the rule because we're not smart enough to know if it really was going to cross the goal line or not.


What a bunch of dimwits we are.

 

[Tas]

30cms difference in your line of vision can make a huge difference to how you perceive something. An umpire standing back from the line MAY get the call right most of the time but statistically would not be as accurate as one straddling the line in repeated testing.

Logically it should have been a goal.

By the rules however it is not.

It's that simple. The rule is s**t, but until it's changed that's how it is.

In cases like this I think it should logically be given as a goal however if umpires started making logic calls in situations like this people would be outraged that they weren't following the rules and were "making it up as they went".

It's good it happened in a preseason match that is worth nothing because now the rule will be discussed and possibly changed as a result.

I think if the angle of the ball raised doubts if it would hit the post or not then pay play on, but if it is coming at you in the middle of the goal then it should be paid a goal.

 

[hcd199]

Agree with both of your comments but not your conclusion. I do not expect the length of the shadow to be any particular length or the same as the umpire's height ... what I do say is that if 25% of the length of the shadow is behind the line (no matter how long the actual shadow is) this means that the umpire must be behind the line by 25% of his height. This is by pure ratios alone. The ratio of the umpire's height versus the whole length of the shadow is necessarily the same ratio as the distance the umpire is behind the line versus the length of the shadow behind the line. I am not using the shadow as a measuring stick ... I am using ratios.

Here is a math problem to illustrate this for you. Even though the pole is not the same height as the length of it's shadow we can still use the ratio information to calculate the height of the tree given the length of the tree's shadow.

PS: Estimating that the umpire is a relatively short 176 cm tall this means his right foot is 44 cm behind the goal line. This is enough room for the ball to have fully crossed the line even if the umpire is half-turned-sideways.

Even taking your point about ratios into consideration, you have to account for where the shadow starts, namely from the umpire's right foot. That the umpire's right foot may be 44cm behind the line says nothing of where the rest of his body is (not to mention, the shadow isn't being cast directly out from the goal, but instead on an angle, so the 44cm isn't the direct distance between the umpire and the goal line in any case); the fact the umpire is turned somewhat to the side obviously has a significant impact on distances when it comes to measurements of centimetres. I really don't think anything clear can be drawn from analysing a shadow on an angle, starting from the wrong foot for what we're interested in, and with only footage on an unhelpful angle available, but, within those parameters, I'd still say it looks as though he's prevented the ball from fully crossing the line.

 

[master bate]

But seriously, shouldn't it boil down to the essence of kicking a goal: to kick it through the two big sticks.
Whether the ball hits the goal umpire between these two sticks should be irrelevant.
Overall, a ludicrous decision.

If the ball never crosses the line that represents the space between the 2 big sticks then then by your definition (as well as the rule) then it's not a goal.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Not according to the rules or even the idea of what a goal is. When the ball is kicked into the field umpire in the centre square -- they don't stop play and set the ball down field where it would have gone -- it's play on because s**t happens.

There is a massive difference between the two. One the ball is out of play a millisecond after it hits the umpire (if it didn't hit), the other the ball would still be in play after hitting the umpire and therefore have a lot more variables. It was clear cut that this would have been a goal if the umpire was not stupidly in the way, it is not clear cut when a field umpire is hit that the ball would have been marked/picked up by player x or that it would even stay in play...there is a vast difference between the two!

 

[Heaps of fun]

There is a massive difference between the two. One the ball is out of play a millisecond after it hits the umpire (if it didn't hit), the other the ball would still be in play after hitting the umpire and therefore have a lot more variables. It was clear cut that this would have been a goal if the umpire was not stupidly in the way, it is not clear cut when a field umpire is hit that the ball would have been marked/picked up by player x or that it would even stay in play...there is a vast difference between the two!

Not in the rules of the game. In both situations it's play on.

 

[TigerTime3]

Solution:

Amend the rule to cover three possible scenarios should the ball hit a goal umpire:

100% certain goal = goal
100% certain score, but not 100% certain if it's a goal = point
Not 100% certain it's even a score = play on

I may sound like captain obvious, but the AFL rules don't even account for the above situations. They have a one rule fits all sizes policy.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Listen at the 7:25 mark.

So in the home and away it would have been called a goal?

So for some inexplicable reason we have a separate set of goal umpire rules for pre-season games? What a ******* joke.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Not in the rules of the game. In both situations it's play on.

The thing is there is no rule of the ball hitting the umpire and what to do in that circumstance. Yes, there is the rule of the whole ball going over the whole line and it needs addressing but you would think common sense would prevail in the meantime that the whole of the ball would have crossed the whole of the line if it weren't for the fact a match official got in the way.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Superb keeping. 10/10

 

[hcd199]

The thing is there is no rule of the ball hitting the umpire and what to do in that circumstance. Yes, there is the rule of the whole ball going over the whole line and it needs addressing but you would think common sense would prevail in the meantime that the whole of the ball would have crossed the whole of the line if it weren't for the fact a match official got in the way.

That's incorrect.

Law 12.1.3:

For the avoidance of doubt:
[...]
(b) if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and does not pass over the Goal or Behind Line, the football shall remain in play;

So the rule is quite clear about what to do in such a situation.

 

[Heaps of fun]

Poll does well to show how good BF is at being completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Need four goal umpires each standing just behind the posts and not moving. That gets rid of 99% of the problems. Two can confer on whether the ball crossed the line, they don't get into the players way, they are in best position immediately to see which side of the post a ball went through etc etc.

Problem solved.