TOPIC:

Terror how about the push in the back that McPharlin received in the last quarter which was not paid? Instead the Richmond player was awarded a mark and directly resulted in a Richmond goal. Also, why wasn't a 50 metre penalty paid when the Richmond played transgressed over the mark in the last quarter?

Neither incorrect decision was maade by a goal umpire; they were made by field umpire(s). So far we have two incorrect decisions by field umpires compared to, a tenuous at best, mistake by the goal umpire.

If you care to go through the entire match you will find a number of other field umpiring errors which would have had the potential to change the scores of both teams.

How many of those saying it should be reviewed suggest that the video shows the ball clearly crossed the line.

anchorman wrote: How about the Barlow kick from the back pocket.The ball didn't even come back into play, should that not have been brought back and Barlow made to retake the kick!!!
A lot of decisions were made and are made every game some good some bad.Listening to 360 last night they were adamant that the right decision was made.
But I guess we all see what we want to see,or judge how we want to judge.It seems to me that from what I have heard and seen the majority think the decision was right.Maybe they AFL needs to correct the way the goal umpires position themselves in future,but as were the rules on Friday night the correct decision was made.
So Unka does that mean that the Selwood goal on the weekend shouldn't have been allowed as well!!!I don't think that went to review either did it.From what I saw he plainly missed the ball.

Haha.. say no more!

anchorman wrote: How about the Barlow kick from the back pocket.The ball didn't even come back into play, should that not have been brought back and Barlow made to retake the kick!!!
A lot of decisions were made and are made every game some good some bad.Listening to 360 last night they were adamant that the right decision was made.
But I guess we all see what we want to see,or judge how we want to judge.It seems to me that from what I have heard and seen the majority think the decision was right.Maybe they AFL needs to correct the way the goal umpires position themselves in future,but as were the rules on Friday night the correct decision was made.
So Unka does that mean that the Selwood goal on the weekend shouldn't have been allowed as well!!!I don't think that went to review either did it.From what I saw he plainly missed the ball.

Joels was a goal!, it grazed the 5th stud on the left hand side on his right boot im sure!!!

OOOOH, if only the game was 5 seconds longer, could have been a draw. Probably a fairer eventuation. Ripper none the less.

Well how about this one Freo fan no. 1,
If it was the Eagles v Tigers I would have said the Tigers were unlucky but I'm happy to take the 4 points. However I am footy first, Eagles second. That may just take some of the pigheadedness out of me.
Also the ball was inside the top of the square, wouldn't have taken much for a player to be pushed over the line or it to be punched through.
But you're right the game wasn't 5 seconds longer, cheers for moderating my humble comment Anchorman. Appreciate it.

Hey Aman I see that goal ump in question last week was dropped for this round of AFL fixtures.. Maybe he was late for training!