The Mihocek goal that wasn't

thebaldfacts · Joined: 02 Aug 2007

A lot of talk about the Mihocek goal that glanced the post and should have been a behind.

From what I saw, the umpire paid a free as he was knocked after he kicked it.

Because it was a goal, I assumed advantage was just paid.

If they reviewed the decision and changed it to a behind then would Mihocek have been able to take the free kick?

npalm · Joined: 01 May 2005

You would certainly think so tbf.
The question would be whether the ump would be switched on enough to realise that the free kick should be paid instead of going to a kickout.

MatthewBoydFanClub · Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Location: Elwood

Actually it was a push in the back after he kicked the goal, which makes it a 50m penalty that should have been paid directly in front of goal, that is if the goal wasn’t paid. As usual anything to do with Collingwood is turned into a beat up.

BazBoy · Joined: 11 Sep 2014

AFL website says they got it wrong —-it did brush padding

And Thomas goal they said was touched

Bruce Gonsalves · Joined: 05 Jul 2012

At the time I thought Checkers may have been awarded another kick for a double goal. He was pushed after he kicked it. What's the diff between Richmond's Lynch's double goal last week and this one?

AnthonyC · Joined: 09 Aug 2002 Location: Melbourne, Victoria

That's an interesting one.

Along the same lines, does anyone think that Stevo could also have been awarded a free kick after his goal at the end of the 1Q? mcstay from brisbane slid and took Stevo's legs out after he had kicked it. For a moment I thought please I hope he isn't injured, thankfully he was ok but the potential was there for a serious incident as mcstay was coming in fast. It was accidental I have no doubt but did it infringe the contact below the knees rule?

eddiesmith · Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:58 pm

Mihocek was pushed before the ball crossed the line, therefore it is either a goal or a free kick where the ball bounced which was in the goal square. Not a free kick to him but whoever was closest to the goal square.

It’s not worth 2 goals because the infringement occurred before the ball went through for a goal. The Lynch incident occurred after the ball had gone through for a goal so the 2 goals.

K · Joined: 09 Sep 2011

think positive · Side By Side Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere

So the scumpires finally admit to getting something wrong. - against us of course!!

It’s a conspiracy I tell ya!

BazBoy · Joined: 11 Sep 2014

AFL site that highlights this error also believe there was one that favoured us
in last weeks game— Bevo meant to be mystified

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

Sometimes umpires just miss stuff. Even watching in slo-mo on the replay it was incredibly difficult to tell whether it hit the padding or not. I don't think it's really a big deal if the odd one is missed (if it's such a close call).

K · Joined: 09 Sep 2011

The TV news hyped up this "blunder" without bothering to tell viewers that it would have been a free kick set shot at goal if it had been ruled a behind.

eddiesmith · Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:32 pm

Thought it was pretty obvious on replay, but the goal umpire has no hope. They are the worst for a goal umpire, need to go to the line because of players chasing the ball but it goes near the far post, you've got no chance.

Would have been quite a laugh if it did get picked up and then ended up a Pies free kick in the goal square anyway, would have really given the GABBA crowd something to boo about!!!

K · Joined: 09 Sep 2011

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/lyon-slams-disgraceful-review-of-mihocek-goal-20190419-p51flt.html

Also whinges about the JT goal.

Again not a squeak about the fact it would have been a free kick if it had been ruled a behind. Shocked

Jezza · 2023 PREMIERS! Joined: 06 Sep 2010 Location: Ponsford End