Dougal Howard's point.

[CQ SAINT]

Howard annoys me a bit but Im curious why the ump was certain he knocked it out deliberately. The umpire was caught out of position and had no idea what sent the ball out, the same way so many throws and dropping the ball weren't paid.
Interpretation is one thing, bit if you can't see an infringement you can't pay it can you?
I'm not suggesting there is a bias and Interpretation doesn't come into it. You either see it or you don't.
To me, it looked like Howard's attempt to handball through the goals was hindered and the ball went out. But that's just my Interpretation.

[B.M]

I had no problem with the decision

[Joffa Burns]

Same situation will be deliberate 99 out of 100 times.
Clearly a free in my humble opinion.

[shrodes]

Was definitely the right call, but I think it's very possible Dougall got lost under pressure and thought he was punching it through the goals.

[skeptic]

No problem with the call from the ump

I’m under the impression that Howard was upset because he felt that the contact knocked it free rather than his deliberate handball

[SydneySainter]

Free kick every day of the week.

[Yorkeys]

In front of the Geelong crowd and not J. Selwood. Easy decision, low hanging fruit. But so many others seemed equally obvious. Was pleased to see in the back rule has been iced, long thought it was an unnecessary protection for small forwards..

[SaintPav]

It looked like a free to me. He needed to think he's way through that one a bit better.

It was all those dropping the balls and late hits they didn't pay that annoyed me.

[CQ SAINT]

It was a very poor decision from Howard given his proximityto the goals, taking his prior opportunity to dispose of the ball. Many who decided not to take that opportunity and hung on, just throw or drop it were not penalised.
My point is that the ump couldn't have seen enough to know what happened. He relied on on senses, other than vision, in making the decision. This needs to be stamped out of the game, if the drops and throws are going to go unchecked.

[Ghost Like]

Should boundary umpires be able to offer input as to what they see?
You are correct, they should not guess or surmise in any decision if they did not see the action.

[CQ SAINT]

Was it deliberate, or did the player do enough to avoid sending it out, is the question. The tackle impacted his efforts, and for mine, that is the only reasonable assumption based on what the umpire could see.
Interpretation from a boundary umpire might not have changed the decision.
The umpires need to consider the rule before they blow the whistle, not what it looked like from the other pocket.

[Teflon]

Just put it through for a point???
How dumb r we

[Wayne42]

Was definitely the right call, but I think it's very possible Dougall got lost under pressure and thought he was punching it through the goals.

I agree.

[Wayne42]

In another incident a Saints player either marked or got a free, going back for the kick Isaac ran through the protected zone and the ump
gave him a warning. A bit later when a Saints player ran through the protected zone when Geelong got a mark or a free, no warning from the ump just
a 50 meter penalty to Geelong. No consistency.

[kosifantutti]

It’s not a court of law. They don’t have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. They make a decision based on what they see in a split second. It really looked like Howard hanballed it over the line, but IMHO he didn’t make contact with the ball

[Ghost Like]

Cheers kosi but to my way of thinking, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...

Correct decision in a split second & slow mo.

[skeptic]

It’s not a court of law. They don’t have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. They make a decision based on what they see in a split second. It really looked like Howard hanballed it over the line, but IMHO he didn’t make contact with the ball

100% agree - Howard was upset because he didn’t actually handball... it was knocked free

From behind however the handball motion towards the boundary followed by the ball going to the boundary like it had been handballed juxtaposed with the pressure he was under to dispose of the ball made it look like an open and shut case

I reckon technically it’s wrong but 99/100 people pay it

[perfectionist]

No problem with the call from the ump

I’m under the impression that Howard was upset because he felt that the contact knocked it free rather than his deliberate handball

Yes, that's right, but what was he trying to do anyway? He should have been taking it towards the behind line.

[Wayne42]

It’s not a court of law. They don’t have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. They make a decision based on what they see in a split second. It really looked like Howard hanballed it over the line, but IMHO he didn’t make contact with the ball

Thanks, that was a clear handball from Dougal.

[CQ SAINT]

It’s not a court of law. They don’t have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. They make a decision based on what they see in a split second. It really looked like Howard hanballed it over the line, but IMHO he didn’t make contact with the ball

From where he was positioned, the umpire made a lot of assumptions, in a split second.

[saintsRrising]

Howard annoys me a bit but Im curious why the ump was certain he knocked it out deliberately.

Pretty clear it was deliberate. Or at least that it was straight over the line, which makes it a free kick.

[CURLY]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

[Joffa Burns]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Wrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.

[B.M]

Straight towards the boundary line, not trying to keep it in!

Insufficient intent

When he took possession a few meters in front of opponent, why didn’t he turn straight away towards Geelongs goal, or better still towards the StK goal?
He ran straight towards the boundary, it’s like he thought he was closer than he was and was going to run it over under pressure.

He was tackled a meter inside the line and attempted to Hb and it went straight out.

Deliberate

If he didn’t get a fist on it, it’s probably incorrect disposal HTB

[CQ SAINT]

Straight towards the boundary line, not trying to keep it in!

Insufficient intent

When he took possession a few meters in front of opponent, why didn’t he turn straight away towards Geelongs goal, or better still towards the StK goal?
He ran straight towards the boundary, it’s like he thought he was closer than he was and was going to run it over under pressure.

He was tackled a meter inside the line and attempted to Hb and it went straight out.

Deliberate

If he didn’t get a fist on it, it’s probably incorrect disposal HTB

He was tackled as he took possession. Its clear to see in the video above. As I said earlier, the umpire made a lot of split second assumptions about something he couldn't see. All that would have been clear to see from his position was that Howard was intent on not being caught with the ball.