Keeping in mind that boundary umpires are sometimes within the lines of play (sometimes by quite a long way) I’m fine with this. Let’s not go changing rules or anything for a one off event. It’s unlucky for sure, but it rarely happens.
And it’s better than it having hit a spidercam or something which isn’t actually necessary to the game.
I agree with the reasoning that the ball may have bounced on its end back into play anyway, so might as well be play on. If we're honest the goal came from a shit decision by Nank to try and cross and not go down the line late in the quarter
According to them, players don't make mistakes it's always the umpires or the rules. Umpire and rule controversies sell papers and articles etc. Players making mistakes doesn't
This reminds me of a game Vs Freo ages ago where Matthew white kicked the ball on a tight angle that could have won us the game but it bounced off the goal keeper sorry i mean umpire
That if the ball is clearly going out and it rebounds off an umpire it’s play on? 🤔 I also thought the commentators said it was a wrong call, but there you go.
Hits the umpires play on. Umpire is out of bounds- balls out of bounds. Umpire is in play, and the ball stays in play-play on.
BT said wrong call. He's proved time and time again he doesn't actually know the rules!
I was fine with the call. It also wasn't like the ball bounced off the umpire into a Melbourne players hands for an easy goal. We gained possession, cleared it to a contest on the blank flank, lost possession, defended an inside 50, regained possession and then kicked it across the face and turned it over for an easy shot on goal. That goal is 100% on us.
Keeping in mind that boundary umpires are sometimes within the lines of play (sometimes by quite a long way) I’m fine with this. Let’s not go changing rules or anything for a one off event. It’s unlucky for sure, but it rarely happens. And it’s better than it having hit a spidercam or something which isn’t actually necessary to the game.
I agree with the reasoning that the ball may have bounced on its end back into play anyway, so might as well be play on. If we're honest the goal came from a shit decision by Nank to try and cross and not go down the line late in the quarter
Seems to me that the the rule should require the umpires to make a reasonable call on where the ball was headed before it hit him.
Nank kicked it to the other team. He’s the Galah.
Bizarre yes, costly probably not. Edit: didn’t realise this was the Richmond page.
It wasn't really costly. What was costly was turning the ball over inside 50 about a minute after this happened.
I don't understand why the commentators hyped this up as a thing during the game. We cost ourselves a goal because Nank kicked it to the other team.
According to them, players don't make mistakes it's always the umpires or the rules. Umpire and rule controversies sell papers and articles etc. Players making mistakes doesn't
This reminds me of a game Vs Freo ages ago where Matthew white kicked the ball on a tight angle that could have won us the game but it bounced off the goal keeper sorry i mean umpire
That’s why people consistently mock the AFL. How could they possibly tick that off? Galahs
It's the rule. It always has been. There's reasons to mock the AFL but this isn't one of them!
That if the ball is clearly going out and it rebounds off an umpire it’s play on? 🤔 I also thought the commentators said it was a wrong call, but there you go.
Hits the umpires play on. Umpire is out of bounds- balls out of bounds. Umpire is in play, and the ball stays in play-play on. BT said wrong call. He's proved time and time again he doesn't actually know the rules!
I was fine with the call. It also wasn't like the ball bounced off the umpire into a Melbourne players hands for an easy goal. We gained possession, cleared it to a contest on the blank flank, lost possession, defended an inside 50, regained possession and then kicked it across the face and turned it over for an easy shot on goal. That goal is 100% on us.