Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

Which was it?


  • Total voters
    414

Remove this Banner Ad

**** this is annoying. We witnessed a really good game last night and it's overshadowed by this crap.

credit to u/Hoodnight

120x7t5w5cl91.png
 

Log in to remove this ad.

* this is annoying. We witnessed a really good game last night and it's overshadowed by this crap.

credit to u/Hoodnight

120x7t5w5cl91.png
And you would think the people running the technology would be well aware of this. Probably why they figured out so quickly, yet everyone else was baffled how they came to their decision.
 
Post. Only person at the ground who thought it was a goal was the horribly out of position goal umpire.

The others had no idea if it was a goal or not. It wasn't that they thought that's not a goal.

It was genuinely probably impossible to tell from the naked eye
 
The main reason people think it’s a controversy is because BT has no clue and says how could they possibly know. If we had a commentator with half a brain they say good decision and move on.
The man famous for not understanding what an intercept mark is, not knowing that the whole ball has to be over the whole of the goal/boundary line, and who gets players' names wrong on the regular.

In BT the nuffs trust.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Why didn’t Lynch at least feign some enthusiasm? Was a ridiculously close call.

Potentially cost Richmond the game.

Because he knew he missed…he would have watched it off his boot and known.

Same reason none of his team mates were interested either.



Out of interest, can anyone recall what the Goal Umpire said?

‘I think it’s a goal but I just want to check….’ ?
 
Over the post - send the commentary team back to year 9 trigonometry and this controversy would've been nipped in the bud.

Having said that, I'd still be shitty if I were a Richmond fan. The AFL need a budget greater than $10 for this potato-ass review system so that fans can have confidence in it.
 
The main reason people think it’s a controversy is because BT has no clue and says how could they possibly know. If we had a commentator with half a brain they say good decision and move on.
The commentators in last night's game have nothing on Damian Barrett, who has whipped himself into a frenzy on his AFL site podcast this morning, demanding that ALL the vision be made public so he can make his own assessment.
 
And you would think the people running the technology would be well aware of this. Probably why they figured out so quickly, yet everyone else was baffled how they came to their decision.
Is it possible for the ball to completely cross the goal line then float back over the post?
 
Is there some rule where if the ball appears to "hit" the imaginary lengthened goal post, it is deemed to have hit it?

I keep hearing this asserted but never understood it to be a rule. Please enlighten me.
 
Is there some rule where if the ball appears to "hit" the imaginary lengthened goal post, it is deemed to have hit it?

I keep hearing this asserted but never understood it to be a rule. Please enlighten me.
L AWS OF AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL 2022 43PART D
16. SCORING
16.1 GOALS AND BEHINDS
16.1.1 Scoring a Goal
Subject to Law 16.2, 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.
16.1.2 Scoring a Behind
Subject to Law 16.2, a Behind is scored when any of the following occurs:
(a) the football passes completely over the Behind Line;
(b) the football touches or passes over the goal post or touches the padding or any
other attachment to the goal post;

Bolded by me. I'd say "passes over" would = "hit".
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Autopsy Goal or post? - A pole.

Back
Top