The West Coast point that hit the goal umpire

[Alesana]

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.

WTF is the goal umpire doing in that position??

 

[meltiger]

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.

 

[Seadog]

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.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

WTF is the goal umpire doing in that position??

His job.

 

[MYOB]

The rule was changed after the Betts "goal"

 

[WesternJack]

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]

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...

 

[Alesana]

His job.

Obviously not very good at it

 

[Upgrayedd]

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

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Obviously not very good at it

He was in the perfect position to see whether or not the ball was touched on or over the line.

 

[Alesana]

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.

 

[Randomizor]

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]

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?

Here you go.......
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-04-02/afl-introduces-betts-rule

Although I would have thought the AFL might have done something after this 2012 game......(see 2.14)

. Port won by 54 points anyway.

 

[mic59]

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.

 

[SwampCreature]

That hits the Carlton player not the ump

 

[oak79]

That hits the Carlton player not the ump

Yeh, the ball doesnt go anywhere near the ump at 2:08