Caddy's overturned goal on review: What's your decision?

[the claw]

So the flags now count as part of the post even though they are behind it and the goal-line? 

Sorry that's a goal for mine. Which part of the ball is still across the line to overrule the goalumpire's view of it being a goal? I can't see it.

Always been the case or as far as i know it has been.  clearly a behind both padding and flags are part of the post.

Clearly? I was there in line with it and it looked like a goal.
The cameras have wide angle lenses which have by nature barrel distortion. They also make things that are closer look bigger. Thus the ball is bigger than it really is and covers more of the background in the TV shot.

Too close to call. Should have been the umpires call and like me they thought it was a goal.

The whole point of the review was to get blatant errors out of the game. The Geelong GF when Hawkins clearly kicked a point hitting the post is why it was brought in. It wasn't supposed to overrule decisions involving millimetres.

Yet the angle/camera  they do have shows it was touched they can only go by the camera. In this case they got it right,

[YellowandBlackBlood]

The technology is not good enough. The umpire was right. Should have been the umpires call. It's been like that for 150 years. Only clear cut mistakes should be overturned.

[the claw]

The technology is not good enough. The umpire was right. Should have been the umpires call. It's been like that for 150 years. Only clear cut mistakes should be overturned.

I like the idea of getting this aspect of the game right.The goal ump was wrong according to the technology we do have.

We use what technology that we do have some like it some dont but its there and we use it and go by it.
This is not about weather we should use the technology we use it get used to it. With all the information  available they came up with the right decision,According to the technology we use the ball was clearly touching the flag hence a behind was given.
RThe review took so long because they had to look at weather the ball was touched off the boot which was clearly stated by an ump.

As i said right decion in the end and storm in a teacup over the time it took.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

The technology is not good enough. The umpire was right. Should have been the umpires call. It's been like that for 150 years. Only clear cut mistakes should be overturned.

I like the idea of getting this aspect of the game right.The goal ump was wrong according to the technology we do have.

We use what technology that we do have some like it some dont but its there and we use it and go by it.
This is not about weather we should use the technology we use it get used to it. With all the information  available they came up with the right decision,According to the technology we use the ball was clearly touching the flag hence a behind was given.
RThe review took so long because they had to look at weather the ball was touched off the boot which was clearly stated by an ump.

As i said right decion in the end and storm in a teacup over the time it took.

The problem is that the field umpires make mistakes all the time. Many of them cost goals. Why doesn't the video umpire correct those decisions? Why only goal decisions?

[The Machine]

The vision is not definitive in that the ball was touched. It's purely speculation it was touched given the angle of the blurred vision. Enough said!

[the claw]

The technology is not good enough. The umpire was right. Should have been the umpires call. It's been like that for 150 years. Only clear cut mistakes should be overturned.

I like the idea of getting this aspect of the game right.The goal ump was wrong according to the technology we do have.

We use what technology that we do have some like it some dont but its there and we use it and go by it.
This is not about weather we should use the technology we use it get used to it. With all the information  available they came up with the right decision,According to the technology we use the ball was clearly touching the flag hence a behind was given.
RThe review took so long because they had to look at weather the ball was touched off the boot which was clearly stated by an ump.

As i said right decion in the end and storm in a teacup over the time it took.

The problem is that the field umpires make mistakes all the time. Many of them cost goals. Why doesn't the video umpire correct those decisions? Why only goal decisions?

Common sense i suppose.We have a lull in play when theres a score. Its not practical  to stop the game every 5 seconds.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

But if it's a blatant mistake and a free kick is given for a shot at goal, there is a lull in play

[the claw]

But if it's a blatant mistake and a free kick is given for a shot at goal, there is a lull in play

You have a point but where do you stop.Maybe the answer is to find a way to do away with umps altogether !!!!.

[Owl]

goal

[the claw]

The vision is not definitive in that the ball was touched. It's purely speculation it was touched given the angle of the blurred vision. Enough said!

Looks pretty definate to me.

[FooffooValve]

Why doesn't the white line on the ground match the actual back of the flags? It seems silly to me that there appear to be two lines - the one on the ground, and then the actual one at the back of the flags.

[Diocletian]

But if it's a blatant mistake and a free kick is given for a shot at goal, there is a lull in play

You have a point but where do you stop.Maybe the answer is to find a way to do away with umps altogether !!!!.

I say we do away with umpires altogether then get a panel of impartial experts to watch a replay with the benefit of  replays and the rule book in front of them, picking out what decisions should have been made and devise a retrospective result from that....

[Assange Tiger 😎]

But if it's a blatant mistake and a free kick is given for a shot at goal, there is a lull in play

You have a point but where do you stop.Maybe the answer is to find a way to do away with umps altogether !!!!.

I say we do away with umpires altogether then get a panel of impartial experts to watch a replay with the benefit of  replays and the rule book in front of them, picking out what decisions should have been made and devise a retrospective result from that....

Melbourne wins the flag if this happens