Lost point

[NMWBloods]

The thread is actually about the rushed behind (not about poor umpiring or the Mattner goal) and the thing I am questioning is the archaic approach to a modern game that we lost a point because the field umpire did not give the all-clear and at 3QT when the umpires reviewed it they couldn't address the situation sensibly.

[TheMase]

The thread is actually about the rushed behind (not about poor umpiring or the Mattner goal) and the thing I am questioning is the archaic approach to a modern game that we lost a point because the field umpire did not give the all-clear and at 3QT when the umpires reviewed it they couldn't address the situation sensibly.

Rule needs to be changed to the goal umpire judges a score unless the field umpire intervenes. Rather than the field umpire giving permission to the goal umpire to judge a score.

I find it amazing that they did not give us the point. They are very lucky the game was not closer (especially with the Mattner debacle included).

[Seagoon]

Yeah I agree it wasn't a good look for the game. It just goes to show the power of red tape, and the lack of power of red tape.

[Bob Neil]

The thread is actually about the rushed behind (not about poor umpiring or the Mattner goal) and the thing I am questioning is the archaic approach to a modern game that we lost a point because the field umpire did not give the all-clear and at 3QT when the umpires reviewed it they couldn't address the situation sensibly.

OK, back to the goal.... My theory is it was touched by the hand of God. Adelaide is the City of Churches and the big bopper was not too far away from the SCG a few weeks ago....

[sprite]

OK, back to the goal.... My theory is it was touched by the hand of God. Adelaide is the City of Churches and the big bopper was not too far away from the SCG a few weeks ago....

Damn..it's Kirks fault he hangs out with the Dalai, no wonder the big fella intervened.

Let's blame Kirky

[ScottH]

Damn..it's Kirks fault he hangs out with the Dalai, no wonder the big fella intervened.

Let's blame Kirky

Blame Crouch, he had a word with his holiness.
Either he failed to impress on him the importance of the game, or was it the fact Crouch wasn't out there.

[BSA5]

Blame Crouch, he had a word with his holiness.
Either he failed to impress on him the importance of the game, or was it the fact Crouch wasn't out there.

Maybe Crouch is gunning for Mattner's place in the side?

[liz]

The AFL has 'fessed up to the blunder (but maintains that the Mattner "goal" was a point).

Ump faces sack for Sydney v Adelaide blunder | Herald Sun

I thought the rule was that a player can kick-in after a behind before teh umpies waved their flags but not before they had signalled the behind. Therefore the ball could have been brought back had the goal and field umpires been on the ball. Does anyone recall whether Adelaide scored directly from the ensuing kick-in? If they did, it could be argued that that score is invalid too.

Luckily for everyone it doesn't look like making much difference thanks to Sydney's draw. And although North are now the team most closely breathing down our necks on the ladder and they have the draw too (clearly), our % is so much better than theirs that it would take some huge blowouts in remaining games for North's % to get close to ours.

[goswannie14]

The AFL has 'fessed up to the blunder (but maintains that the Mattner "goal" was a point).

Ump faces sack for Sydney v Adelaide blunder | Herald Sun

I thought the rule was that a player can kick-in after a behind before teh umpies waved their flags but not before they had signalled the behind. Therefore the ball could have been brought back had the goal and field umpires been on the ball. Does anyone recall whether Adelaide scored directly from the ensuing kick-in? If they did, it could be argued that that score is invalid too.

Luckily for everyone it doesn't look like making much difference thanks to Sydney's draw. And although North are now the team most closely breathing down our necks on the ladder and they have the draw too (clearly), our % is so much better than theirs that it would take some huge blowouts in remaining games for North's % to get close to ours.

If that goal had hit the post, why did the goal umpire not signal that? That's my beef with his decision.

[NMWBloods]

I thought the rule was that a player can kick-in after a behind before teh umpies waved their flags but not before they had signalled the behind.

Correct AFAIK.

[Primmy]

If that goal had hit the post, why did the goal umpire not signal that? That's my beef with his decision.

Easy, silly billy. It didn't hit the post. Just ineptitutde, stupidity, and probably from Adelaide. I was there, behind the post (kinda) and it didn't deviate, it didn't touch the post, it didn't touch the padding. AAAAGGGGHHHH!

How cool is Mattner, I would have been doing my narna.

[royboy42]

The goal decision left me scratching my head..it seemed to me at the game that the field ump signalled a point (calling the all clear with one hand to his mouth)..I'm certain I saw him do that. And my impression then was that the goal ump maybe changed his mind after seeing that signal from the fieldy and called it a point! But , as ppl here have said, if it hit the post, the goalie shd have tapped the post..Buggered if i know what happened!

[SimonH]

If that goal had hit the post, why did the goal umpire not signal that? That's my beef with his decision.

Absolutely correct. And furthermore, if it were a clear 'the ball clipped the padding-- hit the post' decision, why did there need to be a 4-way confab with field umpire and 2 boundary umpires? Bash yourself in the chest. Get the all clear. Signal a point. Bang the post. End of story. Never happened. This is clearly a case where based on media coverage, the goal umpire has come up with an alternative explanation for his decision, which is going to be regarded as more credible than the genuine, clearly wrong, decision he made at the time.

By the way, sacking the goal umpire for the rushed behind is an absolute cop-out and the worst sort of 'make-up free kick' (i.e. he should only really be sacked for deciding that a goal was a point).

Two points indicate that the field umpire was in the wrong, even if he gave the 'all clear' as he claims:

1. Look at any competent field umpire who is giving the all clear. He is looking squarely at the goal umpire and ensures he has his attention. Obviously never happened, and he just ran off with his back to the goal umpire and was unable to be summonsed once it was clear the signal (if given) had never been seen. Anyone who's seen the replay can see the goal umpire's head bobbing & weaving to get the field umpire's attention to no avail; but no, according to the AFL the goal umpire was just mesmerised ball-watching like an under 8 in his first game of footy.

2. There is no rule allowing the team to bring the ball in simply because 'everyone agrees' that a behind has been scored. It is the signalling of a point that is the catalyst for a quick kick-in. No signalling of point: no kick in. It was the field umpire's job to stop the play, bringing the ball back from the Adelaide kick, until the point had been signalled. Has happened plenty of times since the rule change.