One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Jackstar is back again on July 07, 2012, 06:09:42 PM
-
Was sitting behind the goal.
what a disgrace
Umpire bad mistake, country bound next week
And Matt white will at least get 2 weeks for his head high on Frawley
-
Was sitting behind the goal.
what a disgrace
Umpire bad mistake, country bound next week
And Matt white will at least get 2 weeks for his head high on Frawley
But did you see the Melbourne goal that was supposedly touched, but wasn't. ;) BTW Whiteys shot looked like a goal from my angle as well.
-
Yeah, at least White's mistake evened up the score - both were terrible decisions and gave Eddy McGuire a lot of ammo in his quest to 'fix' the current video referral situation.
-
Whites was clearly a goal...BUT
So was the melbourne one jack, umpire evening up the decisions and I can live with that for now.
I'm terribly dissapointed in the umpiring today for both sides but at least it wasn't McInery or Stevic- that's all I can say
-
the melbourne one was not a goal. watch how the melborne bloke holds onto batchelors arm like a clingy lover. a clear free kick missed
-
I seen him kick it twice....it was a goal ;)
-
OP is wrong. Ump will get a promotion. :shh :whistle
-
What a disgraceful decision, how that imbecile could call it without even subjecting to a video is bewildering, id lve giesh to come and say we were wrong....again ::)
-
yep right behind it and yes definately a goal.
Payback as i think the maric's touch wasnt really a touch
In this day and age with technology available i cant believe it wasnt questioned.
-
Where we're you sitting Daniel ?
-
Where we're you sitting Daniel ?
M20 Row M
Close to the 50 metre arc directly behind the shot
-
VIDEO: A day of controversy. Goal review system in the spotlight during the Tigers-Demons game
http://bigpondvideo.com/AFL/466558/A%20day%20of%20controversy/
Coaches back video reviews
By Adam McNicol, Peter Ryan and AAP
7:36 PM Sat 07 Jul, 2012
DESPITE several contentious decisions during Saturday's Melbourne-Richmond clash, both coaches believe the AFL's use of video review is worth keeping, even if it provides some unsatisfying results.
Richmond and Melbourne were both denied goals they perhaps deserved during Saturday's clash at the MCG that the Tigers won by 23 points.
Richmond's Matt White and Jack Riewoldt were both convinced they scored goals with kicks which were awarded behinds, while Melbourne was denied a possible James Magner goal despite video evidence appearing inconclusive.
Tigers coach Damien Hardwick said he would have liked to have seen the White and Riewoldt decisions to be reviewed, although Hardwick - who has been fined this season for abusing an umpire - admitted officials faced a hard task.
"It's a tough ask, but if it's there let's just make a call (for a review)," Hardwick said.
"The problem is the players are always going to call for a review, aren't they, especially Jack.
"They were line-ball (decisions) anyway.
"It's like anything. You bring in a rule and it creates a bit of confusion at the start, but then it eventually gets the desired result. I think it's OK."
And the Magner 'goal'?
"[It was] definitely a point." he laughed. "It was a funny one. It's very, very hard. The problem for the poor old goal umpires is the video itself is inconclusive. It's really hard. It puts them in a predicament, in a nut-shell, so it's a tough ask."
The kick from Magner appeared to bounce through a crowded goalsquare without being touched, but the failure of the replay to prove beyond doubt the ball was not touched meant it was eventually called a behind anyway.
Demons coach Mark Neeld said he was satisfied with the process.
"I looked at that video (of Magner kick) and I couldn't tell. If you can't tell you're not sure, that is what it is there for, the lesser score stands if it is not sure," he said.
"As soon as I saw the tape and go 'I'm not really sure there', the obvious adjudication was a behind, we all know that."
Both Hardwick and Neeld said they were happy to stick with the technology because it meant more correct decisions than without it.
"We're trying to have a collective voice on most things and my view if the correct decision made then that is OK."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/140779/default.aspx
-
Daniel.was in N35 front row.the ball came through the goals and was heading straight towards me
Could not believe it
-
Where we're you sitting Daniel ?
M20 Row M
Close to the 50 metre arc directly behind the shot
Agreed I was in M35 on level 2 and was a clear goal. That ump will be in the Pilbara next week.
-
It was a clear goal on the tv replays. The ball went almost right over the goal ump's head. He must have mistakenly thought the ball clipped the back of the post or something? :huh
The main issue though is that it wasn't referred despite 7 Tigers yelling and pointing at the umps about it. If the AFL are going to keep this referral system then they may have to copy something similar to the NFL or Cricket where the teams can challenge a decision.
-
Was definitely a goal, Sitting right behind the points and I can safely say it didnt go through them ! Poor ump copped abuse for the rest of the game.
I think just get rid of the whole review system all together. But if they don't then yes have some sort of challenge system.. say the Captain gets 1 challenge a game or something.
But I'd rather it be gone all together, umps will 95% of the time get goals right.. and tbh it just slows down the game, read an interesting article about it on the Adelaide - Port game.
-
It was a clear goal on the tv replays. The ball went almost right over the goal ump's head. He must have mistakenly thought the ball clipped the back of the post or something? :huh
The main issue though is that it wasn't referred despite 7 Tigers yelling and pointing at the umps about it. If the AFL are going to keep this referral system then they may have to copy something similar to the NFL or Cricket where the teams can challenge a decision.
ya know, i reckon the players getting in the face of the umps and demanding they review it and making the video signal themsleves actually deters the maggots from doing so.
I get seriously peed off with seeing players constantly appealing to the umps for frees. It not Effing cricket.
Buffoons running around flapping their arms like Ding trying to fly and the sooking when they dont get their way.
Jack is one of the worst for this crap.
Just get on with the game you clowns and concentrate on getting the ball.
-
Riewoldt basically cries to the umpires when the opposition are the last to touch the ball when it goes out claiming its deliberate
Have a close look.he would do it 10 times agame
Anymore flapping of the arms and he will take off
-
Stevic needs to be shot. >:(
-
Umpires are never wrong.
Move along nothing to see here.
-
What about Jack's goal that wasn't a goal?
or wasn't that a goal?
-
If that imbecile gets a gig as goal umpire next week...fair dinkum :o
-
wouldn't have happened on Roffie's watch
-
:lol
-
Both were goals. Didn't look good Maric having a fresh air shot
-
Giesch says the umps were right so they must be :wallywink
Umpires boss backs decision to award a behind to James Magner
Mark Stevens
From: Herald Sun
July 10, 2012
AFL umpires boss Jeff Gieschen has launched a strong defence of the contentious James Magner video review, claiming the decision to award a behind was correct.
Collingwood president Eddie McGuire led the charge yesterday as the league came under fire for its video procedures, but Gieschen last night said of the Magner call: "We're very happy with that."
To the naked eye, Richmond's Ivan Maric and Jake Batchelor failed to touch Demon Magner's bouncing shot at goal before it crossed the line.
The goal umpire immediately stated he thought it was a goal, but field umpire Stuart Wenn and boundary umpire John Morris believed there was doubt.
Gieschen last night revealed the evidence of Morris, who ran in from the right pocket, was telling.
"Boundary umpire John Morris came in to say, 'I heard that ball scrape the boot'," Gieschen said. "He didn't see a deflection, but he definitely heard the sound."
Wenn, who ran in towards goal, said he saw a deflection but could not be sure if the ball had hit Maric's boot or Batchelor's hand.
The video replay proved inconclusive and it came down to weight of numbers.
In effect, the goal umpire, who thought it was a goal but was in doubt, was overruled by the opinion of two other umpires.
"When you have two guys who say they believe it is touched, that weight of numbers holds up," Gieschen said.
"Quite clearly the goal umpire was going to give a goal, but a boundary umpire and field umpire had considerable doubt."
Gieschen refused to comment when asked if Richmond had been contacted to confirm Maric had in fact touched the ball. It is understood the Tigers are steadfast in the belief the ball did deflect.
The league has confirmed goal umpire Peter Gonis made a mistake in not allowing a goal to Tiger Matthew White in the third term.
Gonis has been dropped for two weeks for the error after a video review was not called for.
"Quite clearly, it's a goal umpiring error," Gieschen said. "The disappointing thing from our end is we didn't call for a review.
"Goal umpires will make errors ... but we have a system that we can use."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/umpires-boss-backs-decision-to-award-a-behind-to-james-magner/story-e6frf9io-1226422071388
-
so we got robbed but Melbourne didn't TYPICAL!!!! call to arms, burn down Gieschens house lock up your daughters, feed the hens!
-
With Magnar's From sitting behind the goals, it was touched twice, Maric & Batchelor.
White's was obviously a goal, we were in shock that it was called a behind.....
-
batch couldnt have touched it. He couldnt get near it due to being held.
-
LOL!