Johannisen's 'Point' in the Grand Final

[Malte]

Remember when Jason Johannisen supposedly kicked a goal, but it was disallowed after being reviewed? Jeremy Laidler punched the ball back across the line and there's an argument for whether or not that should've been overturned.

But the real question is: why were the Bulldogs awarded a point? The ball never crossed the line for a score, so the video reviewer essentially awarded the Bulldogs a phantom point. If the Bulldogs were to win the Grand Final by a solitary point, it would've been by the very point they never scored.

We've had video reviews for a few years now and the AFL still hasn't thought through scenarios like this. Why?

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

What are you on about

Of course it crossed the line

 

[Malte]

What are you on about

Try reading what I posted, then using your brain to comprehend what I said. It might get you somewhere on that front.

 

[bullish23]

Remember when Jason Johannisen supposedly kicked a goal, but it was disallowed after being reviewed? Jeremy Laidler punched the ball back across the line and there's an argument for whether or not that should've been overturned.

But the real question is: why were the Bulldogs awarded a point? The ball never crossed the line for a score, so the video reviewer essentially awarded the Bulldogs a phantom point. If the Bulldogs were to win the Grand Final by a solitary point, it would've been by the very point they never scored.

We've had video reviews for a few years now and the AFL still hasn't thought through scenarios like this. Why?

That's a very good point

 

[100action]

Touched on the line so it's a point.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Try reading what I posted, then using your brain to comprehend what I said. It might get you somewhere on that front.

The ball DID cross the line you lunatic

 

[Malte]

Touched on the line so it's a point.

How is it a point if it didn't cross the line?

 

[FoochPackage]

Remember when Jason Johannisen supposedly kicked a goal, but it was disallowed after being reviewed? Jeremy Laidler punched the ball back across the line and there's an argument for whether or not that should've been overturned.

But the real question is: why were the Bulldogs awarded a point? The ball never crossed the line for a score, so the video reviewer essentially awarded the Bulldogs a phantom point. If the Bulldogs were to win the Grand Final by a solitary point, it would've been by the very point they never scored.

We've had video reviews for a few years now and the AFL still hasn't thought through scenarios like this. Why?

If you watch it, then you will see that after he punched it it bounced through the goals. Hence the behind.

Close thread

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

How is it a point if it didn't cross the line?

Because it did cross the line

 

[Malte]

The ball DID cross the line you lunatic

No, it was knocked back in, declared a goal, before finding its way over the line, imbecile.

 

[ManOfClay]

The ball crossed. It was punched down and rolled over.

whether it crossed before being punched is debatable, but certainly it crossed

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

No, it was knocked back in, declared a goal, before finding its way over the line, imbecile.

It literally bounced right over the line after he punched it. Are you saying if it were not ruled a goal it wouldn't have resulted in a point? By some freak of nature?

 

[Malte]

It literally bounced right over the line after he punched it. Are you saying if it were not ruled a goal it wouldn't have resulted in a point? By some freak of nature?

Consider this scenario: the siren goes right as Johannisen kicks the ball. As soon as Laider touches the ball, the game is over, but the umpires initially award a goal. Upon reviewing the score, they proceed to award the same score as they did in the real grand final: a point, even though the game was over before it went in.

 

[Fourthawn]

5:40 mark of this video. Clearly ball crossed the line as part of play. Wouldn't have mattered if siren had already gone. A point every day of the week.

 

[Kram]

Good old offseason.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Consider this scenario: the siren goes right as Johannisen kicks the ball. As soon as Laider touches the ball, the game is over, but the umpires initially award a goal. Upon reviewing the score, they proceed to award the same score as they did in the real grand final: a point, even though the game was over before it went in.

The siren didn't go tho...

Jesus Christ

 

[Malte]

5:40 mark of this video. Clearly ball crossed the line as part of play. Wouldn't have mattered if siren had already gone. A point every day of the week.

Oh really? Do elaborate on that bolded part.

Good old offseason.

Yeah I sure do love it when utterly thoughtless people like yourself start showing up.

 

[DemonTim]

Consider this scenario: the siren goes right as Johannisen kicks the ball. As soon as Laider touches the ball, the game is over, but the umpires initially award a goal. Upon reviewing the score, they proceed to award the same score as they did in the real grand final: a point, even though the game was over before it went in.

The siren hadn't gone though, so it was of no relevance, the ball crossed the line after being hit back into play. You're now creating a hypothetical that didn't happen to try and say reality is wrong.

 

[Malte]

The siren didn't go tho...

Jesus Christ

The siren hadn't gone though, so it was of no relevance, the ball crossed the line after being hit back into play. You're now creating a hypothetical that didn't happen to try and say reality is wrong.

I'm asking 'what if', you'd have realized that by now if you used your brain.

I'm not doubting the Grand Final result, I'm asking why the AFL haven't thought video reviews through. I'm also suggesting that this could become a big problem in the future.

 

[DemonTim]

I'm asking 'what if', you'd have realized that by now if you used your brain.

I'm not doubting the Grand Final result, I'm asking why the AFL haven't thought video reviews through. I'm also suggesting that this could become a big problem in the future.

But the real question is: why were the Bulldogs awarded a point? The ball never crossed the line for a score, so the video reviewer essentially awarded the Bulldogs a phantom point. If the Bulldogs were to win the Grand Final by a solitary point, it would've been by the very point they never scored.

Actually your initial question is "why were they awarded the point"

You've created an idiotic thread, that misrepresents what happened, then tries to cover it up with a hypothetical. Throw in that anyone who disagrees with you being insulted and you've summed up why the off season here is rubbish.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Consider this scenario: the siren goes right as Johannisen kicks the ball. As soon as Laider touches the ball, the game is over, but the umpires initially award a goal. Upon reviewing the score, they proceed to award the same score as they did in the real grand final: a point, even though the game was over before it went in.

If it is touched after siren and still goes through without the player taking possession it counts as a behind. It doesn't count if it's "Rushed" but if touched score still remains according to the AFL rules. The ball needs to be called as "Dead" for no score to count. Hell the ball can bounce through after the Siren, It's for the umpire to call the ball dead.

Furthermore don't get shitty when you lash out when people say you were wrong,

How is it a point if it didn't cross the line?

You've made up something and got shitty when you were called out for it. Don't be a child

 

[Noobz0r]

Dafuq did I just read.

 

[R_Grunter]

Why am I finding this so funny?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

No issue here. Ball is touched in the square and bounces down to the ground while still in play. Ball is live and then immediately bounces through for a behind.
Had the ball stayed in play and not crossed the line, after the review it most likely would have been a ball up in the square. Or if Sydney had gained possession from the live ball, they might have rewarded Sydney with a kick from the square after the review. I'm not sure what the AFL's rules are in this regard.

At the end of the day there was nothing wrong with how it played out.

 

[JeffDunne]

This would be a worthy discussion topic if it was about the review system.

Like the rest of the officiating in the GF (& most AFL games) it was utterly incompetent.