The West Coast point that hit the goal umpire

(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
#27
WTF is the goal umpire doing in that position??
How good is my memory, was White and Ty not Sheds lol :$ Fair cop game was probably watched in a haze of scotch

That one is perfect example of why the rule change is a good one but. Match official being somewhere he shouldn't have been cost a team a game of footy that night (Mistakes happen). I know we get some silly rule changes but this ones defo a good one. Even if it took a few more instances for the AFL to see it needed to change.

In fairness to the goal ump that night, vs the one from your game on the weekend, you can more understand that one than this weekends one.

Back then, no replay tech more incumbent on the goal ump to be in a good position to make the right call. Play was moving fast, he tried to be in a good position, just the end result was a bad one. Nowadays? There really is no reason for them not to take a step back, every goal is reviewed, if a mistake is made most of the time they get corrected.
 
Last edited:

Seadog

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 16, 2004
Posts
4,280
Likes
4,408
Location
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth, West Ham
#28
How good is my memory, was White and Ty not Sheds lol :$ Fair cop game was probably watched in a haze of scotch

That one is perfect example of why the rule change is a good one but. Match official being somewhere he shouldn't have been cost a team a game of footy that night (Mistakes happen). I know we get some silly rule changes but this ones defo a good one. Even if it took a few more instances for the AFL to see it needed to change.

In fairness to the goal ump that night, vs the one from your game on the weekend, you can more understand that one than this weekends one.

Back then, no replay tech more incumbent on the goal ump to be in a good position to make the right call. Play was moving fast, he tried to be in a good position, just the end result was a bad one. Nowadays? There really is no reason for them not to take a step back, every goal is reviewed, if a mistake is made most of the time they get corrected.
To be fair to the goal ump, how was he supposed to know some intellectually challenged player would pick a ball up that was sitting on the line and kick it into the post.
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Posts
6
Likes
8
AFL Club
West Coast
#31
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.
Good clarification, was not aware the rule has changed so was wondering why it wasn’t a goal. Although this cost us in this case, IMO the new rule makes sense.
 

nob2210

Team Captain
Joined
May 25, 2006
Posts
368
Likes
188
Location
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
leeds united
#32
Ah we sure it was going to hit the post? I reckon there was some uncertainty, considering the kick was from the goal line and it hit the umpires left shoulder which was inside the field of play. Reckon there was doubt...
 

Upgrayedd

A Vote for Clive is a Vote for Justice
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Posts
29,266
Likes
20,114
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Timberwolves, Crystal Palace
#34
Ah we sure it was going to hit the post? I reckon there was some uncertainty, considering the kick was from the goal line and it hit the umpires left shoulder which was inside the field of play. Reckon there was doubt...
It was absolutely going to hit the post and I'm bemused that you think otherwise. Uttely Utterly Bemused
 

Alesana

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Posts
1,505
Likes
1,449
AFL Club
West Coast
#36
He was in the perfect position to see whether or not the ball was touched on or over the line.
Touched by Vickery's boot? That would be a kick. Watch the vision, Umpire should be in line with the trajectory of the ball, not standing half on the field, at no stage was the ball 'touched', only kicked. Try again.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Randomizor

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Posts
9,958
Likes
13,561
AFL Club
Fremantle
#37
Good clarification, was not aware the rule has changed so was wondering why it wasn’t a goal. Although this cost us in this case, IMO the new rule makes sense.
Same here. Only exposure to this for me has been that Richmond game already mentioned. Did feel for the Tigers a bit on that one. I would have been annoyed if it happened the other way.

Smart rule change. The type the AFL should be changing. Just small things that benefit everyone.
 

mic59

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Posts
18,205
Likes
10,194
Location
Alberton, the chosen land
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Blyth Spartans, Dallas Cowboys
#38

mic59

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Posts
18,205
Likes
10,194
Location
Alberton, the chosen land
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Blyth Spartans, Dallas Cowboys
#39
Port lost out on a certain goal in this 2012 match that was played before the rule change. But they won by 54 points anyway. Westhoff is denied at 2.08. The AFL didn't feel this and a few more incidents were worthy of a change, when a similar thing happened with Eddie Betts in a JLT match they decided to do something. Surprisingly, it wasn't to tell umpires to keep off the field of play.

 
Top Bottom