Official Game Day thread - 2nd Elimination final Vs Kangaroos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • BigD
    Swans Tragic No. 1
    • Apr 2007
    • 394

    Just watching a replay of the game. The first two kangas goals were IMHO absolute BS! However it looked like we got a bit of square-up early in the second quarter.
    Red & White forever.

    Comment

    • shaun..
      Stuck in Reserves
      • Jun 2007
      • 691

      Originally posted by BigD
      Just watching a replay of the game. The first two kangas goals were IMHO absolute BS! However it looked like we got a bit of square-up early in the second quarter.
      Having a pretty good view of it at the game, it appeared as though Kirk was reaching for the ball and then Hale helped it along its way. Tough call - but at the time i thought it was the right call.

      The Harvey goal was rather bemusing, it clearly passed the line and posts/padding...on replay there was three of them (goal ump and boundary umps) and they all missed it. How?
      "In some ways we?re less predictable to ourselves and sometimes that can be detrimental because we don?t really know where we?re going" - P.Roos

      Comment

      • Lohengrin
        On the Rookie List
        • Jul 2008
        • 641

        Didn't look to be anything wrong with the first free kick. Kirk dived on the ball, it spilled out and Hale dragged it back in under him. That happens every game and our players do it too.

        Comment

        • Frog
          Retired from RWO
          • Aug 2005
          • 1898

          Originally posted by shaun..
          Having a pretty good view of it at the game, it appeared as though Kirk was reaching for the ball and then Hale helped it along its way. Tough call - but at the time i thought it was the right call.

          The Harvey goal was rather bemusing, it clearly passed the line and posts/padding...on replay there was three of them (goal ump and boundary umps) and they all missed it. How?
          According to the Hun on Wednesday (?) the umpire review found that the Harvey goal decision was the correct one. Apparantly the ball had not completely crossed the line and the awarded goal was correct. The point awarded for the goal later on has resulted in the goal umpire that made that decision to be dropped from umpiring duties this week.

          Comment

          • swantastic
            Veterans List
            • Jan 2006
            • 7275

            I thought Leo and Bevo were pretty good the other night.
            Now this is a thread that i would expect on the ego -centric, wank session that is redandwhiteonline.com...

            Comment

            • Triple B
              Formerly 'BBB'
              • Feb 2003
              • 6999

              Originally posted by Frog
              According to the Hun on Wednesday (?) the umpire review found that the Harvey goal decision was the correct one. Apparantly the ball had not completely crossed the line and the awarded goal was correct. The point awarded for the goal later on has resulted in the goal umpire that made that decision to be dropped from umpiring duties this week.
              Surely both goal umps got dropped.

              Not withstanding that they found the Harvey one a goal, the same goal ump was about to award Vespa a goal when Stevie Wonder could have seen the ball deflect of Josh Gibson's outstretched arm 3 metres in front of him. If McBurney hadn't intervened it was 6 points.
              Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

              Comment

              • sharp9
                Senior Player
                • Jan 2003
                • 2508

                According the the Giesch, the rule is that the WHOLE of the ball has to have passed the WHOLE of the PADDING.....not the line....so if there was a sliover of ball not passed the back of the padding when harvey kicked it it can be called a goal.

                Hope that clarifies things....also explains Kirk's non-goal in the other match against North.
                "I'll acknowledge there are more talented teams in the competition but I won't acknowledge that there is a better team in the competition" Paul Roos March 2005

                Comment

                • DeadlyAkkuret
                  Veterans List
                  • Oct 2006
                  • 4547

                  Originally posted by sharp9
                  According the the Giesch, the rule is that the WHOLE of the ball has to have passed the WHOLE of the PADDING.....not the line....so if there was a sliover of ball not passed the back of the padding when harvey kicked it it can be called a goal.

                  Hope that clarifies things....also explains Kirk's non-goal in the other match against North.
                  Wow, how ridiculous. It had clearly passed every part of the post!

                  Comment

                  • goswannie14
                    Leadership Group
                    • Sep 2005
                    • 11166

                    Originally posted by sharp9
                    According the the Giesch, the rule is that the WHOLE of the ball has to have passed the WHOLE of the PADDING.....not the line....so if there was a sliover of ball not passed the back of the padding when harvey kicked it it can be called a goal.

                    Hope that clarifies things....also explains Kirk's non-goal in the other match against North.
                    I said in the other thread (on goal umpires) that the commentators were talking about the fact that you have to kick the ball before the line for it to be a goal. It seems that either Geischan has forgotten that part of the rule, or it has been changed.
                    Does God believe in Atheists?

                    Comment

                    • bodgie
                      Regular in the Side
                      • Jul 2007
                      • 501

                      Originally posted by sharp9
                      According the the Giesch, the rule is that the WHOLE of the ball has to have passed the WHOLE of the PADDING.....not the line....so if there was a sliover of ball not passed the back of the padding when harvey kicked it it can be called a goal.

                      Hope that clarifies things....also explains Kirk's non-goal in the other match against North.
                      So an umpire now has to bear in mind if a ball is higher than the padding or not if it is touched when it crosses the width of posts or padding. Is padding always the same height? Poor bastards.

                      Comment

                      • chammond
                        • Jan 2003
                        • 1368

                        Originally posted by sharp9
                        According the the Giesch, the rule is that the WHOLE of the ball has to have passed the WHOLE of the PADDING.....not the line....so if there was a sliover of ball not passed the back of the padding when harvey kicked it it can be called a goal.

                        Hope that clarifies things....also explains Kirk's non-goal in the other match against North.
                        Doesn't clarify anything really. The rule (12.1.1) simply says "a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team". There is no mention of the padding in relation to a goal, only in relation to scoring a behind.

                        Sounds like Gieschen is making-up rules on the run again.

                        Comment

                        • BSA5
                          Senior Player
                          • Feb 2008
                          • 2522

                          Why can't it just be:

                          If it crosses the white line on the ground, it's a goal. If it hits the post or padding, it's a point.

                          Done, easy.
                          Officially on the Reid and Sumner bandwagon!

                          Comment

                          • chammond
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 1368

                            Originally posted by BSA5
                            Why can't it just be:

                            If it crosses the white line on the ground, it's a goal. If it hits the post or padding, it's a point.

                            Done, easy.
                            That's pretty much what the rules actually say. All the other BS only exists in the minds of footy commentators (and Gieschen, apparently).

                            Comment

                            Working...