Hardwick calls the goal review system a joke

[Phil Mrakov]

Imagine we miss finals on percentage now

[Judge Roughneck]

Here's the vision of the incident:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-04-27/tigers-denied-watch-the-incident

What an injustice.

[Penelope]

what an arse clown

[Gigantor]

did vickery confuse the goal umpire with his gumby effort on goal?

[bojangles17]

He really should have marked it , fair dinkum what a croc , i said it before TV cant do a thing right without following it up with a klutz of an effort. He did have a good game last night though. 2000% better than jacks game

[Dubstep Dookie]

We wuz robbed 

[one-eyed]

Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane twitter:

"Mark Evans will ask AFL umpiring dept to review line positioning of goal umpires. AFL view is a review should have been called last night."

[rogerd3]

the whole system is flawed, just do away with it.

[Eat_em_Alive]

Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane twitter:

"Mark Evans will ask AFL umpiring dept to review line positioning of goal umpires. AFL view is a review should have been called last night."

If Common sense had prevailed Vlad, Geisch and co.......


THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A BLOODY GOAL REVIEW!!!

[Tigeritis™©®]

This thread is a joke.

Deflecting your teams inability to follow basic principles of defending is all that's happening here.

If the incident was allowed to be a goal we would've had 5 minutes to defend our lead instead of 2 minutes as was the case with the Whites beauty on the boundary.
The footy gods were smiling at us for once but once again we squandered an opportunity to win the game with 2 minutes left on the clock or 1min 40 by the time the ball was thrown back in.

Knowing our history if the goal was allowed with 5 minutes remaining we probably would've lost by 3 goals. 

The disgrace is this:
1) 6 forwards when we set up for the bounce after the Whites goal. 
2) no player goal side at the boundary throw in. 
3) Ballantyne (their best goal sneak) allowed to run into an empty goal square. 
4) we have been training for this scenario all preseason. 

Back to school boys to learn basic footy fundamentals.

[Dubstep Dookie]

This thread is a joke.

Deflecting your teams inability to follow basic principles of defending is all that's happening here.

If the incident was allowed to be a goal we would've had 5 minutes to defend our lead instead of 2 minutes as was the case with the Whites beauty on the boundary.
The footy gods were smiling at us for once but once again we squandered an opportunity to win the game with 2 minutes left on the clock or 1min 40 by the time the ball was thrown back in.

Knowing our history if the goal was allowed with 5 minutes remaining we probably would've lost by 3 goals. 

The disgrace is this:
1) 6 forwards when we set up for the bounce after the Whites goal. 
2) no player goal side at the boundary throw in. 
3) Ballantyne (their best goal sneak) allowed to run into an empty goal square. 
4) we have been training for this scenario all preseason. 

Back to school boys to learn basic footy fundamentals.

No

[Tigeritis™©®]

This thread is a joke.

Deflecting your teams inability to follow basic principles of defending is all that's happening here.

If the incident was allowed to be a goal we would've had 5 minutes to defend our lead instead of 2 minutes as was the case with the Whites beauty on the boundary.
The footy gods were smiling at us for once but once again we squandered an opportunity to win the game with 2 minutes left on the clock or 1min 40 by the time the ball was thrown back in.

Knowing our history if the goal was allowed with 5 minutes remaining we probably would've lost by 3 goals. 

The disgrace is this:
1) 6 forwards when we set up for the bounce after the Whites goal. 
2) no player goal side at the boundary throw in. 
3) Ballantyne (their best goal sneak) allowed to run into an empty goal square. 
4) we have been training for this scenario all preseason. 

Back to school boys to learn basic footy fundamentals.

No

Insightful Dooks, and sorry if I'm alittle slow and I'm no mind reader, but Im not sure how you can disagree with what I've stated here.
Please explain....

[mjs]

In mho the umpire overlooked a free kick against the Freo defender for simply moving across the goal line under no pressure. Vickery was on the other side of the post - now that would have caused some discussion.

[bojangles17]

How can there be 5 or more umpires on the case here and not one of the sillys suggested it might be an idea if we review it

[one-eyed]

If the ball remains in play are they allowed to review it? Technically as the ball hit the goal umpire it's still play on if the field umps believed at the time the ball hadn't crossed the line.