That "controversial" Melbourne behind

[arrowman]

- No, not the Trentschel touch on the line, the other one - where the Melbourne player picked up the ball close in, then kicked a "goal", the field and boundary umpires ran in and consulted, then a behind was signalled.

The commentators kept going on about whether the ball had touched the goal post - but I don't think that was the issue. (But it wouldn't be the first time commentators have missed the point on an umpriing decision)

After the conference, the goal umpire signalled a behind. He didn't signal "hit the post (by tapping the post).

I think the behind was given because the Melbourne player kicked the ball after it had crossed the goal line - and the replay, although not from a good angle, seems to support this.

 

[-CG-]

Well it hit the post nonetheless.

 

[Stinger...]

- No, not the Trentschel touch on the line, the other one - where the Melbourne player picked up the ball close in, then kicked a "goal", the field and boundary umpires ran in and consulted, then a behind was signalled.

The commentators kept going on about whether the ball had touched the goal post - but I don't think that was the issue. (But it wouldn't be the first time commentators have missed the point on an umpriing decision)

After the conference, the goal umpire signalled a behind. He didn't signal "hit the post (by tapping the post).

I think the behind was given because the Melbourne player kicked the ball after it had crossed the goal line - and the replay, although not from a good angle, seems to support this.

Im pretty confident that the decision given was that the Melbourne player (Bruce?) had "brushed" the post with the ball when he picked it up. The boundary umpire would have been the only one (and possibly McLaren if he was that deep in the pocket) that could have seen it as it was on the other side to which the goal umpire was looking at, and hence would have had no idea that it "brushed" the post.

After the conference between all three Umps, he (the goal ump) tapped his chest, signalled the behind, then tapped the post three times (which has been changed this year...no longer do goal umpires immediately tap the post, they tap their chest first, signal (indicate) then tap the post)...

As for the 'other' famous Melbourne behind...Ms Roffey was in perfect position, and is the only one who can say whether it was touched or not. TV replays were clearly inconclusive. IMO, no one can argue with her because she put herself in the best position possible, which is what she's paid to do!

 

[arrowman]

...After the conference between all three Umps, he (the goal ump) tapped his chest, signalled the behind, then tapped the post three times (which has been changed this year...no longer do goal umpires immediately tap the post, they tap their chest first, signal (indicate) then tap the post)...

Ah, thank you for that.

...As for the 'other' famous Melbourne behind...Ms Roffey was in perfect position, and is the only one who can say whether it was touched or not. TV replays were clearly inconclusive.

I agree - I love it when people can be so certain about the decision being wrong, when they're watching on a bad angle from 200m away.

...she put herself in the best position possible, which is what she's paid to do!

And you can take that more than one way

 

[Stinger...]

And you can take that more than one way

Indeed... hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[jenny61_99]

The boundary umpire would have been the only one (and possibly McLaren if he was that deep in the pocket) that could have seen it as it was on the other side to which the goal umpire was looking at, and hence would have had no idea that it "brushed" the post.

Pretty sure it wasn't McLaren..... he can't see what happens in front of him!

 

[DaveW]

It was definitely the act of picking up the ball and tapping it into the post.

I was screaming at the TV about it, and my recollection is that the three umpire conference did result in the goal umpire ceremonially tapping the goal post.

 

[DaveW]

As for the 'other' famous Melbourne behind...Ms Roffey was in perfect position, and is the only one who can say whether it was touched or not. TV replays were clearly inconclusive. IMO, no one can argue with her because she put herself in the best position possible, which is what she's paid to do!

Yep. Can't argue this one. Once again channel nine have shown themselves up with their inadequate camera positioning. It was the same story with the Carey goal in 2003 against Sydney.

The replays suggested a goal at "best guess", but certainly weren't sufficient to contradict the verdict of the umpire on the spot.

 

[marvin]

As for the 'other' famous Melbourne behind...Ms Roffey was in perfect position, and is the only one who can say whether it was touched or not. TV replays were clearly inconclusive. IMO, no one can argue with her because she put herself in the best position possible, which is what she's paid to do!

True enough.

The real damning piece of evidence for me with the 'other' behind is the reaction of Russell Robertson. When Davey kicks, he's shoulder to shoulder with Hentschel; by the time the ball arrives, he's a metre behind him. His reaction was that he knew he should have made it difficult to impossible for Hentschel to even get his hand on the ball, not anger at an umpiring error. Apart from the umpire, he was in best position to judge whether it was a point or not - and he thought she was right.

 

[Stinger...]

True enough.

The real damning piece of evidence for me with the 'other' behind is the reaction of Russell Robertson. When Davey kicks, he's shoulder to shoulder with Hentschel; by the time the ball arrives, he's a metre behind him. His reaction was that he knew he should have made it difficult to impossible for Hentschel to even get his hand on the ball, not anger at an umpiring error. Apart from the umpire, he was in best position to judge whether it was a point or not - and he thought she was right.

9/10 the players know if a goal ump has made an error or not and the fact Robbo didnt even bat an eyelid at her, to me, meant he thought she got it right as well.

Your right, the question needs to be asked, why did Robbo allow Hentschel to get anywhere near the ball?

 

[relapse]

I personally think that Hentschel didnt touch it in time, but I also think that Ruccicuto kicked a goal in the third that they claimed was touched off the boot, to me I didnt think it was touched after seeing the replay, but those commentators (Dermie and Dwayne Russell) that were barracking for Melbourne all day looked at it once and said yeah it was clearly touched from one replay, yet focussed continually on the "hit the post" point and Davey's point which they showed about 20 times.

 

[Damp Squarie]

those commentators (Dermie and Dwayne Russell) that were barracking for Melbourne all day

They both give me the the $hits. Theyve been doing it all year.

 

[marvin]

They both give me the the $hits. Theyve been doing it all year.

Well, Dwayne's been barracking for Port, Geelong or whoever plays the Crows since time immemorial. His section in the Sunday Age is usually based around Power or Cats press releases.

Dermie was a fully fledged Crow lover until about Round 13, 2004.

 

[jenny61_99]

Dermie was a fully fledged Crow lover until about Round 13, 2004.

Was that when Wayne Carey retired???

 

[marvin]

Was that when Wayne Carey retired???

It's when his good mate Gary Ayres left the club.

 

[manureid]

I was sitting almost side on to that decision and what happened was that the Melbourne players foot made contact with the ball about a millimetre over the line. The goal umpire did not see this as she was not quite in the right position but the boundary umpire did see it and signalled to the field umpire which then brought about the discussion. Hence decision made.

 

[relapse]

Well, Dwayne's been barracking for Port, Geelong or whoever plays the Crows since time immemorial. His section in the Sunday Age is usually based around Power or Cats press releases.

Dermie was a fully fledged Crow lover until about Round 13, 2004.

Yeah I remember when he was on the Crows bandwagon. Its obvious now that Ayres isnt there and basically got sacked so it make sense for some anamosity from Dermie towards the club.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Yeah I remember when he was on the Crows bandwagon. Its obvious now that Ayres isnt there and basically got sacked so it make sense for some anamosity from Dermie towards the club.

He still loves Sarge though

How many times does he let a "Pezza!!!!" out when Sarge flies for a mark

 

[jenny61_99]

Hmmm I never thought Dermie was anti-Crow... always thought (particularly last year) he was almost gushing in his "how wonderful Adelaide" was. Guess we all see things differently.

And as to Ayres having friends????

 

[GoSarge]

He still loves Sarge though

How many times does he let a "Pezza!!!!" out when Sarge flies for a mark

About as often as I do !