No Behind Posts in AFL?

[Dazzler9]

And if it hits the post and goes in, it should be a goal - if it doesnt its play on.

This punishes a player for being slightly more accurate though - if he completely misses and kicks a behind, his team gets 1 point. If he gets really close but hits the post and it bounces back into play, his team gets nothing. That doesn't seem right.

 

[GlocksTickin]

Great idea imo. Better yet, introduce a cricket ball instead of a footy during the 3rd quarter. Maybe the tooth fairy as an umpire as well.

 

[LB#16]

You often hear this from Rugby League fans, which I find humorous. "Hurr durr, you get a point for missing". Hmm, why when you score a major, do you then take five minutes out of the game to "convert"? What a complete waste of time. Aussie Rules and Basketball have plenty of tight and exciting victories that come down to less than a major score and there's a reason for it; the minor score being incorporated into it.

 

[chiwigi]

The only change I'd make would be play on if it hits the post, if it goes in the goal its a goal, if it comes back into play its play on.

Solves a uniquely annoying and poorly officiated issue at all levels. At amateur level it stops the cheating by the home goal umpire and at AFL level it negates the need for most of the replays....which they often get wrong.

 

[melbournemartin]

It was brought in as a tie-breaker. Admittedly this was more important back in the day when you could win a game with a soccer-like amount of goals, but even today there would be many more ties without behinds.

Contrary to what people say, AFL is not the only the only sport to have multiple possible scores:

- Gaelic has an over (1 point) and an under (3 points). I believe hurling is similar
- You mention NFL but NFL actually has a similar means of "rewarding failure" - field goals. You typically only get field goals if you have failed to advance the ball for a touchdown. And, like in AFL, a field goal is often a tie-breaker. Rugby League operates similarly
- Basketball has 2 and 3 pointers, although admittedly not a great comparison
- Any sport of accuracy speaks for itself, e.g. archery.

It's one of the many beautiful, unique aspects to our sport. Having lived overseas for many years, people often find it rather cool just to have a scoring system that's more complex than "goal or nothing".

 

[LightTower4]

When invented 'keep cricketers fit in winter' reason.
So probably made sense to have the scoring linked to the highest and lowest score a batsman can hit.
No need to change it or any other aspect of scoring. Leave the game as it is.

 

[00Stinger]

Personally I have no issue with the behind post - it what other game do people score goals from 60m out ?

I would scrap the touched rule though - who cares it if touched or not? If it goes through from a kick it's 6 points. Rushed (including attacking team) via spoil, handball, defender kick etc is still 1 point. Would take a lot of the grey area away from umpiring decisions.

And if it hits the post and goes in, it should be a goal - if it doesnt its play on.

So could a player handball a goal too?

Or if a player needs a point after the siren to win the grand final and he hits the goal post, the lose. Does that seem fair to you?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Free kicks and 50m penalties would become more valuable.

 

[Benny78]

I like the idea of no point posts. But having just goals in a game would suck and I wouldn't like awarding points for touches. So the posts stay. They might not be wanted but they're the posts that are needed.

 

[Rob]

I can't think of any benefit to the game by removing them.

 

[Professor Knowall]

... There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

Not just un-patriotic but just plain brainless. There's nothing better on a sporting field than the 2 big sticks with the two little sticks on the side - especially after being abroad a while. It stands out. The soccer rectangles and NFL/rugby crossbeams are just plain boring in comparison.

 

[melbournemartin]

When invented 'keep cricketers fit in winter' reason.
So probably made sense to have the scoring linked to the highest and lowest score a batsman can hit.
No need to change it or any other aspect of scoring. Leave the game as it is.

I need to check this but I think that behinds were added later. Also fun fact, you could run through a goal initially.

 

[DroopStDanny]

I wish they'd remove all scoring sections on a dart board except for the triple 20.

 

[joop]

i cant wait to see who wins the other superbowl and plays new engand in the super duper bowl

And become WOOOORRRLLDD CHAMPIONS!!

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

This punishes a player for being slightly more accurate though - if he completely misses and kicks a behind, his team gets 1 point. If he gets really close but hits the post and it bounces back into play, his team gets nothing. That doesn't seem right.

They get another chance at a goal, rather than handing the ball to the opposition. A 50-50 chance of getting the next clear possession, and near the goalsquare. Works for me.
Retain the point if its after the siren. Not that I think there is any need to change it, and so would leave it, but the idea isn't a bad one to at least trial in non-competition games.

 

[Dazzler9]

They get another chance at a goal, rather than handing the ball to the opposition. A 50-50 chance of getting the next clear possession, and near the goalsquare. Works for me.
Retain the point if its after the siren. Not that I think there is any need to change it, and so would leave it, but the idea isn't a bad one to at least trial in non-competition games.

Better yet, give the team a point for a poster, AND make it play on. (sub-rule: there has to be at least one other player touch the ball after the original player kicks it into the post, to prevent a player intentionally kicking a poster from close range).

 

[Dazzler9]

They get another chance at a goal, rather than handing the ball to the opposition. A 50-50 chance of getting the next clear possession, and near the goalsquare. Works for me.
Retain the point if its after the siren. Not that I think there is any need to change it, and so would leave it, but the idea isn't a bad one to at least trial in non-competition games.

It used to be a rule in the pre-season comp for a while there. It didn't really catch on.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

It used to be a rule in the pre-season comp for a while there. It didn't really catch on.

That was before score replays wasn't it? Some of the hold-up could be removed if the score counted from wherever the ball goes through, regardless of being off hands or post. BUT score reviews only apply at AFL level, so is not a good reason to include it in the laws of the game.

 

[JackFlash]

Thought about this again watching the Super Bowl and why it is that the AFL has the consolation prize of behind posts.

Would our game be any less if you were still awarded a point if the ball was touched over the goal line but there were no behind posts?

There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

Yes it is unpatriotic and there is more than something having goal and behind posts in OUR game! Totally unique, Aussie Rules developed all by our little selves and it's played on an oval twice the size of Soccer, Rugby and American Football fields. FFS, can't we have something of our own without the influence of inferior sports? These are our rules and this is why the game is called Australian Rules Football. Should Soccer scrap "offside"? Should the NRL scrap the "try" (what does that mean anyway?) and will the Superbowl see a player kick a goal isntead of just running it through the touch down line? No they won't. Leave the behind and goal posts alone, at least we still have to kick the ball to score a goal! The AFL is already sending us in the direction of Gaeilic Football with their over sanitising of the game. The golden age of football is long gone, but let's salvage what we have left!

 

[master bate]

Scoring a behind might be about to become a massive disincentive (outside the obvious like a shot very late in a tied game or after the siren) with the new kick in rules coming in.

North Melbourne in AFLW were able to really burn Carlton on transitions from behind and that's with the average player only kicking 30m and not overly quick.

A rushed shot on goal resulting in a behind could very quickly end up with the other team going inside 50 to an open forward line.

There's a number of players - and someone like Jake Lloyd from the Swans is a good example - who can tuck and run the ball 20m from the 11m goal square and then kick it hard and low for another 55m. That means the ball is 85+m from goal in no time at all which is over the centre circle on every ground and close to the 50m arc on some.

 

[Dazzler9]

Scoring a behind might be about to become a massive disincentive (outside the obvious like a shot very late in a tied game or after the siren) with the new kick in rules coming in.

North Melbourne in AFLW were able to really burn Carlton on transitions from behind and that's with the average player only kicking 30m and not overly quick.

A rushed shot on goal resulting in a behind could very quickly end up with the other team going inside 50 to an open forward line.

There's a number of players - and someone like Jake Lloyd from the Swans is a good example - who can tuck and run the ball 20m from the 11m goal square and then kick it hard and low for another 55m. That means the ball is 85+m from goal in no time at all which is over the centre circle on every ground and close to the 50m arc on some.

This! So much this.

 

[LightTower4]

I need to check this but I think that behinds were added later. Also fun fact, you could run through a goal initially.

Think you are right, but the scoring did evolve from cricket, so I read somewhere.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

You often hear this from Rugby League fans, which I find humorous. "Hurr durr, you get a point for missing". Hmm, why when you score a major, do you then take five minutes out of the game to "convert"? What a complete waste of time. Aussie Rules and Basketball have plenty of tight and exciting victories that come down to less than a major score and there's a reason for it; the minor score being incorporated into it.

I've had that one thrown to me to which I replied and "you get maximum points in the Rugby codes for simply running across the boundary line with the ball. In effect you get points for setting up for goal - hence the term try".

FWIW, I like watching Rugby League (not a patch on Australian Rules though).

 

[Billy ray]

I am all for this.

In my reserved seat, the left hand behind post is directly blocking my sight of the top of the goal square. the hot zone!

given the goal square is not changing size (which meant I would have been able to see it) remove the damn posts so I can see.
otherwise I need to move my head a few cm's.....

 

[Professor Knowall]

Think you are right, but the scoring did evolve from cricket, so I read somewhere.

I call BS on this. Show me the evidence. Adding a point to the score for a behind (so called because the ball went "behind the goal") wasn't introduced until 1897 - 40 years after the code was established - in order to greatly reduce the number of tied games. I can find absolutely no evidence that cricket had any influence on this decision nor any reason why it would.