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

[one-eyed]

This was overturned as a behind despite the goalumpire believing it was goal.

Thoughts?


http://www.sportingnews.com/au/afl/news/josh-caddy-lynden-dunn-richmond-tigers-collingwood-magpies/1gnmfcg5yt2dd1dfg3d7ofii14

[Hard Roar Tiger]

Cost us %

[Muscles]

I thought that both the goal reviews, where the goal umpire was in perfect position, were very questionable.  Both dodgy decisions.

[mightytiges]

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.

[Muscles]

Dimma paid out on both of the reviews at his post match presser.  Wonder how much the AFL will charge him for it?

[Tigeritis™©®]

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.

If the padding counts then the goal line should be as thick as the padding so there’s no confusion.

[Knighter]

Padding or no padding it was a stuffen goal

[wayne]

Goal

[WilliamPowell]

Umps call was it was a goal

The review was inconclusive so it should reamin with the original decision

Outside of that, it was clearly a goal

[Slipper]

Caddy did say on the radio that it was touched off his boot.

The decision I don't get it the Riewoldt one. How can they conclusively overturn the decision to give it as a goal on the footage available.

I thought these reviews would be like Cricket reviews, where the umpires call stood unless there was clear evidence to overturn it.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

The review should be used for clear mistakes.

It's not there to try to measure angstroms.....

[Chuck17]

Goal

[TigerLand]

Thought the umps had a stinker today.

Multiple holding the ball missed. Pendles in middle and against Dusty on Members wing. Soft crap 50m. Contact in marking contests and then add goal reviews.

Both were just goals.

[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.

[YellowandBlackBlood]

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.