Hitting the post

[napsyd]

I'm of the opinion that our game would be a little more exciting if when the ball hits the goal posts and is deflected back into play it is considered play on.

Just wondering what others thing of that?

 

[Port01]

Grand final.
Scores level.
Kick after siren.
Only needs a point to win.
Ball hits post and bounces back so no score.
Lose replay by 15 goals.

How annoying

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by napsyd
I'm of the opinion that our game would be a little more exciting if when the ball hits the goal posts and is deflected back into play it is considered play on.

Just wondering what others thing of that?

You idiot.

Miss the post to the left - six points
Miss it to the right - one point.
Hit it - no score.

Doesn't sound too clever does it?

 

[napsyd]

Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by hotpie


You idiot.

Miss the post to the left - six points
Miss it to the right - one point.
Hit it - no score.

Doesn't sound too clever does it?

Up yours.

There is still potential for a score.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by napsyd
Just wondering what others thing of that?

Our game is not rugby or soccer.....you still have an opportunity to score from the kick in.

 

[The Spornstar]

Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by hotpie


You idiot.

Miss the post to the left - six points
Miss it to the right - one point.
Hit it - no score.

Doesn't sound too clever does it?

Harsh. It wasn't a bad suggestion, they'd never let it happen but in soccer it does and I think it could be exciting.

 

[st philip]

and...

I am in total agreement, I have thought that suggestion should be implemented for ages, including...

If it hits the goal posts and still goes through the middle, its still a goal;

If it hits the point posts and goes out of bounds, its still out of bounds on the full; and

If it hits ANY post and bounces back into play its play on.

this would make it slightly more interesting, not lose anything by doing it and take some heat out of goal umpires decision making in regards to those decisions.

bring this change on....

 

[hotpie]

Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by The Spornstar


Harsh. It wasn't a bad suggestion, they'd never let it happen but in soccer it does and I think it could be exciting.

But in soccer its either in or not in. There is just one scoring zone.

In our code there are three separate scoring zones. Why should a ball that misses the point post by a ****teenth to score a behind be considered better than a ball that hits the goalpost? Which of the two was nearer to being a goal?

Idiotic idea.

 

[jarmaniac]

Taller Goal Posts

While you're on the debate of goal posts, what does everyone think about making them taller so as to avoid goal umpire errors such as the Rocca one in the GF? How can an umpire honestly judge whether a ball sailing five meters over the top of the goal post was to the left or the right of it, or even hit it!

 

[napsyd]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by hotpie


But in soccer its either in or not in. There is just one scoring zone.

In our code there are three separate scoring zones. Why should a ball that misses the point post by a ****teenth to score a behind be considered better than a ball that hits the goalpost? Which of the two was nearer to being a goal?

Idiotic idea.

I generally agree with St Philip but I also agree with The Spornstar, it will never happen.

Hotpie, what if the ball hits the goal post, is awarded a point AND is considered live? Better??

 

[hotpie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by napsyd


Hotpie, what if the ball hits the goal post, is awarded a point AND is considered live? Better??

If you score the ball is dead. Why should you get a reward of a possible second dip at the ball because you missed your shot at goal? How does missing a shot on goal justify a possible "seven pointer?"

Is the game not exciting enough for you?

 

[napsyd]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by hotpie


If you score the ball is dead. Why should you get a reward of a possible second dip at the ball because you missed your shot at goal? How does missing a shot on goal justify a possible "seven pointer?"

Is the game not exciting enough for you?

Sorry? Missed where I implyed that the game isn't exiting enough for me.

But are you implying that this would make the game more exciting?

You have a chance of "a seven pointer" now when the ball is brought back into play, even from some crap kick that probably didn't deserve a point. So why not increase the odds a bit when the ball hits the post.

 

[hotpie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by napsyd


Sorry? Missed where I implyed that the game isn't exiting enough for me.

But are you implying that this would make the game more exciting?

You have a chance of "a seven pointer" now when the ball is brought back into play, even from some crap kick that probably didn't deserve a point. So why not increase the odds a bit when the ball hits the post.

Rules are supposed to make sense. You do not change rules just for the purpose of making the game more exciting. The best side should win, not the luckiest. I'm not sure if you are aware that the ball is oval shaped - I don't see how an error from a kick and a random bounce off a post should allow the attacking team do have another dip.

BTW re the "seven pointer" - we have now - they are two distinct passages of play that create the two separate scores. Not the same.

 

[napsyd]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by hotpie


Rules are supposed to make sense. You do not change rules just for the purpose of making the game more exciting. The best side should win, not the luckiest. I'm not sure if you are aware that the ball is oval shaped - I don't see how an error from a kick and a random bounce off a post should allow the attacking team do have another dip.

BTW re the "seven pointer" - we have now - they are two distinct passages of play that create the two separate scores. Not the same.

Why can't you change the rules to make the game more exciting? Surely that was the reason for changing the minimum kick length for a mark from 10 to 15m.

There is an element of luck in our game because of the oval ball anyway. You can win a game by "a lucky bounce" now.

I agree with you on the "seven pointer" issue. The way it is now is two passage of play, but I don't see why it must be.

OK, shall we agree to disagree? It ain't going to happen.

 

[noddy]

Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by hotpie


You idiot.

Miss the post to the left - six points
Miss it to the right - one point.
Hit it - no score.

Doesn't sound too clever does it?

You have the gall to napsyd an idiot for putting a suggestion on the board just because you don't agree with it, well your a bloody imbecile for carrying on like you have, no class & definately no vision,

Anyway napsyd i think it would make it a bit to flukey but i'm all for 3 points scored for hitting the goal post & a deliberate push through the posts by an opposing backman,

 

[hotpie]

Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by noddy


Anyway napsyd i think it would make it a bit to flukey but i'm all for 3 points scored for hitting the goal post & a deliberate push through the posts by an opposing backman,

Different question.

This has some merit, especially the deliberate point. The kick in could be at the defending 50 metre line also - giving even less incentive to deliberately rush a behind.

You Noddy are clearly not an idiot.

 

[AlfAndrews]

Why not just make the goal posts shorter, put a bar across the top and a net at the back, eliminate points and just have goals. If the ball bounces off the post into the goal, it's a goal. If it bounces back into play, it's play on. Then, introduce an off-side rule and make it so that players aren't allowed to touch the ball with their hands ... except one designated "goalkeeper", who must wear a different strip to the rest of the team.

Oh ... and definitely get rid of that ridiculous oval-shaped ball. How about a round ball. That would be more scientific.

**YOU'LL NEVER WALK ALONE**

 

[napsyd]

Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by noddy


You have the gall to napsyd an idiot for putting a suggestion on the board just because you don't agree with it, well your a bloody imbecile for carrying on like you have, no class & definately no vision,

Anyway napsyd i think it would make it a bit to flukey but i'm all for 3 points scored for hitting the goal post & a deliberate push through the posts by an opposing backman,

Thanks Noddy, I like your suggestion, particularly regarding the 3 points for a rushed behind.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by AlfAndrews
Why not just make the goal posts shorter, put a bar across the top and a net at the back, eliminate points and just have goals. If the ball bounces off the post into the goal, it's a goal. If it bounces back into play, it's play on. Then, introduce an off-side rule and make it so that players aren't allowed to touch the ball with their hands ... except one designated "goalkeeper", who must wear a different strip to the rest of the team.

Oh ... and definitely get rid of that ridiculous oval-shaped ball. How about a round ball. That would be more scientific.

**YOU'LL NEVER WALK ALONE**

Make it eleven a side and that should relieve salary cap problems.

 

[BMD]

To save my typing fingers, I'll just say I agree with everything hotpie has posted on this thread.

Except, it was a bit harsh to call napsyd an idiot.

 

[Mr Q]

I think this would be a good idea, but only if you get a goal if it bounces off the post and between the goal posts, and a behind if it bounces over for a behind.

Should also apply to the behind posts.

 

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by Mr Q
I think this would be a good idea, but only if you get a goal if it bounces off the post and between the goal posts, and a behind if it bounces over for a behind.

Should also apply to the behind posts.

I'm with Mr Q.

 

[rumply]

should be -

9 points for goal from outside 50m
6 points for goal from 50m to 25m
4 points for goal inside 25m
play on if hits ANY post & bounces back into play
rushed behind? dunno its legit tactic - 1 point

 

[rumply]

been saving that gem for me hundreth

 

[Nic]

Unnecessary rule change. Leave it the way it is.

However, I'm all for higher goalposts/ump cams.