Roast The kick rule and Tex's goal

[relapse]

Glad they've admitted it was a mistake, I was dumbfounded when the score review said it was a point.

I've seen plenty of games over the years where the ball has been pushed over the goal line by foot and it's always been paid as a goal.

I think it's time that the AFL looks into having centralised review officials preferably experienced former umpires who know the rules so that there can be consistency over calls.

 

[1970crow]

Surely there's not that many events that they require to understand.

1. Has the ball completely crossed the line. No - bounce/play on?? Yes - go to Q2

2. Was the last thing to touch the ball before completely crossing the line an attacking player's body part or equipment below the knee. No - point. Yes - goal.

I think that pretty well covers everything the goal reviewer needs to know regarding the current rules.

 

[Large 1]

The frightening thing is, it sounds like the review umpire is one of those guys. Suddenly the whole thing makes sense. There's this urban myth of a rule - "you can't carry the ball over the line with your foot" - that any trained AFL umpire who has read the rules would know doesn't actually exist. But you put a footy enthusiast who doesn't actually know the minutiae of the rules in charge...suddenly the urban myth rule has been imported into the AFL!

Here's another thing to think about - can the reviewer communicate privately with the umpires without having the whole ground hear? It adds to the drama and it's quite helpful at the ground hearing the booming voice: "Review complete... score is a goal", but what if the reviewer is not quite sure of the rules? Are they able to quietly say to the field umpire, "look, silly fellow Pannell, he's kicked the ball on the line but the ball is still on his boot by the time it's completely over the line, I'm not sure as a matter of the laws of the game whether that means goal or point, what do you say?" without it being broadcast to the world they don't know what they're doing? That might have been the answer in this case. Is it possible that the immediate publication of every word the review umpire says forced him to make a decision he wasn't sure about?

In the reviewing umpires defence, I believe what he stated was "ball was carried over by foot" (or something to that effect). It was the the boundary umpire who stated "then it's a point". This was a mistake of the on field umpires not the reviewing umpire.

Edit: field umpire, not boundary umpire.

 

[dylan123]

Field umpires were great.

Outside of the dropping the ball/incorrect disposal not being called but that hasn't for a couple of years so I suppose I can't really expect it to anytime soon.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

And you think the commonsense solution is to have the law written so the human eye determines the moment the ball leaves the boot? It couldn't be picked up by camera in slow motion. The rules are fine and if a player wants to bunny hop across the line, then good on them.

No! I think the intention of the rule (if it ever existed) was to stop people rolling it, pushing it, forcing it... through in a goal-line scramble in ways other than kicking. Things you can see with the naked eye. Not to stop what Tex did

 

[cm_perfect]

In the reviewing umpires defence, I believe what he stated was "ball was carried over by foot" (or something to that effect). It was the the boundary umpire who stated "then it's a point". This was a mistake of the on field umpires not the reviewing umpire.

Edit: field umpire, not boundary umpire.

Didn't the reviewing enthusiast say, umpires call (which was originally a point)

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Didn't the reviewing enthusiast say, umpires call (which was originally a point)

Just re-watched it. He says: "Review complete. Umpire's call. The ball was carried over on the foot of an Adelaide player"

Which is weird as well. Let's say the reviewing enthusiast (great term, btw) doesn't know the rules. He thinks that the ball staying on Tex's boot over the line means it's a point. Then isn't it a "confirmed behind", not "umpire's call"?

Complete cluster*.

 

[1970crow]

No! I think the intention of the rule (if it ever existed) was to stop people rolling it, pushing it, forcing it... through in a goal-line scramble in ways other than kicking. Things you can see with the naked eye. Not to stop what Tex did

Makes no sense. In the situation you mention the only way would be for a player to be dribbling the ball through in the way a soccer player controls the ball. Otherwise the best method is always going to be to get pace on the ball by kicking it. I think you may have an overly fertile mind if you think there's anything to be gained by approaching goal kicking in any other way.

How about 4 players in a square, locking arms and making a base for the ball with their feet. The ball is always touching a boot, so none can be legally tackled. They need only inch there way as a group across the goal line. Need a rule before that catches on.

 

[NikkiNoo]

In the reviewing umpires defence, I believe what he stated was "ball was carried over by foot" (or something to that effect). It was the the boundary umpire who stated "then it's a point". This was a mistake of the on field umpires not the reviewing umpire.

Edit: field umpire, not boundary umpire.

No the Reviewer said first "Umpire's call" meaning that the umpire's call of a point was upheld and then he added that the "ball was carried over the line" as the justification why the umpire's call was being upheld. Idiot and the Round 12 Cockwombling Numbnut of the Week award winner easily.

 

[Slippery Pete]

No the Reviewer said first "Umpire's call" meaning that the umpire's call of a point was upheld and then he added that the "ball was carried over the line" as the justification why the umpire's call was being upheld.

This is exactly it.

Now, if that isn't in the rules, the AFL has to explain why its goal-line review umpire did not know one of the few rules he should know inside out.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

No the Reviewer said first "Umpire's call" meaning that the umpire's call of a point was upheld and then he added that the "ball was carried over the line" as the justification why the umpire's call was being upheld. Idiot and the Round 12 Cockwombling Numbnut of the Week award winner easily.

Don't they say umpire's call only when the footage is inconclusive?

Otherwise they say Confirm Touched or whatever

 

[Large 1]

No the Reviewer said first "Umpire's call" meaning that the umpire's call of a point was upheld and then he added that the "ball was carried over the line" as the justification why the umpire's call was being upheld. Idiot and the Round 12 Cockwombling Numbnut of the Week award winner easily.

I stand corrected.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Makes no sense. In the situation you mention the only way would be for a player to be dribbling the ball through in the way a soccer player controls the ball. Otherwise the best method is always going to be to get pace on the ball by kicking it. I think you may have an overly fertile mind if you think there's anything to be gained by approaching goal kicking in any other way.

How about 4 players in a square, locking arms and making a base for the ball with their feet. The ball is always touching a boot, so none can be legally tackled. They need only inch there way as a group across the goal line. Need a rule before that catches on.

Even if there was a rule originally it happens so rarely that the rule isn't needed and that by saying contact below the knee = a kick is simpler and easier to adjudicate

 

[relapse]

Don't they say umpire's call only when the footage is inconclusive?

Otherwise they say Confirm Touched or whatever

I am guessing that the umpire thought it was inconclusive whether the ball left Walker's boot before it crossed the line

 

[NikkiNoo]

Don't they say umpire's call only when the footage is inconclusive?

Otherwise they say Confirm Touched or whatever

They do mostly say confirm or upheld as part of it, but always include umpire's call as part of that. We saw from the whole flustercluck moment that that reviewer was useless and couldn't remember what he was supposed to do.

 

[Floopy]

Makes no sense. In the situation you mention the only way would be for a player to be dribbling the ball through in the way a soccer player controls the ball. Otherwise the best method is always going to be to get pace on the ball by kicking it. I think you may have an overly fertile mind if you think there's anything to be gained by approaching goal kicking in any other way.

How about 4 players in a square, locking arms and making a base for the ball with their feet. The ball is always touching a boot, so none can be legally tackled. They need only inch there way as a group across the goal line. Need a rule before that catches on.

If you can find 4 people than can maintain that structure for more than 0.001 second while being bumped and only on one leg, it will catch on like wildfire!

Honestly if anyone can do that, it should be a new deadset-super-goal worth 18 points.

 

[Interloperer]

No! I think the intention of the rule (if it ever existed) was to stop people rolling it, pushing it, forcing it... through in a goal-line scramble in ways other than kicking. Things you can see with the naked eye. Not to stop what Tex did

As ridiculous as trying to discern the motivation for rules that have never existed is...

You've actually described the reason that goals need to be kicked in the first place. In the early days before the advent of the modern scoring system, the goal square was a chaotic mess of players trying to force the ball over the line by any means, while the defending team did the same to prevent it.

 

[Messiah]

I do not watch all the midweek footy shows.
Sounds like not even a peep about this?
Demons get an umpire tweet an apology yet nothing at all for us, not even on the footy shows?
I would have thought it deserve something ... even allowing for the fact it is us ...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I do not watch all the midweek footy shows.
Sounds like not even a peep about this?
Demons get an umpire tweet an apology yet nothing at all for us, not even on the footy shows?
I would have thought it deserve something ... even allowing for the fact it is us ...

Absolutely nothing.

Even Whistle blowers didn't even mention it.

Almost as if...

 

[Southerntakeover]

No! I think the intention of the rule (if it ever existed) was to stop people rolling it, pushing it, forcing it... through in a goal-line scramble in ways other than kicking. Things you can see with the naked eye. Not to stop what Tex did

Will you stop suggesting intentions for rules that never existed you bloody fruitloop.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Will you stop suggesting intentions for rules that never existed you bloody fruitloop.

I'm clinging on for grim death until I hear someone who actually knows say that it has never, ever been a rule.

 

[BrissyCrow]

I'll put my hand up for that one. I thought if the ball was still attached (well, you know what I mean) to the boot when both crossed the line, then a point was the result. I remembered that from my playing days back in the dark ages. When I think about that, how could an umpire adjudicate it? LOL
I was so convinced I looked up the rule book and found out I'm wrong. Put me in the aggrieved camp.

That's the trouble that a lot of people have. They make a statement of fact that implies that they know the rule when in fact they should be saying that they think they know the rule. It can start so many arguments.

 

[BrissyCrow]

I wonder if they would have admitted their mistake if we lost by less than 5 points

That's what I was saying earlier. Imagine if it had been a Grand Final.

 

[Samcro24]

Review complete.

Confirmed behind.

Ball was touched on the line.

By the full forwards foot.

 

[NikkiNoo]

I'm clinging on for grim death until I hear someone who actually knows say that it has never, ever been a rule.

I've never heard of it being a rule and it was never a rule when I was umpiring. I was trained with all the SANFL and SA based AFL umpires. Is that good enough or not?