Autopsy AFL 2020 Round 16 - Dogs v Eagles Sun September 6th 6:10PM AEST (Metricon) Match Highlights added to OP

[Boston tiger]

How’s about the ruck infringement to Darling right near the end. What was that all about ?

 

[Dazb86]

How’s about the ruck infringement to Darling right near the end. What was that all about ?

One of many s**t calls that happen every game

 

[queensberryrules]

Simpson seems like an extremely cool cat, unflustered, anaytical. Is he too calm, Eagles supporters?

 

[Damon_3388]

Like he did against Grundy

Yes, like he does against everyone, because NicNat is the best ruckman in the league.

The destruction would have been more graphic and pronounced against praying mantis English, though. Car crash television equals ratings.

 

[Boston tiger]

To the dogs supporters saying the line is aligned with the post.
That changed about 15 years ago due to some instances at the SCG where it hit the back side of the post. But with their thick pads it was well over the line. After that they moved the line to align with the pads.

And the rule is it needs to fully cross the goal line to be a score and all those other subpoints (touched, etc.)

Yes, it barely cleared the post before being touched, so if you're ignorant and are going by what the commentators said and focusing in on whether it had cleared the post, yeah, it's a goal.

TOo bad that's not the rule

It's the line, and that's in line with the back of the pads. So going by that, it is clearly touched.

Maybe if you were playing schoolboy footy at lunch without pads its a goal, but we're not. Whoever the AFL has employed to work in the arc should get cut this week. Their wrong decision has just resulted in the wrong team winning which will have an effect on finals seedings and potentially the wrong team making finals.

On a side note, Darling shouldn't have received a free at the end there. I'd have pinged him for sheaparding out of the ruck contest. But because they handed the Bulldogs an incorrect goal, I really dont care they got that wrong, even it up.

Good pick up on the padding and goal line.
I’d say it’s one of the quirks in our game. If you kick the ball higher than the padding then the ball has to travel one centimetre less to be a goal than if you kick along the ground.

 

[juss]

The back of the post is aligned with the back of the line. The padding is actually behind the line but is considered part of the post which is why if it hits the back of the padding it has hit the post.

As for the when it was touched, from one angle it looks like he touched it before the post, but there is a shadow between his thumb and the ball so has he touched it at that point? From the other angle it looks like there is a very fine gap between the post and the ball. From the vision and the pictures that have been posted here I personally couldn't say he did or didn't touch it before it was past the post. In that case it has to go back to the umpires call.

The fact that it's being debated confirms the correct decision from the ARC. Its debatable, therefore non-conclusive, therefore it can't be overturned and its an umpire's call goal. Once people need to start drawing their own Microsoft Paint gridlines on it we have passed the point of clear evidence to oveturn.

Closed issue. That's the rule.

 

[footy75]

The whole ball is CLEARLY not past the post. It's an easy decision... touched.

I'm not sure the muppet upstairs looked at both angles before making his decision.

He should be sacked on the spot.

 

[CarnTheScray]

The whole ball is CLEARLY not past the post. It's an easy decision... touched.

I'm not sure the muppet upstairs looked at both angles before making his decision.

He should be sacked on the spot.

All the umpires last night should just be shot to be honest.

 

[CarnTheScray]

Dogs lucky to get away with that. Bont marks a 9 metre kick and then the 2nd camera view shows his goal is touched on the line.

Should've been a 5 goal win but no it was the umpires!!!!!!

 

[Obeanie1]

Keep repeating it and they might reverse the result

Its always good to be on the right side of a couple of dodgy calls that result in the game winner.

That's football and just luck. It goes both ways.

The game was a bit of a joke, both sides missed multiple easy goals, made stupid mistakes and looked well bellow true AFL standards. The compressed games are taking their toll on everyone.

Enjoy your luck whilst it lasts.

 

[Obeanie1]

The whole ball is CLEARLY not past the post. It's an easy decision... touched.

I'm not sure the muppet upstairs looked at both angles before making his decision.

He should be sacked on the spot.

When it was being reviewed they spent 99% of the time looking at the angle that was inconclusive and then in the last couple of seconds they showed the other angle and that clearly showed it had not passed the post.

At the time I was, yep its a goal.......can't overturn it on that....yep that angle doesn't help...........then they show the other shot and HOLD ON that other camera clearly shows its not past the post. Then GOAL......

OK..........WTF????

Whatever....................anyone surprised to be sitting here?

 

[Obeanie1]

Yep definitely a goal. Great decision though as it still doesn’t make up for the hundreds of bullshit frees you have got over the years.

Need a hug mate.........for all those free the Eagles have got over the years?

Go and re-read the fixture for the last three years and compare Richmond's to the Eagles.............it will make you feel better.

 

[JackOutback]

I didn't watch the match so have a go at me if you wish about judging umps when I didn't watch it.
I watched 2 highlights, one was English taking a clear mark and he got pinned for holding the ball, I believe no score resulted after so you could say insignificant. The 2nd I watched was incredible, Flyin' Ryan set up a great goal, only problem was he ran close to 30m without a bounce, I counted 17 steps...
Channel 7 commentators were all over how incredible he is but not even a hint of alarm about the massive free run breaking the rules. It seems certain clubs are the golden goose and can streeeetch the rules without any mention even from the TV commentators.

Both were wrong calls (the English one was understandable, it was a tangle of arms and the ump never called a mark, whereas the Ryan one, he ran half the oval). I'm not questioning the result or whether one side was helped by the umpiring, I'm just frustrated by a wrong call and a missed opportunity to steal a game that would have kept us in the top four. If Darling had kicked that goal, Dogs' fan would have been feeling a similar frustration.

 

[Outback Footy]

Its always good to be on the right side of a couple of dodgy calls that result in the game winner.

That's football and just luck. It goes both ways.

The game was a bit of a joke, both sides missed multiple easy goals, made stupid mistakes and looked well bellow true AFL standards. The compressed games are taking their toll on everyone.

Enjoy your luck whilst it lasts.

You guys had the rub of the decisions, Liam Ryans 30m run (resulting in a goal), Jack Darlings last minute gift (phew, he still cant handle presure), English clear mark paid as holding (who knows, could have been a goal to us) etc etc, all questionable decisions your way (and a couple went our way as well of course, like Bonts mark, not the first time thats been paid). Our poor kicking kept you in it. 6 goals 13 FFS! If we kicked at even 50% efficiency its a 9 goal 10 to your 7 5 its a 17 point win.

You were out played and out pressured for 3 of the 4 quarters and we are lucky! Right! Blame one umpiring decision (which wasnt clearly wrong, hence not overturned, could have been, would have created just as much chat if it had been as it has now), forgetting about all those that went your way. Clearly wrong decisions went your way, so move on.

Your pre-game outs hurt, but not as much as our in-game outs hurt us last week against Geelong. Thats football. Blaming one umpiring decision is infantile.

 

[Obeanie1]

You guys had the rub of the decisions, Liam Ryans 30m run (resulting in a goal), Jack Darlings last minute gift (phew, he still cant handle presure), English clear mark paid as holding (who knows, could have been a goal to us) etc etc, all questionable decisions your way (and a couple went our way as well of course, like Bonts mark, not the first time thats been paid). Our poor kicking kept you in it. 6 goals 13 FFS! If we kicked at even 50% efficiency its a 9 goal 10 to your 7 5 its a 17 point win.

You were out played and out pressured for 3 of the 4 quarters and we are lucky! Right! Blame one umpiring decision (which wasnt clearly wrong, hence not overturned, could have been, would have created just as much chat if it had been as it has now), forgetting about all those that went your way. Clearly wrong decisions went your way, so move on.

Your pre-game outs hurt, but not as much as our in-game outs hurt us last week against Geelong. Thats football. Blaming one umpiring decision is infantile.

Who's blaming one umpiring decision?

It was a crap game all round. That's what was said.

We were crap......Dogs were crap.......and from the sound of both sides supporters the umps were also crap.

So what point were you trying to make exactly.

 

[Outback Footy]

Who's blaming one umpiring decision?

It was a crap game all round. That's what was said.

We were crap......Dogs were crap.......and from the sound of both sides supporters the umps were also crap.

So what point were you trying to make exactly.

Yours was probably the wrong comment in a long list of Weagles posts for me to single out, in hindsight yours was the most even handed. Your first sentence "Its always good to be on the right side of a couple of dodgy calls that result in the match winner" is what fired me up. Particularly after reading all the previous BS.

You were crap, we kicked crap, umpiring was one sided. We should have won by more, then less focus on any single decision. Good luck with the finals, hope we see you there.

 

[TW Sherrin]

not until he builds a tank, he’s a long way to go yet. He’s no Grundy but he has the potential to be a solid a grade tall.

Grundy was unusual in that he was good very early. English is developing nicely.

 

[LoungeLizard]

View attachment 954866

Putting these gridlines took about 30 seconds of my time with a mobile phone. And yet, a multi million dollar score review setup wasn’t able to produce ‘sufficient evidence’

Time to move on, I wouldn’t want to be the Saints next week.

Now take a look at the behind post, it shows the camera is clearly on an angle, so if you want to use grid lines, line them up with the posts

 

[VicBased]

Just think how many Eagles posters will be in the Geelong/Richmond thread on Friday night. Provided they beat St.Kilda, of course.

I will definitely be watching the game.....but out of interest of who is the "Top Dog"

 

[PHanevski]

Posted this earlier but I'll post it again. Clearly, the back of the line is aligned with the padding, not the post.

View attachment 954971

Sure about that?

View attachment 955003

View attachment 955007

No, I am not sure about this anymore. This image of a different ground shows the padding behind the line.


Also it seems using the post is a bit of a grey area as it is accepted as a way of visually determining if the ball has passed over the line or not. But the only mention in the rules is over the goal line, not anything about past the post. But also mentions that the decision of the goal umpire is final.


15. SCORING

15.1 GOALS AND BEHINDS
15.1.1 Scoring a Goal
Subject to Law 15.2, a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over
the Goal Line by a Player of the Attacking Team without being touched by any
other Player, even if the football first touches the ground.
15.1.2 Scoring a Behind
Subject to Law 15.2, a Behind is scored when any of the following occurs:
(a) the football touches or passes over the goal post or touches the
padding or any other attachment to the goal post;
(b) the football passes completely over the Behind Line;
(c) a Player of the Attacking Team Kicks the football over the Goal Line but
before passing over the Goal Line, the football is touched by another Player;
(d) a Player from the Defending Team Kicks, Handballs, knocks or otherwise
takes the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(e) a Player from the Attacking Team Handballs, knocks or otherwise takes
the football over the Goal Line, other than kicking the ball described in
clause 15.1.1; or
(f) a defending Player plays on from behind the Goal Line or Behind Line and
subsequently changes direction before entering the Playing Surface.
15.1.3 Clarification and Examples
For the avoidance of doubt:
(a) if the football touches an Umpire or any Official, and in the opinion of the
field 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 Umpire it has not affected a score, the field Umpire shall call ‘Play On’
and the football shall remain in play;
(c) if a football is Kicked by a Player on the Attacking Team at the time when
another Player is touching the football, the football shall be deemed to
have been touched by that Player; and
(d) a football passes over a Goal Line or Behind Line only when the entire
football has passed over the Goal Line or Behind Line, as the case may be.
15.1.4 Football Touching or Passing Over the Behind Post
Where a football touches or passes over a behind post, the football shall be
Out of Bounds or Out of Bounds On the Full.
15.1.5 Goal Umpire to Judge Goal or Behind
(a) The goal Umpire shall decide whether a Goal or Behind has been scored
but may, before deciding, consult with the field or boundary Umpires or
the official scorer. The decision of the goal Umpire shall be final. The goal
Umpire shall only signal that a Goal or Behind has been scored when the
field Umpire signals ‘All Clear’ or ‘Touched All Clear’, as the case may be.
(b) Law 15.1.5(a) does not apply if a Controlling Body prescribes that a field
Umpire may overrule the decision of a goal Umpire who has not been
appointed by the Controlling Body.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I will definitely be watching the game.....but out of interest of who is the "Top Dog"

Unlike others I'm not going to claim the high ground over Geelong after getting beaten up for 35 years, but we've won 4 of the last 5. They're in great form but Chris Scott always seems a bit offended when they lose to us.

 

[dean33]

Need a hug mate.........for all those free the Eagles have got over the years?

Go and re-read the fixture for the last three years and compare Richmond's to the Eagles.............it will make you feel better.

Viccobias

 

[VicBased]

Unlike others I'm not going to claim the high ground over Geelong after getting beaten up for 35 years, but we've won 4 of the last 5. They're in great form but Chris Scott always seems a bit offended when they lose to us.

Look, honestly, i have lost interest in the season proper and i am hoping this will be an absolute cracker to rekindle some hope for the games interest. I am hoping the triple whammy of Covid, absolute crazy umpiring, AFL blunders has not killed the game i love.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Look, honestly, i have lost interest in the season proper and i am hoping this will be an absolute cracker to rekindle some hope for the games interest. I am hoping the triple whammy of Covid, absolute crazy umpiring, AFL blunders has not killed the game i love.

Near-nightly footy has made the lockdown easier to navigate here in Melbourne. Even ordinary footy.

 

[redglare]

When it was being reviewed they spent 99% of the time looking at the angle that was inconclusive and then in the last couple of seconds they showed the other angle and that clearly showed it had not passed the post.

At the time I was, yep its a goal.......can't overturn it on that....yep that angle doesn't help...........then they show the other shot and HOLD ON that other camera clearly shows its not past the post. Then GOAL......

OK..........WTF????

Whatever....................anyone surprised to be sitting here?

Yes - this exactly. The first angle is not enough evidence to overturn. The reverse angle leaves no doubt - irrespective of padding, goal line etc, the part of the ball can clearly be seen overlapping with the post when it is touched. Boggles the mind that they could get it wrong, and makes me suspicious that they didn't look at the reverse angle before making the call.

If they have the technology, use it properly.