MIA: The Rule Book

[tony_montana]

Where's the super slomo HD cameras? 1.5billion dollar TV rights my arse. 

[Simonator]

I can't post a pic coz I'm on the road but cmon, there's one of these reviews every week and whenever you see the fingers fly back it's obvious the ball has hit them back. Your arguement about no deflection.. the smother was so close to the boot it's impossible to tell what path the ball was on anyway and the deflection was so subtle that it wouldn't cause much of a deflection either.
Are you telling me that on the replay you can't see the ball go past the defenders hand and his fingers move back ?

[Owl]

It was touched.  We should never of been in a position to be relying on it anyway.  The Rance one was also fair.  There were other poo decisions but I am not gonna blame the umps for our loss on this one, couple went our way, couple went their way.  We missed absolute sodas, kicks a tweener would of nailed.

[Jackstar 1960]

Why didn't the two field umpires standing one boundary side and the other 10 metres away in the corridor call touched ?
Goal umpire didn't call for a review either
Seriously just because the AFL introduce technology to the game doesn't mean it's right. Coming from a governing body where the rules change on a weekly basis
Similar to the cricket issue with LBW, at least they have it right , if the ball was to be hitting middle stump , 100% you are out
If its hitting leg stump , there is some doubt although little , it's given not out
Next thing the AFL will be saying if a hair touches the ball , it's touched
Goal should of been paid as per field umpires and goal umpires decisions
It wasn't a howler and no review by onfield umpires
End of story

[YellowandBlackBlood]

All goals are reviewed whether they are asked to be or not apparently......

[WilliamPowell]

It was clearly touched.

No one can show me a pic of the hand touching the ball , but most claim it was touched
Next thing will be a hair touched the ball therefore it was touched
Please spare me
The AFL need to fix this
If there is no deflection , it hasn't been touched
It's not guess work
Anyone watch the Adelaide game last week when the ball skimmed the post and there was a deflection and it was still given a goal ?
Last night was a joke
Please those who claim it was touched , please post the pic
No deflection, the ball wasn't touched
And those who have played the game of football would know if the ball hits your fingertip, the ball changes course and deflects away

They showed the vision in slow motion and in HD and sadly there is no doubt it was touched. See a finger bend, which means it was touched

[Tigeritis™©®]

We lost because we are soft and have no backbone. We are timid and petrified. Too many girlsblouses in this team that are scared of their own shadow.

This is the legacy Hardwick will leave us. 





Or we can live in denial and look for other excuses 

[WilliamPowell]

All goals are reviewed whether they are asked to be or not apparently......

Have said a number of times. All goals are reviewed while the ball is heading back to the centre. Has been since the review system was bought in

[Jackstar 1960]

Understand that
I ain't dumb
My beef is the interpretation of the rules
As I explained with what happens with the cricket
Why should technology intervene when 3 umpires within 20 metres could see a tiny fingertip or hair touch the ball ?
Also only two players claimed they touched it .Phil Davis being one , he was 6 inches away
Rule is wrong
Cost us the game
And please someone have a look at the Adelaide goal that hit the post last week
Even KB mentioned it on his show last Monday , ball deflected off the post and given a goal
What's fair

[Jackstar 1960]

All goals are reviewed whether they are asked to be or not apparently......

It doesn't mean it's right cause they do it
They didn't look hard enough if that's the case last weekend with the Adelaide player
Clearly hit post
AFL change the rules each week
They don't have much idea about deliberate and holding the ball
How is a person in a room at the ground watching a TV going to make the correct decision when 3 umpires within 20 metres don't see it

[YellowandBlackBlood]

All goals are reviewed whether they are asked to be or not apparently......

It doesn't mean it's right cause they do it
They didn't look hard enough if that's the case last weekend with the Adelaide player
Clearly hit post
AFL change the rules each week
They don't have much idea about deliberate and holding the ball
How is a person in a room at the ground watching a TV going to make the correct decision when 3 umpires within 20 metres don't see it

They made a mistake last week. It did not effect the result. I am happy with that rule. If we had touched he ball and it wasn't called, I'd be livered.  What I'm not happy with is the constant change from week to week with rules. They should be the same for the whole year, not change from week to week and even game to game. We need to take interpretation by umpires out of it as much as possible. The more black and white rules, the better.  None of this degree of intent to keep the ball in and how much pressure you're in to rush a behind. That is all rubbish.

[Jackstar 1960]

I just watched it again
Wasn't clearly touched at all
The ball never deviated at all
There is some doubt that the ball was touched
It's not 100% as Rohan Connolly explained today , so why not go with the umpires call

Leave it up to the umpires I say
If they asked for a review , then review it
Technology should not be making decisions

[Jackstar 1960]

Give you all a tip
" Robbo " unloads in the Herald
sun tomorrow about the 50 metres that wasn't paid and other aspects of umpiring as well

[WilliamPowell]

I just watched it again
Wasn't clearly touched at all
The ball never deviated at all
There is some doubt that the ball was touched
It's not 100% as Rohan Connolly explained today , so why not go with the umpires call

Leave it up to the umpires I say
If they asked for a review , then review it
Technology should not be making decisions

For it to be touched the ball doesn't need to deviate

I've watched it a number of times too, the finger bends = it was touched

You seem to be basing your entire case on the fact the ball didn't deviate in flight. The vision clears shows the player touched it, the fact the ball didn't deviate isn't relevant.

As for Rohan I thought you didn't rate him as a journo but today you're using him as the voice of reason on whether it was touched

Is the system perfect? No but we are stuck with it

[Jackstar 1960]

WP
The cricket version of LBW works fine
The theory of it does hit middle stump it ain't out
Saturday was not 100% definitive
Human judgement should take precedent
No review
Technology cannot be umpiring the game
I know it's the rule , but doesn't mean it right