Was the play on call correct? Did Lynch move off his line? Considering he went the banana I think maybe he didn’t. Admittedly I’m just going on memory so not sure. Have no interest in watching anything from that game again. I’m p1ssed off enough as it is.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
I've watched it about 75 times now from every angle available and I still can't tell if it was a goal or a point. My opinion is anyone who thinks they can is kidding themselves.
To me he moves when Lynch moves and as the umpire is trying to get play on out which is how that should be applied I think.
If it is so hard to tell either way, why was it overturned and not go back to umpire's call as it has done since the rule was introduced? I thought the rule was that there needed to be conclusive footage to overturn the umpire's on-field call.
All season long the commentators and media drone on and on whenever there is a close call on a score review "gee you just hope it doesn't decide a close final".
And yet here we are, it has decided a close game, it has ended our season, and I can hear the crickets.
If the AFL had any evidence that the right decision was made they would've given it to the media. Are the RFC just going to let them get away with it again?
And yet here we are, it has decided a close game, it has ended our season, and I can hear the crickets.
If the AFL had any evidence that the right decision was made they would've given it to the media. Are the RFC just going to let them get away with it again?
That is correct mate, but you know, Richmond, and you know Brisvegas needing to stay in the hunt because, you know, we need to grow the game, and you know, Richmond they’ve won three recently, and you know Martin, and you know Richmond they embarrassed our Umps and you know, Geelong champions deserve a flag, you know.
Exactly right, I remember seeing another occasion, not sure if it was us playing or not, and the ARC ruled the ball passed over the post.
It was wrong then and it is wrong now, there's just no way you can make that call from the video.
The twitter video clearly shows the ball behind the post, not near the top of the post.
I really cant see how it went over the post, or on the other side. I wonder if the camera on the other goal post caught it at all.
It is not play on until the umpire calls play on, which he hadnt done when Andrews started moving, but yes "common sense" says no 50.
I actually agree with you on definitive goal/point thing. What is clear is that the umpire was in a better position than anyone to make the decision and there is no way it should have been overturned.
I wonder if it had been called a point the ARC would have gone with "no conclusive evidence" and therefore deferred to umps call?
I also agree with the moving off the mark thing and how it "should" be applied. But the player is not allowed to move until the umpire calls play on. Andrews clearly moves before the call. And did Lynch actually move off his line before Andrews starts to move?
It's all moot but it is staggering we are still to get the simple explanation of how the ARC guy came to his decision. Surely the club and its fans deserve to know how the decision was reached? The ramifications of the changed result are huge in so many ways (financially/draft picks/careers) yet the AFL assumes we should be satisfied with a small media release ticking it off.
Clearly? You mean that video shot on a mobile phone from 75 metres away, at full speed, with no depth perception right?
Your eyes are obviously a lot better than mine!
I understand the outside 5 rule. What I am saying is it is ridiculous to suggest Andrews went back outside 5m considering how close Lynch marked it to goal (which was your initial suggestion) . Now you say you've looked at the footage (I'd suggest you should do this more often before posting so you don't need to flip flop so much) and he didn't stand back.
You have such a chip on your shoulder about umpires, you turn into Homer Simpson as soon as they come up. You can run forward if you go back more than 5.
I just checked the channel 7 feed, he didn't stand back, the umpire calls play on.
The other thing I noticed from watching it again was just what a horrible miss it was. Such a simple shot.
Which means he cannot move, he must "stand". The instant he moved before the play on call should have created a 50m penalty.
Apologies for offering an off-hand possibility without subjecting it to rigorous video analysis first, and sullying a thread so based in intelligent analysis. When you watch footy with both eyes you tend to see more possibilities than just cheating umpires and that's a weakness of mine.
I'm happy with the adjudication of the mark, perfect umpiring for mine.
I think what makes it harder to swallow is the AFL saying it was the correct call and including absolute garbage such as going off the player's reaction to the kick as part of their process. Also Gil's comment of "i haven't seen any evidence that it was a goal", which is counter to his organisation's actual rule.
Last edited:
When your offhand possibility defies logic wouldn't you then subject said posters other missives to closer critical scrutiny? To suggest you would not stand the mark when the opponent marks the ball near the goal square is pretty silly wouldn't you admit?
I'm not against umpires using common sense either, but the written rules don't use those words anywhere.
STANDING THE MARK AND THE PROTECTED AREA 20.1.1 Standing The Mark When a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick, one Player from the opposing Team may: (a) stand on The Mark; or (b) otherwise be directed by a field Umpire. For the avoidance of doubt, all other Players from the opposing Team must be positioned behind The Mark or otherwise outside the Protected Area defined in Law 20.1.2. 20.1.2 Protected Area (a) The Protected Area after a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick is a corridor which extends from 10 metres either side of The Mark and five metres behind, to 10 metres either side of, and five metre arc behind, the Player with the football, as illustrated in Diagram 4. (b) No Player shall enter and remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls ‘Play On’ or the Player from the opposing Team is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent. Any Player caught in the Protected Area must make every endeavour to immediately vacate the Protected Area. 10 m 10 m 10 m 10 m 5 m 5 m Player with the football Player on The Mark Additional protected area behind the player on the mark.
20.5.2 Moving Off The Mark While a Player is Kicking for a Goal If the Player standing The Mark moves off The Mark whilst a Player is in the act of Kicking for a Goal, the following shall apply: (a) if a Goal is Kicked, the field Umpire shall signal ‘All Clear’ and a Goal shall be recorded; and (b) if a Goal is not Kicked, the Player may elect to take another Kick, in which case the Player shall also be awarded a Fifty Metre Penalty
He said that? One of his sacred never to be questioned umpires who was in a better position than anybody said he believed it was a goal. I can't tell if it's corruption or incompetence or both.
The Twitter footage is right behind Lynch, and you can clearly see the ball disappear behind the post. I really cannot see how it went over the post or through the points.
That's right. It's not the distance, it's the angle. I'm surprised out of all fans sitting closer and behind those goals no-one could provide their version.
Last edited:
What is probably annoying me more than anything is those suggesting that because Lynch wasn’t jumping around celebrating is clear evidence it wasn’t a goal.
So suggesting that player reaction should be taken into account.
What happens when a player has a shot on goal and an opponent claims they touched it? Video evidence in these cases is quite often inconclusive. So now we are just going to say the player claims they touched it, let’s go with that?
Its a ridiculous stance to take.
So suggesting that player reaction should be taken into account.
What happens when a player has a shot on goal and an opponent claims they touched it? Video evidence in these cases is quite often inconclusive. So now we are just going to say the player claims they touched it, let’s go with that?
Its a ridiculous stance to take.
It was reported this morning that the reason Tommy didn’t celebrate was because he couldn’t see the ball in the lights. You could read his lips after he kicked it, saying ‘couldn’t see it’.
