Afraid your dislike of umpires is blinding you to what my post actually said, David.
My comment was about the ridiculous of someone in their lounge room trying to determine if the ball hit the post or not from the replays we saw, nothing else.
Bollocks.
You said:
Goal umpire standing on the spot: I think it's a point.
Did you say this having watched the incident, were you there? Or was it just supposition? On what basis did you claim it was a behind?
You come here and you criticise everyone for having a go at the umpires and relying on scant evidence, meanwhile you defend their decisions on the basis of no evidence at all, not even scant evidence. You also question people's assessment of the incident who have already stated they were there. 2 minutes prior to your post Mr T posted that he saw the incident live and it did not hit the post (is his loungeroom at the MCG?), yet, even in the face of eyewitness evidence, and with no evidence of your own, you blithely claim the umpire was correct. Why, because they are an umpire and therefore infallible?
Absolute joke and you won't even own up to making the claim.
I don't fault the goal umpire for their positioning, they were standing maybe 0.5 to 1m behind the goal line in the middle of the posts. That is where they should be when a player is having a snap at goal from close in on an angle. But, the ball clearly passed inside the goal post, so the question is whether it hit the post. There was no evidence that the ball hit the post: the post did not wobble, the ball did not deviate. In that situation the goal umpire should have called a goal and said he thought it should go to the ARC. Now, I don't think the goal umpire has much to answer here because it was a tough call, although I think calling it as hitting the post in the absence of any evidence that it had hit the post was incorrect. The real blame lies in the ARC - this is what the ARC is supposed to prevent, and it failed abysmally.
DS