The West Coast point that hit the goal umpire

HeathComeBack

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Posts
3,545
Likes
2,840
AFL Club
Collingwood
Thread starter #1
Can someone clarify this for me

The ball hit the goal umpire while the ball was still in play. It did not hit the goal post even though it was heading directly for it. WC played on and kicked a goal but after a score review it was declared a point. Was this decision correct? Should it have been a goal? Is hitting the umpire just a normal part of play?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Spongebob

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
4,067
Likes
7,318
Location
On a 3-hour tour
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth, Fighting Illini
#6
I think the rule was changed a couple of years ago.

If it hit the ump and bounced back in play it used to be play on.

Now the umpires get to determine if it should be a goal or behind. If uncertain, it is a behind.

I liked the old rule, at least in this case.
 

HTPunter

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Posts
4,084
Likes
4,540
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#7
http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=36381723
"2.1.3 Clarification and Examples For the avoidance of doubt:
(a) if the football touches an Umpire, and in the opinion of the field and/or goal 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 and/or goal Umpire it has not affected a score, the football shall remain in play;"

In this case, as a goal was kicked anyway, they were able to stop play and review the entire decision. It was the opinion that the umpire had affected the score (I mean, it was clearly heading straight for the post) and as such that anticipated score was recorded.
 

Quinz

The King of Kalgoorlie
Joined
May 31, 2005
Posts
33,441
Likes
27,396
Location
On a Wing and a Prayer
AFL Club
West Coast
Moderator #8
Can someone clarify this for me

The ball hit the goal umpire while the ball was still in play. It did not hit the goal post even though it was heading directly for it. WC played on and kicked a goal but after a score review it was declared a point. Was this decision correct? Should it have been a goal? Is hitting the umpire just a normal part of play?
The rule used to be if it hits the umpire it's play on, the new rule allows them to check if the umpire interfered with a scoring shot and pay what they think would be the result.

The most bizarre part about it for me was why Vardy thought bending down to pick up a ball literally resting on the goal line was a good idea.
 

Spook

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Posts
7,044
Likes
3,567
Location
Top of the pile looking down
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Claremont
#9
what is the correct interpretation of the law though. What if the ball was dribbling towards the goal and tapped the goal umpires foot in play? i really think it should have been play on.
The rule used to be play on if it hit the umpire, but they changed it a few years ago.... Can anyone remember the incident that caused the change?

upload_2018-9-9_13-32-58.png

upload_2018-9-9_13-32-29.png
 
Last edited:

Alesana

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Posts
1,505
Likes
1,449
AFL Club
West Coast
#10
The rule used to be if it hits the umpire it's play on, the new rule allows them to check if the umpire interfered with a scoring shot and pay what they think would be the result.

The most bizarre part about it for me was why Vardy thought bending down to pick up a ball literally resting on the goal line was a good idea.
I think the Collingwood player on the ground had his leg basically right next to the ball, Vardy would've kicked the Collingwood players leg had he tried to soccer it. Still incredibly frustrating that he can miss from literally on the goal line a few weeks after Lycett misses the entire ball on the goal line :mad:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

meltiger

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Posts
4,133
Likes
497
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
YNWA
#12
Can anyone remember the incident that caused the change?
Freo paid the goal umpires to act as goal keepers in a game against Richmond not that far back.

Goal umpire blocked a Shane Edwards shot, play on.

Was within the last 4/5 years.

2013 we lost over there by a point. Possibly that game.

Not sure if it's the one that changed the rule but stands out in recent memory (Being my team of course)
 

Evelyn208

Club Legend
Joined
May 18, 2011
Posts
1,355
Likes
421
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
#13
Freo paid the goal umpires to act as goal keepers in a game against Richmond not that far back.

Goal umpire blocked a Shane Edwards shot, play on.

Was within the last 4/5 years.

2013 we lost over there by a point. Possibly that game.

Not sure if it's the one that changed the rule but stands out in recent memory (Being my team of course)
Do you honestly think anyone takes you seriously when you start with "a team paid the umpires to do X"? Seriously man, what a load of shit.
 

hcd199

Club Legend
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Posts
1,987
Likes
1,044
Location
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
#15
The rule used to be play on if it hit the umpire, but they changed it a few years ago.... Can anyone remember the incident that caused the change?

View attachment 556555
View attachment 556553
This one, I believe:
THE UMPIRES were correct in calling play-on after a shot for goal from Adelaide's Eddie Betts hit the goal umpire and bounced back into play during the Crows' NAB Challenge game against North Melbourne.

However, according to the AFL, the goal umpire who was struck should have been standing further behind the goal line when the ball was kicked, to avoid any possibility of the ball bouncing back into play before it crossed the line.
 

meltiger

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Posts
4,133
Likes
497
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
YNWA
#16
That would be a lot more recent than Sheds one.

Admittedly had me scratching my head last night not knowing the rule had changed

Rule change seems to be common sense fir something that happens really very rarely.
 

dewcefault

Senior List
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
241
Likes
308
AFL Club
West Coast
#18
The only controversy is why it took so bloody long

First replay was clear as day it was smashing into the post
I thought (and rightly so) that they were checking whether the initial shot or in the chaos after whether the ball had crossed the line - prior to the umpire contact.

Earlier in the year (I think WCE vs Geel) Masten kicked a goal that was incorrectly ruled a behind because the video review stopped after the ball had been touched. If they'd kept playing the video they would have seen it hit Masten on the foot again before going through the goal cleanly.

I am ok with the extra 20seconds to make sure they get the right decision and viewing before and after the incident. Particularly if the ball is sitting on the line.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Posts
32,384
Likes
22,375
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
#19
I thought (and rightly so) that they were checking whether the initial shot or in the chaos after whether the ball had crossed the line - prior to the umpire contact.

Earlier in the year (I think WCE vs Geel) Masten kicked a goal that was incorrectly ruled a behind because the video review stopped after the ball had been touched. If they'd kept playing the video they would have seen it hit Masten on the foot again before going through the goal cleanly.

I am ok with the extra 20seconds to make sure they get the right decision and viewing before and after the incident. Particularly if the ball is sitting on the line.
If the ball was clearly going through for a goal - sure - spend the time to review

It was smashing into the post - so whether it crossed the line or not - the result was a point. Get on with the game

The bigger issue is why vardy didn't just sidefoot it through.
 

NOBBYS

Senior List
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Posts
254
Likes
337
AFL Club
Gold Coast
#20
Just about the dumbest thing ive ever seen on any footy field.
Ball is sitting on the goal line player picks up the the ball then tries to kick a goal instead kicks it into the goal umpire (post).
Reckon my eight year old grandson would have soccered it through.
30 seconds of Comedy Capers .
Yes most ruckman are dumb
 

master bate

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
13,119
Likes
10,458
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
#21
The only controversy is why it took so bloody long

First replay was clear as day it was smashing into the post
Because for some strange reason the field umpires get to overrule goal umpires who often make clear decisions but are then interrupted. The goal umpire in this case was very clear - it hit me, it was going to hit the post. I don't think he wanted a review. But of course the field umpire comes running in to decide it needs to be reviewed.
 

Scotland

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
45,330
Likes
46,273
AFL Club
West Coast
#22
This happened in a WC game at the WACA so would've been 2000 or earlier.

One of our players kicked a bouncing ball that would've been a goal and it hit the goal umpire and bounced back into play. Play on.

I'm happy with the common sense interpretation from Saturday night. Ball was clearly going to hit the post. If it was reviewed and called a goal from the follow up play you'd be filthy as a Pies player/fan.
 

Wallaby

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 8, 2007
Posts
8,189
Likes
8,456
Location
vic
AFL Club
Richmond
#23
Here it is - note score and time of game.

If you are going to stuff things up, do it when it counts. Freo wound up winning by one point.
 

Miguel Sanchez

Arrogant and insolent
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Posts
34,519
Likes
30,945
Location
Shandong Gold Stadium
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Black Ducks, SAS, NYR, BEARS
#24
Here it is - note score and time of game.

If you are going to stuff things up, do it when it counts. Freo wound up winning by one point.
Looked to me like it was probably going to hit at least the back of the post anyway, although we don't get the best angle on it in that vision.

What year is it from? If Matthew White was playing for Richmond it must have been at least five years ago.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Posts
32,384
Likes
22,375
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
#25
Because for some strange reason the field umpires get to overrule goal umpires who often make clear decisions but are then interrupted. The goal umpire in this case was very clear - it hit me, it was going to hit the post. I don't think he wanted a review. But of course the field umpire comes running in to decide it needs to be reviewed.
I believe the rule is - once it hits the goal umpire - a review is automatic

But one replay was enough to see what the outcome was
 
Top Bottom