AFL football hits goal post and comes back into play

[dhammist]

In AFL if the ball hits the goal post and comes back into play it should be play on.
Apparently the AFL tried it in some pre season games a few years back and didn't like it.
I haven't been able to find out why they didn't like it.
To me it would make the game much more exciting.

 

[spudmaster]

Would be a great opportunity to pause the game for two minutes while they check the cameras to see whether or not it hit the post, before wondering how to restart it 'in play' again.

 

[Taylor]

Would be a great opportunity to pause the game for two minutes while they check the cameras to see whether or not it hit the post, before wondering how to restart it 'in play' again.

I could only see it working if the ball going through the goal after hitting the post being awarded a goal. May as well put a net on it then

 

[Hollow Knight]

The hitting the post rule, when you strip tradition out of it, is really stupid and hard to justify.

So many potentially epic moments get ruined because a ball grazes a couple of molecules of padding.

If it goes through it goes through. If it bounces back in, it should be play on.

Would create some really interesting and unpredictable moments.

 

[Connor7395]

The hitting the post rule, when you strip tradition out of it, is really stupid and hard to justify.

So many potentially epic moments get ruined because a ball grazes a couple of molecules of padding.

If it goes through it goes through. If it bounces back in, it should be play on.

Would create some really interesting and unpredictable moments.

It would also boost scoring a fraction. Assuming one-third of balls hitting the post stay in play, one-third go through for a point, and one-third go through for a goal, you'd expect an average of four extra points per poster.

 

[boncer34]

It would also boost scoring a fraction. Assuming one-third of balls hitting the post stay in play, one-third go through for a point, and one-third go through for a goal, you'd expect an average of four extra points per poster.

Explain the math to me.

 

[Mr Ripper]

So, you don't score at all if your kick is 3 inches off target, but you do score if you miss by 5 metres?

 

[Hollow Knight]

So, you don't score at all if your kick is 3 inches off target, but you do score if you miss by 5 metres?

But in exchange you potentially get a good second opportunity to get the goal. Sounds ok.

 

[Connor7395]

Explain the math to me.

One-third of shots hit the post and bounce out: 1 point turns into 0 points.
One-third of shots hit the post and go through for a goal: 1 point turns into 6 points
One-third of shots hit the post and go through for a behind: 1 point remains as 1 point.
An average of one point under current poster rules, but 2.33 points under a new rule.

Okay, I got the math slightly wrong. It would be 4 more points per 3 posters, so in actual fact, 1.33 extra points per poster. I have no idea if the AFL records posters so I have no idea how much scoring would increase with current poster trends.

Also, the one-third outcome is just a default estimate. Where the ball goes after hitting the post entirely depends on the angle of the shot and how the ball connects with the post.

 

[kickazz]

There is a good argument for reform of this rule but play on is not the right way to go, when if your shot misses by even more you still score.

Hit post but go through goal = GOAL
Hit post but go through points = POINT
Hit post but return into play = POINT

 

[JackFlash]

It's still Australian Rules Football. The posts are there for a reason, the idea is to kick the ball through the goals without touching those posts, now the fingertip touched off the boot is a different matter. I would do away with that. If the posts are hit by the ball, then it's a point and should always be a point. The ball must go through the goals.

 

[Pistol Night]

The hitting the post rule, when you strip tradition out of it, is really stupid and hard to justify.

So many potentially epic moments get ruined because a ball grazes a couple of molecules of padding.

If it goes through it goes through. If it bounces back in, it should be play on.

Would create some really interesting and unpredictable moments.

Tom Hawkins likes this

 

[banzai]

But in exchange you potentially get a good second opportunity to get the goal. Sounds ok.

Would certainly make it interesting a shot after the siren when trailing by a point if hitting the post gives you nothing. I think its too much of a novelty, as said above a miss by 5 meters gets you a point. Just get rid of behinds all together if want this rule.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

The hitting the post rule, when you strip tradition out of it, is really stupid and hard to justify.

So many potentially epic moments get ruined because a ball grazes a couple of molecules of padding.

If it goes through it goes through. If it bounces back in, it should be play on.

Would create some really interesting and unpredictable moments.

Not stupid at all.
It's a clean-goal rule.
Our sport is the only sport where you need to cleanly kick the goal.
It rewards defence and attack evenly

 

[Wallaby]

Not stupid at all.
It's a clean-goal rule.
Our sport is the only sport where you need to cleanly kick the goal.
It rewards defence and attack evenly

Why don't we have a fence along the boundary to indicate the limits of the playing field? Then, if the ball hits the fence and bounces back, we can have play-on as well - at random intervals. The reson we don't is that we don't need a fence - the line works perfectly well.

For goals, however, we need some indicator at the height the ball crosses the goal line - which could be up to 10-15 metres in the air. To be a goal, the ball must cross the goal line between the posts. In the absence of computer-generated holograms (which will probably be used in years to come), we use physical posts - but treat them purely as 'virtual' indicators - ie - we assume that if the ball hits them, it's just as if it hit a hologram, and its path is not disturbed.

 

[fusion]

In AFL if the ball hits the goal post and comes back into play it should be play on.
Apparently the AFL tried it in some pre season games a few years back and didn't like it.
I haven't been able to find out why they didn't like it.
To me it would make the game much more exciting.

What happens with a shot after the siren?
Team is 1 point down, and having a shot after the final siren.

Goal = team wins
Hit post and bounces back into play = team loses by a point?
Behind = draw

Or do you want another rule change fir after the siren, on top of your rule change?

 

[JackFlash]

It if hits the post it's a point, end of story, a goal in Australian Rules football must go between the GOAL posts. But i'm okay with the touched-off-the-boot rule being examined. If it goes through without hitting the post then score it a goal! No bouncing back into play being called "play on"
though

 

[dhammist]

To make it consistent with other games around the world and reduce the number of times there is a score review the rules should be if it crosses the goal line completely, regardless of whether it's hit the post, then it's a goal. The same for the behind line. If the ball doesn't cross any line completely (goal, behind or boundary) it's play on.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

What happens with a shot after the siren?
Team is 1 point down, and having a shot after the final siren.

Goal = team wins
Hit post and bounces back into play = team loses by a point?
Behind = draw

Or do you want another rule change fir after the siren, on top of your rule change?

Spot on

It's the dumbest idea ever, that's why it got binned

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Would be a great opportunity to pause the game for two minutes while they check the cameras to see whether or not it hit the post, before wondering how to restart it 'in play' again.

There wouldn't be any need, the ball hitting the post would no longer mean it went out of play. Currently, there is a chance it may have hit the post and come back into play which could require checking.

I only see three issues:

• after the siren, the score wouldn't count unless the rule specified it did
• its not how the game has been scored, the AFL loves a rule change but while I sort of like it in theory why change something that isn't fundamentally broken
• if the logic is to be consistent, this means hitting the post is play on; under that logic, if the ball hits the post and goes through on the inside it would be a goal and not a behind as currently (again, might reduce reviews at the professional level and perhaps make things a touch easier at all other levels; but changes the way the game is scored fairly substantially)

 

[sherb]

To make it consistent with other games around the world and reduce the number of times there is a score review the rules should be if it crosses the goal line completely, regardless of whether it's hit the post, then it's a goal. The same for the behind line. If the ball doesn't cross any line completely (goal, behind or boundary) it's play on.

Why does that need to be the case?

 

[jwikked]

To make it consistent with other games around the world

No. We don't need to emulate or align with any other sport across the world.

That goes for relegation. That goes for Divisions. That goes for a Superbowl style night Grand Final.

We've got a unique sport in Australia, one that doesn't need to be meddled with. Just because the NBA does something doesn't mean the AFL needs to follow them.

 

[Werewolf]

There is a good argument for reform of this rule but play on is not the right way to go, when if your shot misses by even more you still score.

Hit post but go through goal = GOAL
Hit post but go through points = POINT
Hit post but return into play = POINT

This makes the most sense. Replays to decide whether the ball shaved the post really grind my gears. It happens nearly every game

 

[RogersResults]

It's still Australian Rules Football. The posts are there for a reason, the idea is to kick the ball through the goals without touching those posts, now the fingertip touched off the boot is a different matter. I would do away with that. If the posts are hit by the ball, then it's a point and should always be a point. The ball must go through the goals.

NEVER, EVER has any senior body administering the game of AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL used the word 'rules' in naming it. The 'rules' tag is a 19th century 'left-over' from the Rugby hold-out colonies of NSW and QLD who used it a disparaging manner to indicate that the game was only a 'rules variant' of Rugby. As such it was part of the colonial 'Australian Cringe' where nothing devised in Australia could be truly original or better than anything from the 'Mother Country'. You never hear in the U.S. that they play 'American RULES Football' do you?

 

[GoldbergsGold]

The hitting the post rule, when you strip tradition out of it, is really stupid and hard to justify.

So many potentially epic moments get ruined because a ball grazes a couple of molecules of padding.

If it goes through it goes through. If it bounces back in, it should be play on.

Would create some really interesting and unpredictable moments.

That would be rewarding poor skill execution, the idea is to be rewarded for being accurate and avoiding the posts.