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.
Official Game Day thread - 2nd Elimination final Vs Kangaroos
Collapse
X
-
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.RoosComment
-
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?Comment
-
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
-
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.
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 09Comment
-
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 2005Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.Does God believe in Atheists?Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.
Sounds like Gieschen is making-up rules on the run again.Comment
-
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
Comment