So what is the goal line rule?

[Before I Die]

This one has had me confused for some time. The ball is in play until it is completely across the goal line. The ball is about 24cm long. If there is still 1cm of the ball over the line and a player (say Richo) marks the other end of the ball 23 cm behind the line, is it a mark or a goal? The ball is definitely still in play, but the contact with the ball is not in the field of play. I am pretty sure it is a mark. Does anyone know absolutely for sure?

I would love to ask this question to the many journos who make their living from footy. I am pretty confident there would be a variety of answers.

[Cookie]

I haven't seen the incident, but where was Richo when he "marked" it? Was he in play or behind the goal line? My best guesses to your question are:

a. if Richo was in the field of play AND the ball had not completely crossed the line, then it is not a goal.

b. if Richo was behind the goal line, it is a goal.

I'll gladly stand corrected if I'm wrong.

[#1 Dogs Fan]

I haven't seen the incident, but where was Richo when he "marked" it? Was he in play or behind the goal line? My best guesses to your question are:

a. if Richo was in the field of play AND the ball had not completely crossed the line, then it is not a goal.

b. if Richo was behind the goal line, it is a goal.

I'll gladly stand corrected if I'm wrong.

Then lets say a player does the same thing but on the boundary line ?

or when players are out on the boundary with the ball just inside the line running the boundary that is play on ?

[The Coon Dog]

It's a simple answer that I've heard Dermie explain countless times.

For it to be a goal the whole of the ball has to cross the whole of the line.

[Before I Die]

It's a simple answer that I've heard Dermie explain countless times.

For it to be a goal the whole of the ball has to cross the whole of the line.

That part is clear. The question is whether the mark or even the finger touch to make it a behind (eg Fletcher last week) has to occur in the field of play or can be behind the line.

I take it you are agreeing with me in the OP that behind the line is ok if part of the ball is still in play.

[#1 Dogs Fan]

It's a simple answer that I've heard Dermie explain countless times.

For it to be a goal the whole of the ball has to cross the whole of the line.

Woe that is so basic and easy to remember thanks for that I will definitly not forget that :thumbsu:

[The Coon Dog]

That part is clear. The question is whether the mark or even the finger touch to make it a behind (eg Fletcher last week) has to occur in the field of play or can be behind the line.

I take it you are agreeing with me in the OP that behind the line is ok if part of the ball is still in play.

Yes, I agree.

[ErnieSigley]

All I know is the whole ball crossed the whole line yesterday in the Richo mark.

Dermie's description is stupid as it overstates and confused the issue. "whole ball cross the line" is enough. If the part of the ball is on the line, hasn't crossed the line then.

[Bert Foster]

All I know is the whole ball crossed the whole line yesterday in the Richo mark.

Dermie's description is stupid as it overstates and confused the issue. "whole ball cross the line" is enough. If the part of the ball is on the line, hasn't crossed the line then.

Is it fair to say that only one person could have judged if the whole of the footy was across the whole of the line? That person being the goal umpire? Richo "thought" he might have been over the line - but he also thought he didn't push the Bomber's player in the back in the last minute of our game v essendon last year. Simply, Richo had his eyes on the ball, and was not in the same perfect position as the goal umpire. So could we even conceive the umpy might have got it right?

[ErnieSigley]

Is it fair to say that only one person could have judged if the whole of the footy was across the whole of the line? That person being the goal umpire? Richo "thought" he might have been over the line - but he also thought he didn't push the Bomber's player in the back in the last minute of our game v essendon last year. Simply, Richo had his eyes on the ball, and was not in the same perfect position as the goal umpire. So could we even conceive the umpy might have got it right?

No, it was clearly over well the line when his hands first touched it. After Richo moved the hands down it was touching the line.
The umps and Gieschen are just trying to cover their backsides.

[Snagboy]

All I know is the whole ball crossed the whole line yesterday in the Richo mark.

Dermie's description is stupid as it overstates and confused the issue. "whole ball cross the line" is enough. If the part of the ball is on the line, hasn't crossed the line then.


If you look at the reply you can see two actions from Richo; the first marking the ball :- CLEARLY ALL OF THE BALL WAS OVER THE LINE !!!!!; and the second was when he brought the ball forward of the line.

In any case no decision will be made to change it !!!!!!!

[Ted's Robot]

Would have been interesting if Richo had just conceded the goal. Wonder if the ump would have made the same decision?
Don't blame Richo for trying to suck the ump in, it worked!

[ErnieSigley]

For it to be a goal the whole of the ball has to cross the whole of the line.

Well occuring to Gieschen that not the case on the goal line. The width of the padding even at the back is what the ball has to cross. Give the line is at least half the side of the padding and post, its stupid.

Nice try Mr Gieschen.


If they change the width of the goal line, I'd understand it better.

[barkly st.]

Well occuring to Gieschen that not the case on the goal line. The width of the padding even at the back is what the ball has to cross. Give the line is at least half the side of the padding and post, its stupid.

Nice try Mr Gieschen.


If they change the width of the goal line, I'd understand it better.


I heard that on fc last night and its got me wondering. The white line on the ground should then be in line with the back of the pads not the middle of the goal post (if Gieschen is right). A ball that just crosses the white line doesn't necessarily clear the back of the pads. Johno's kick off the ground in the 2nd quarter is a case in point.

my uderstanding is the padding is not 'the line' unless the ball actually hits the pad. the line is the line on the ground. Richo was clearly behind the white line. Gieschen clearly doesn't understand the rules he is in charge of.

[UnCani]

It is whatever the AFL want it to be!

They will change everything to suite them. Case by case!

[barkly st.]

It is whatever the AFL want it to be!

They will change everything to suite them. Case by case!


sorry, forgot that rule.

[Scroater]

From my understanding, and I've seen it happen, the back of the pads on the goal posts are also in play. I've seen a point given for a ball kicked through the goals on an angle and strike the umpires flag at the back of the post.

I don't have a link and don't know where you'd look, but I watched the replays. Go back to the Saints game and have a look at vision of Harbrow's goal in the last quarter. Watch the goal umpire after the ball has crossed the line. He doesn't give a signal because he is watching to see if the ball hits the padding at the back of the post, even though it well and truly crossed the line.

I remember back in the 70's Channel seven tried an April Fools joke where the ball exploded at the end of each quarter, so that the umpire would know when the quarter finished. Maybe they should have lasers running between the posts and when the ball goes through, it disintergrates and takes whatever is holding it with them.:D

[ErnieSigley]

The is no way the back padding of the should part of the field of play as it clearly over the line.
The Habrow situation is an example.
With the shape of the ball, it could easily bounce toward the middle of the line between the post and over the line then go backwards and hit the post.