Hardwick calls the goal review system a joke

[gerkin greg]

in retrospect, white should have kicked it into the umps nuts a lot harder

[dwaino]

in retrospect, white should have kicked it into the umps nuts a lot harder

Bit hard when the ump was wearing a hat.

[rogerd3]

regardless of the situation from
last nights game.

ever since this system was introduced it has been
flawed.

shut it down.

[Hellenic Tiger]

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.

When the goal was scored there were 14 players behind the ball at that throw in.
What more do you want MT.
Yes we stuffed it but up until last week we seemed to have won all the close ones.
Not making excuses just presenting facts.
I think blokes like Grigg and co who stand around taking up space and not willing to get their bodies flexed or their hands dirty hurt more.
That ball bounces through for a point we don't talk about goal umps and we win another close one.
Fine line between pleasure and pain. Fact.
Along time to defend is two minutes we win the centre clearance with 2 players in the forward line they get the ball back.
We took a chance and we did not win it. They went forward and got the goal after the third stoppage.
What you are saying whilst it has some merit cannot be a sole contributor considering there were three stoppages before the steam rising from the cow dung bobbed up to kick the winning goal and there were 14 playes behind the ball and as for Jako tapping it goal side and not to the boundary line in that sequence. As tragic as Derickx dropping a simple mark under no pressure. It's acts like these that kill you and put unecessary added pressure to an already hot situation. Jackson's act yesterday IMHO is in the Derickx category and put pressure on his teammates that side of the contest and if anything effectively started the chain of events which won the clearance for Freo.

[Hellenic Tiger]

in retrospect, white should have kicked it into the umps nuts a lot harder

How about kicking the first one like the second.
We'd be 4-1 and celebrating a 4 point win.

How in the world can that goal ump take a step back if the ball is being dribbled towards goal but the moron tries to move his stomach and body back with a kick like that and cornering hiself up against the post giving him nowhere to go. Moron.

[one-eyed]

'Non review' was wrong, says AFL
By Ben Guthrie
 2:50pm AEST Saturday, April 27, 2013


THE AFL says the goal review system should have been used to assess Richmond's contentious disallowed goal in the last quarter of the club's one-point loss to Fremantle at Patersons Stadium on Friday night.

The controversial incident drew the ire of Tigers coach Damien Hardwick, who described the non-referral as a "joke".

On Saturday, the AFL admitted the umpires should have called for a review.

Newly appointed AFL head of football operations Mark Evans will also speak to the umpiring department about their positioning on the goal line.

"The question is, should the (goal) umpires continue to stand in that position, because that's where they are currently coached to stand," AFL media manager Patrick Keane told AFL.com.au on Saturday afternoon.

The confusion around Friday night's decision was based on the fact Tiger forward Matt White's attempt at goal - when his side trailed by two points with three minutes remaining in the final quarter - was impeded when it struck the goal umpire.

It appeared as if the ball may have travelled through the goals, but the Sherrin struck the goal umpire in the field of play as he tried to scramble into position

In the AFL's official law book, it states: 'if the football touches an umpire or any official and does not pass over the goal or behind line, the football shall remain in play.'

However, if the ball struck the goal umpire and crossed the goal line, then the result would have been a goal.

Therefore, White's shot - which hit the umpire and rebounded back in to the field of play - was a live ball until Fremantle midfielder Stephen Hill walked the ball over the line for a behind.

"It was [Richmond's] view that the ball was already over the line when it hit the umpire. So that's why our view was that the umpire should have taken the chance to check if that was possible to know (if the ball was over the line)," Keane said.

In this instance, the goal umpire's signal was the correct one, although his positioning was questionable.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-27/non-review-was-wrong-says-afl

[Rampstar]

Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.

[Smokey]

In this instance, the goal umpire's signal was the correct one, although his positioning was questionable.

Umm, no it wasn't.  The turd had a bird's eye view of where the ball was when it hit him in reference to the goal line.  He could have clearly seen that it was over but my guess is that he shat himself because he didn't know if was going to hit the post or not so he made the call that it wasn't over the line just to protect his arse.

[Penelope]

Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.

yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked

[Rampstar]

Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.

yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked

We dont overlook these things on this time honored and esteemed forum 

[Judge Roughneck]

The issue at hand it

1) the goal umpire should have been six foot behind the line. Not interfering with the play.
2) the AFL morons after 150 years of the game working fine introduce cameras and all this crap at great expense and controversy. and dont bloody well implement the using of them in the obvious possible instant in which to use them
3) we have been shafted not for the first time.

[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.

When the goal was scored there were 14 players behind the ball at that throw in.
What more do you want MT.
Yes we stuffed it but up until last week we seemed to have won all the close ones.
Not making excuses just presenting facts.
I think blokes like Grigg and co who stand around taking up space and not willing to get their bodies flexed or their hands dirty hurt more.
That ball bounces through for a point we don't talk about goal umps and we win another close one.
Fine line between pleasure and pain. Fact.
Along time to defend is two minutes we win the centre clearance with 2 players in the forward line they get the ball back.
We took a chance and we did not win it. They went forward and got the goal after the third stoppage.
What you are saying whilst it has some merit cannot be a sole contributor considering there were three stoppages before the steam rising from the cow dung bobbed up to kick the winning goal and there were 14 playes behind the ball and as for Jako tapping it goal side and not to the boundary line in that sequence. As tragic as Derickx dropping a simple mark under no pressure. It's acts like these that kill you and put unecessary added pressure to an already hot situation. Jackson's act yesterday IMHO is in the Derickx category and put pressure on his teammates that side of the contest and if anything effectively started the chain of events which won the clearance for Freo.

What more do I want.  Um...... To win.
Yes I was spewing in didn't run through for a point at the time too. It may have been a completely different result.
Agreed there were a number of errors.
I personally think we should've stacked the back line and put numbers goal side at the stoppage too.
Jackson did ok on Fyfe when he moved onto him but undone all his good effort with the dumbest decision making and skill errors I've seen in ages.

....I love your description of Ballantyne. Classic. 

[tigs2011]

In b4 we get reamed 30-10 in free kicks next time we play them even at our home ground.

[WilliamPowell]

Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.

yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked

No it isn't when the player taking it over the line is under pressure. The walking the ball over the line by Hill being called a point is the correct call. If there had been no tiger player within say10 metres then it's a free but having Vickery standing next constitutes pressure and it's a point

[Hellenic Tiger]

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.

When the goal was scored there were 14 players behind the ball at that throw in.
What more do you want MT.
Yes we stuffed it but up until last week we seemed to have won all the close ones.
Not making excuses just presenting facts.
I think blokes like Grigg and co who stand around taking up space and not willing to get their bodies flexed or their hands dirty hurt more.
That ball bounces through for a point we don't talk about goal umps and we win another close one.
Fine line between pleasure and pain. Fact.
Along time to defend is two minutes we win the centre clearance with 2 players in the forward line they get the ball back.
We took a chance and we did not win it. They went forward and got the goal after the third stoppage.
What you are saying whilst it has some merit cannot be a sole contributor considering there were three stoppages before the steam rising from the cow dung bobbed up to kick the winning goal and there were 14 playes behind the ball and as for Jako tapping it goal side and not to the boundary line in that sequence. As tragic as Derickx dropping a simple mark under no pressure. It's acts like these that kill you and put unecessary added pressure to an already hot situation. Jackson's act yesterday IMHO is in the Derickx category and put pressure on his teammates that side of the contest and if anything effectively started the chain of events which won the clearance for Freo.

What more do I want.  Um...... To win.
Yes I was spewing in didn't run through for a point at the time too. It may have been a completely different result.
Agreed there were a number of errors.
I personally think we should've stacked the back line and put numbers goal side at the stoppage too.
Jackson did ok on Fyfe when he moved onto him but undone all his good effort with the dumbest decision making and skill errors I've seen in ages.

....I love your description of Ballantyne. Classic. 

Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club.