Matt White's goal that wasnt paid

[Jackstar is back again]

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

[Ruanaidh]

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.

[Smokey]

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.

[Eat_em_Alive]

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

[Penelope]

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

[Loui Tufga]

I seen him kick it twice....it was a goal

[tigs2011]

OP is wrong. Ump will get a promotion. 

[bojangles17]

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

[Francois Jackson]

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.

[Jackstar is back again]

Where we're you sitting Daniel ?

[Francois Jackson]

Where we're you sitting Daniel ?

M20 Row M

Close to the 50 metre arc directly behind the shot

[one-eyed]

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

[Jackstar is back again]

Daniel.was in N35 front row.the ball came through the goals and was heading straight towards me
Could not believe it

[Hellenic Tiger]

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.

[mightytiges]

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? 

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.