The West Coast point that hit the goal umpire

[HeathySure]

Can someone clarify this for me

The ball hit the goal umpire while the ball was still in play. It did not hit the goal post even though it was heading directly for it. WC played on and kicked a goal but after a score review it was declared a point. Was this decision correct? Should it have been a goal? Is hitting the umpire just a normal part of play?

 

[Alesana]

The ball hit the goal umpire while the ball was still in play. It did not hit the goal post even though it was heading directly for it.

The bold text is why it was the correct decision.

 

[HeathySure]

The bold text is why it was the correct decision.

but it didnt hit it.

 

[Alesana]

but it didnt hit it.

If the Umpire wasn't in the way it would have. Which why it was deemed a behind.

 

[HeathySure]

If the Umpire wasn't in the way it would have. Which why it was deemed a behind.

what is the correct interpretation of the law though. What if the ball was dribbling towards the goal and tapped the goal umpires foot in play? i really think it should have been play on.

 

[Spongebob]

I think the rule was changed a couple of years ago.

If it hit the ump and bounced back in play it used to be play on.

Now the umpires get to determine if it should be a goal or behind. If uncertain, it is a behind.

I liked the old rule, at least in this case.

 

[HTPunter]

http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=36381723
"2.1.3 Clarification and Examples For the avoidance of doubt:
(a) if the football touches an Umpire, and in the opinion of the field and/or goal Umpire it has affected a score, play will be stopped and the Umpires will determine if a score should be recorded;
(b) if the football touches an Umpire or any Official, and in the opinion of the field and/or goal Umpire it has not affected a score, the football shall remain in play;"

In this case, as a goal was kicked anyway, they were able to stop play and review the entire decision. It was the opinion that the umpire had affected the score (I mean, it was clearly heading straight for the post) and as such that anticipated score was recorded.

 

[Quinz]

Can someone clarify this for me

The ball hit the goal umpire while the ball was still in play. It did not hit the goal post even though it was heading directly for it. WC played on and kicked a goal but after a score review it was declared a point. Was this decision correct? Should it have been a goal? Is hitting the umpire just a normal part of play?

The rule used to be if it hits the umpire it's play on, the new rule allows them to check if the umpire interfered with a scoring shot and pay what they think would be the result.

The most bizarre part about it for me was why Vardy thought bending down to pick up a ball literally resting on the goal line was a good idea.

 

[Spook]

what is the correct interpretation of the law though. What if the ball was dribbling towards the goal and tapped the goal umpires foot in play? i really think it should have been play on.

The rule used to be play on if it hit the umpire, but they changed it a few years ago.... Can anyone remember the incident that caused the change?

 

[Alesana]

The rule used to be if it hits the umpire it's play on, the new rule allows them to check if the umpire interfered with a scoring shot and pay what they think would be the result.

The most bizarre part about it for me was why Vardy thought bending down to pick up a ball literally resting on the goal line was a good idea.

I think the Collingwood player on the ground had his leg basically right next to the ball, Vardy would've kicked the Collingwood players leg had he tried to soccer it. Still incredibly frustrating that he can miss from literally on the goal line a few weeks after Lycett misses the entire ball on the goal line

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

but it didnt hit it.

The umpire said it was going to hit it.

 

[meltiger]

Can anyone remember the incident that caused the change?

Freo paid the goal umpires to act as goal keepers in a game against Richmond not that far back.

Goal umpire blocked a Shane Edwards shot, play on.

Was within the last 4/5 years.

2013 we lost over there by a point. Possibly that game.

Not sure if it's the one that changed the rule but stands out in recent memory (Being my team of course)

 

[Evelyn208]

Freo paid the goal umpires to act as goal keepers in a game against Richmond not that far back.

Goal umpire blocked a Shane Edwards shot, play on.

Was within the last 4/5 years.

2013 we lost over there by a point. Possibly that game.

Not sure if it's the one that changed the rule but stands out in recent memory (Being my team of course)

Do you honestly think anyone takes you seriously when you start with "a team paid the umpires to do X"? Seriously man, what a load of s**t.

 

[meltiger]

Do you honestly think anyone takes you seriously when you start with "a team paid the umpires to do X"? Seriously man, what a load of s**t.

‘Twas a joke genius.

Don’t get your panties in a knot.

 

[hcd199]

The rule used to be play on if it hit the umpire, but they changed it a few years ago.... Can anyone remember the incident that caused the change?

View attachment 556555
View attachment 556553

This one, I believe:

THE UMPIRES were correct in calling play-on after a shot for goal from Adelaide's Eddie Betts hit the goal umpire and bounced back into play during the Crows' NAB Challenge game against North Melbourne.

However, according to the AFL, the goal umpire who was struck should have been standing further behind the goal line when the ball was kicked, to avoid any possibility of the ball bouncing back into play before it crossed the line.

 

[meltiger]

That would be a lot more recent than Sheds one.

Admittedly had me scratching my head last night not knowing the rule had changed

Rule change seems to be common sense fir something that happens really very rarely.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

The only controversy is why it took so bloody long

First replay was clear as day it was smashing into the post

 

[dewcefault]

The only controversy is why it took so bloody long

First replay was clear as day it was smashing into the post

I thought (and rightly so) that they were checking whether the initial shot or in the chaos after whether the ball had crossed the line - prior to the umpire contact.

Earlier in the year (I think WCE vs Geel) Masten kicked a goal that was incorrectly ruled a behind because the video review stopped after the ball had been touched. If they'd kept playing the video they would have seen it hit Masten on the foot again before going through the goal cleanly.

I am ok with the extra 20seconds to make sure they get the right decision and viewing before and after the incident. Particularly if the ball is sitting on the line.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I thought (and rightly so) that they were checking whether the initial shot or in the chaos after whether the ball had crossed the line - prior to the umpire contact.

Earlier in the year (I think WCE vs Geel) Masten kicked a goal that was incorrectly ruled a behind because the video review stopped after the ball had been touched. If they'd kept playing the video they would have seen it hit Masten on the foot again before going through the goal cleanly.

I am ok with the extra 20seconds to make sure they get the right decision and viewing before and after the incident. Particularly if the ball is sitting on the line.

If the ball was clearly going through for a goal - sure - spend the time to review

It was smashing into the post - so whether it crossed the line or not - the result was a point. Get on with the game

The bigger issue is why vardy didn't just sidefoot it through.

 

[NOBBYS]

Just about the dumbest thing ive ever seen on any footy field.
Ball is sitting on the goal line player picks up the the ball then tries to kick a goal instead kicks it into the goal umpire (post).
Reckon my eight year old grandson would have soccered it through.
30 seconds of Comedy Capers .
Yes most ruckman are dumb

 

[master bate]

The only controversy is why it took so bloody long

First replay was clear as day it was smashing into the post

Because for some strange reason the field umpires get to overrule goal umpires who often make clear decisions but are then interrupted. The goal umpire in this case was very clear - it hit me, it was going to hit the post. I don't think he wanted a review. But of course the field umpire comes running in to decide it needs to be reviewed.

 

[Scotland]

This happened in a WC game at the WACA so would've been 2000 or earlier.

One of our players kicked a bouncing ball that would've been a goal and it hit the goal umpire and bounced back into play. Play on.

I'm happy with the common sense interpretation from Saturday night. Ball was clearly going to hit the post. If it was reviewed and called a goal from the follow up play you'd be filthy as a Pies player/fan.

 

[Wallaby]

Here it is - note score and time of game.

If you are going to stuff things up, do it when it counts. Freo wound up winning by one point.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Here it is - note score and time of game.

If you are going to stuff things up, do it when it counts. Freo wound up winning by one point.

Looked to me like it was probably going to hit at least the back of the post anyway, although we don't get the best angle on it in that vision.

What year is it from? If Matthew White was playing for Richmond it must have been at least five years ago.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Because for some strange reason the field umpires get to overrule goal umpires who often make clear decisions but are then interrupted. The goal umpire in this case was very clear - it hit me, it was going to hit the post. I don't think he wanted a review. But of course the field umpire comes running in to decide it needs to be reviewed.

I believe the rule is - once it hits the goal umpire - a review is automatic

But one replay was enough to see what the outcome was