TOPIC:

The correct decision was not made, even the AFL have come out & said it was the wrong decision & it should of been reviewed. Why do goal umps need to be in the field of play anyway?
www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership...frf3e3-1226630620387

Once again we have the inane discussion about goal umpires and their supposed impact on the result.

The first point he was in the correct position according to the goal umpires' guidelines.

The second point is for all those people who make a comment about whether it was a goal or not and whether it should have been reviewed would they like to go through the many, many decisions where a free kick was paid incorrectly or not paid in the forward line by the field umpires in that same match. When it comes to whether a goal umpire's mistake or the many field umpires' mistakes have a greater impact on the results of games I know which one I would pick. To provide evidence to support my position in the Swan Districts versus Peel game Lammie was penalised for a throw in the back line folowing a stoppage. It is my understanding that the umpires' department have informed Swans that it was the incorrect decision. Remarkably given that we have been told that umpires don't guess the umpire who was incapable of determining whether it was a throw or a hand pass umpired league the following week.

Why there is this unfathomable outbreak of indignation with respect to goal umpiring and yet field umpires are immune from any criticism is beyond me.

Also, surely the Richmond player's mistake is many, many times more significant.

Swan if the ump was in the correct position the ball would not of hit him.

From Anchorman:
According to the AFL he was in the correct position.
Nobody could say for sure if the ball had passed completely over the white line.If it hadn't then then correct call was made.Not evn a revue would have convinced any on that it was a goal.The rule states that if the ball hits the umpire and stays in play then it is play on.A correct decision was made.

Absolutely right, the goal ump was exactly where he had been instructed to be, the ball never crossed the line, it hit the ump and stayed in play - play on! Would it have been a goal if it didn't hit the umpire, probably it would have, we will never know.
Obviously the position that the umpire was in wasn't ideal for the situation, not sure a camera would have made it much more clear. Richmond were very unlucky as it turns out.

Terror whether you think he was in the wrong position, at the time he was umpiring he was following instructions as to where he should be standing. Whether there is a change or not to where they should stand does not in any way make a scintilla of difference to the match.

Goal umpire mistakes are so few compared to the plethora of field umpiring mistakes each match which directly affect many, many matches.

Unlucky insofaras the Richmond made a mistake by not trying to mark the ball or kick it over the line.

anchorman wrote: Terror check out he AFL web site and see what Geishan the umpires man has to say.All the crap about the AFL saying they got it wrong is just that CRAP.Maybe they got it wrong by not reviewing the decision but that is all.There is nothing,zip,zero,nada nought etc to say that Richmond were robbed of a goal.The correct decision was made,
FULL STOP.

SERIOUSLY a/man, if you hold ANY credence to ANYTHING that spews out of Gieshan says, i do indeed have concerns for you logic.

Didn't watch the game anchor coz neither team interests me, but saw the 'event' a few times. Put whatever Freo slant on it that you want, but it really does appear that Richmond was robbed at the worst and there should have been a review at the least.

Anchor I agree with you in relation to the goal umpire. when the ball hits any umpire, they are regarded as invisible so the ball goes where it goes,so in that instance the correct ruling was made. A video replay would not have shed any further light on it, I wouldn't have thought (does the replay shed light on any decision?) I was more interested in Steven Hills action of rushing a behind under no pressure and the ruling as to whether that should have been deliberate?

mike do you not think the umpire obstructed a certain scoring result from his stupid positioning?