Hit-the-post rule

[Daniel]

I jokingly threatened to raise this topic in one of my first unregistered posts and now I will return to it. Why was the hit-the-post rule ever created?

I do not understand why it is deemed that whenever the ball strikes the goal poast, a behind is registered. Presumably this has always been the case in Australian football, but why? It would make much more sense, and be so much simpler for goal umpires, if whenever the ball struck any one of the four posts it was simply "play on".

What this means is that if the ball hits the inside of the post and crosses the goal line, then it is a goal. If it hits the outside of the post and crosses the behind line, then it is a behind. Should the ball ricochet back into play, then it should be play on.

I'm sure this rule will never be implemented because people don't like unnecessary changes, but I am curious why it was created in the first place. It makes sense, like in rugby or American football, for the goal to count irrespective of whether it shaves the post or not. It would be particularly helpful to umpires, who don't have to worry whether the ball has taken a marginal deflection from a post, thus eliminating many goal umpiring mistakes.

I'm convinced this makes a lot of sense. Please don't protest that this would alter the "uniqueness" of Australian Rules, because it would surely improve the game. Any thoughts?

 

[Dan26]

That's the most sensible thing I've heard for a long time.

If the ball go's through the goals, who cares if it strikes the post as long as it goes through. In Rugby, if the ball strikes the post it is a goal (as long as it goes through the goals)

No doubt some of the small-minded people here at big-footy will not wantto see it happen. They'll say stuff like : "No. It's traditional. The fans won;t turn up any more if you change that rule"

Or, maybe they'll say : "No, dont change it. I like it the way it is". Obviously these people are blissfully unaware that if Danies idea was introduced 100 years ago, then the knockers would like it the way it is too.

Common-sense is the main factor here. If the ball goes through the goal scoring area, it should be a goal, regardless of whther it strikes a post.

Also, the behind post, should be taller.......the same height as the goals posts. Why are they smaller ? it just makes it harder for the goal umpire to do his jod, doesn't it.

 

[Guest]

I agree with you Daniel, except for when the ball hits the goal post and goes back into play, this is situation where no score should be recorded and the full back kicks out from the goalsquare as for a point. I feel that a ball coming off the post into play might be a little too messy.

I also agree that you will get a LOT of whining from cretins who will say you tampering with the traditions of the game. People must remember that if the game does not keep changing and evolving into the future AFL is heading for a very shaky road indeed!

Just remember the game that was played 100 years ago bears little resemblance to the game you see today!

 

[Daniel]

I'm not sure if I made it clear, but the same should apply for the behind posts. If the ball strikes the behind post and goes out of play then it should be deemed out on the full, if it clips the behind post and crosses the behind line then it should be a point.

Dan, you're absolutely right about the behind posts. I have no idea why they are shorter.

Happy hawker, I've been watching what happens after the ball hits a post for quite a while now and I don't think the ball rebounding off a post would be too messy, any more than the ball coming off the hands of a pack in the goalsquare. It would just be easier to call play on if the ball comes back.

You're exactly right about how the game has changed. People who protest that change is bad for the game forget that it has changed constantly throughout history to have evolved into the excellent sport we watch today. I have a tape of St. Kilda's '66 premiership and the way the game was played then was nothing like it is today.

Well, at least the first two responses were positive.

 

[Stealth bomber]

An admitted relative neophyte to the game, I've always thought the post rule didn't make sense either. Is it not the object to get the ball through the posts anyway? I don't see why a deflection couldn't count. It does in soccer, it does in rugby, it does in North American football and it does in all forms of hockey. They're all part of the field of play.

I think we'd have a hard time convincing the governing bodies of Australian football to change after doing it this way for a century though.

Maybe they could do what the NFL does and experiment with it during the exhibition season or something; see how it goes over.

 

[The Ball]

What about when the ball goes over the top of the goal or behind posts, i.e. the ball was higher than the goal posts but went directly over the goal or behind post and into the crowd?

Play could not resume then could it?

 

[BluesRule]

If It comes back into play it should be a behind instead of play on, as it doesn't reward you equally for accuracy, or if it goes over the post it should be a behind!

 

[WCE2000]

Maybe a player could be awarded 10 points if they hit the post!!
I doubt the AFL would ever introduce that.

 

[Guest]

After reading all the responses on this topic i've come to the conclusion that we should forget about if the ball does or does'nt hit the post, stays in play or whatever. We should all marvel at those magnificent specimens of humanity, the goal umpire with their preening and puncing and prancing chest thumping, fingers exactly perpindicular to the ground when signalling a goal(or point). We should all feel privelaged to see such an outstanding theatrical event let alone worry about such an insignificant task as the SCORE!!