Was it a point?

thrylos7 · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:01 pm **Posts:** 1381

at half time, the bummers were awarded a behind after the ball was punched through.

i want to see the replay but was it a legit point?

bluehammer · **Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:10 pm

I didn't think so. I thought touched on the line was OK, thumped through after the siren was play on.

Could be wrong...

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

I'm with Hammer.

If it was punched through by a Bummer, then it's play on, ie: dead ball.

F*cking cheats! :evil:

slow_mo · **Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:18 pm

I thought that at the time too. I was under the impression that it should be a dead ball and no score.

Abaddon · **Joined:** Fri May 13, 2005 10:45 pm **Posts:** 423

and Thornton touched a goal paid to Lucas.

Jarusa · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am **Posts:** 23123

This is the pic at the point of contact from Foxtel.

Patrick Ryder (I think :?:

) is the essendoomed player and there are two carlton players. Looks like they all seem to make contact with the ball, although Ryder did come at the pack with momentum and a straight arm, so maybe his contact sent it throught the goalface.

Not sure what the rules are but it could be argued it was off a pack.

camel · **Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 8:42 pm

Jarusa wrote:

This is the pic at the point of contact from Foxtel.

Patrick Ryder (I think :?:

) is the essendoomed player and there are two carlton players. Looks like they all seem to make contact with the ball, although Ryder did come at the pack with momentum and a straight arm, so maybe his contact sent it throught the goalface.

Not sure what the rules are but it could be argued it was off a pack.

They said it was off the pack on the telly.

Pfft who cares, we didn't lose, the Bumbers are still below us, that's all that really matters.

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

camelboy wrote:

Pfft who cares, we didn't lose, the Bumbers are still below us, that's all that really matters.

Very true.

Plus, the draw will piss their supporters off even more than a loss!

true_blue3 · **Joined:** Tue May 16, 2006 8:57 pm **Posts:** 6836

the ruling is that a player from the same team cannot hit the ball through the goals in that case its no point but if an opposition player hits the ball through the goals then it is awarded a point and it was very obvious that ryder fisted the ball through the goals therefore the point shouldnt have been awarded. the only thing im annoyed about is that we were the team that ended their losing streak. :evil:

Buzz · **Joined:** Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:48 pm **Posts:** 49

Haven't seen a replay - didn't actually watch the incident but was shocked when the ump called it a point. Law is as follows:

Quote:

12.5.2 Football Touched in Transit
A Behind shall still be recorded under Law 12.5.1 if the football is
touched in transit by another Player, provided the field Umpire is
satisfied that the scoring of the Behind was not assisted by a Player
from the same Team.

Of course the other issue was the first Lucas goal of the game was clearly touched - yet given a goal. So if both decisions went our way - a 6pt victory to us.

Shoshie · **Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 9:20 pm

Thornton touched the ball. Hence a point.

:arrow:

The ball didn't go in after Lucas kicked it, nor did it go in at all. Hence nothing.

Video Referee :lol:

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

BlueChick2122 wrote:

:arrow: Thornton touched the ball. Hence a point.

:arrow:

The ball didn't go in after Lucas kicked it, nor did it go in at all. Hence nothing.

Video Referee :lol:

And in every case where video proves the maggots wrong, we get to batter Jeff Gieschen with a dead turkey.

Shippy_cfc · **Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:18 pm

Was very confused by that decision today, was up in arms, but no support from the carlton supporters sitting around me.

Jeez we kicked some flukey goals today. Simmo and Kouta from the boundary,

bluehammer · **Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 10:38 pm

As I said on the drive home, I didn't want to entertain the idea of the game being 'awarded' to us because of that (it wouldn't have been, but it was a hypothetical discussion).

Winning is a feeling that must take place at the ground. After that, I didn't care.

Of course if it got us in to the top 4 I may feel differently, but I've got at least 5 years to come to terms with that situation I reckon.

jack_4 · **Posted:** Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:25 pm

true_blue24 wrote:

the ruling is that a player from the same team cannot hit the ball through the goals in that case its no point but if an opposition player hits the ball through the goals then it is awarded a point and it was very obvious that ryder fisted the ball through the goals therefore the point shouldnt have been awarded. the only thing im annoyed about is that we were the team that ended their losing streak. :evil:

Actually, the ruling is that a behind can't be rushed after the siren. It can be touched (and therefore have the behind awarded to Lucas) but the ball was rushed and shouldn't be awarded a point. It has nothing to do with which team hit it over.

true_blue3 · **Joined:** Tue May 16, 2006 8:57 pm **Posts:** 6836

jack_4 wrote:

true_blue24 wrote:

the ruling is that a player from the same team cannot hit the ball through the goals in that case its no point but if an opposition player hits the ball through the goals then it is awarded a point and it was very obvious that ryder fisted the ball through the goals therefore the point shouldnt have been awarded. the only thing im annoyed about is that we were the team that ended their losing streak. :evil:

Actually, the ruling is that a behind can't be rushed after the siren. It can be touched (and therefore have the behind awarded to Lucas) but the ball was rushed and shouldn't be awarded a point. It has nothing to do with which team hit it over.

please have a look at the rule which buzz has posted earlier in this topic.

Was it a point?

Who is online