Hitting the post

[st philip]

mmm....

you know what

there is nothing idiotic in the suggestion at all...

infact it really does make perfect sense,

ball hits goal post lands back in play, play on.
ball hits goal post and goes through, for score it went through ie. through middle - 1 goal, through point posts - 1 point.

as to the suggestion about rushing a point being awarded a greater margin, has merit too, but is that for a deliberate rush or just a touched, etc.

but the initial suggestion makes perfect sense. no idiots here, except people who have the temerity to claim another person's idea as idiotic when it was only ever an idea or suggestion.

 

[mic59]

Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by noddy

Anyway napsyd i think it would make it a bit to flukey

And it could add a bit too much in the home ground advantage, especially in WA with those huge pads on the goalposts.

but i'm all for 3 points scored for hitting the goal post & a deliberate push through the posts by an opposing backman

Could be an idea, but I'd say 2 points. Although it may lead to occurences like a player not going for a spectacular goal from the boundary but taking the conservative option and rolling the ball into the goalsquare. And then defenders standing around trying not to force the ball through. And it would add another question umpires would have to answer, when is the push deliberate and when is it a defensive touch? Even if the umpires were instructed to only give 2 points for a completely deliberate and unpressured run through the posts, sooner or later there'd be controversial decisions.

 

[markstaners]

Haven't thought about it too much obviously what happens if the ball goes over the post? hmmmmmmmm

 

[shiva25]

Re: and...

Originally posted by st philip
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....

I dont know about the one about hitting the goal posts and going through the goal being awarded a goal
If you havnt been accurate enough to kick through the big sticks then you dont deserve the goal

 

[snakebite01]

It's definitely worth a thought napsyd and I would just like to know what you think happens if the ball goes over the line after hitting the post either on the point or goal side.

Possiblities are:
Award a goal if goes through goals, point if goes through points
Ball it up, for instance 30m out from goal
Give opposition a kick-in from goal, awarding no score

What do you think would happen if the situation happened? I defintely think it would make it a little more interesting if you could still risk not scoring from 10m if you hit the post.

 

[Pornstar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by hotpie
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.

You use the word 'idiotic' yet you also say a point is considered 'better' for the scoring team than the ball bouncing back into play and giving them a second chance at goal. One point and the opposition clears the ball or a second chance at goal? Gee, i wonder which i'd prefer....

Moron.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by markstaners
Haven't thought about it too much obviously what happens if the ball goes over the post? hmmmmmmmm

Then I guess it would be the goal umpire's judgment as to whether it was going one side or the other as it is now.

The only problem I see with awarding a goal on one side and a behind on the other and play on if it goes back into the field is if the ball bounces on top of the goal post and then over the line. Probably fall back to the traditional 1 point then

 

[markstaners]

"Then I guess it would be the goal umpire's judgment as to whether it was going one side or the other as it is now."

perhaps you didn't hear me "over the post" not to either side. Currently the rule stands that if the ball travels over the post, the lesser score shall be given either 1 behind or On the full. Or are you trying to tell me that a goal umpire has to judge which side had more part of the ball.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by markstaners
"Then I guess it would be the goal umpire's judgment as to whether it was going one side or the other as it is now."

perhaps you didn't hear me "over the post" not to either side. Currently the rule stands that if the ball travels over the post, the lesser score shall be given either 1 behind or On the full. Or are you trying to tell me that a goal umpire has to judge which side had more part of the ball.

In the case that the umpire is satified that they could not make a judgment on which side of the post the ball would have gone then yes, call the lower score. If you think about it we are already asking the goal umpire to decide on these close ones whether the ball would have hit the post or not.

 

[markstaners]

Originally posted by Mr Q


In the case that the umpire is satified that they could not make a judgment on which side of the post the ball would have gone then yes, call the lower score. If you think about it we are already asking the goal umpire to decide on these close ones whether the ball would have hit the post or not.

Well mate i am a goal umpire and you cant just stand against the post looking up to see what side most of the ball goes on. This rule would add to much confusion and is just stupid, nice intent but it just isn't plausable, it would lead to more decisions being wrong etc, i guarntee you consistancy cant be guarnted, thus the rule cant possible be adapted.

 

[The Biff]

Strike the post

Want a neutral opinion? I reckon you have a few choices for changes:

1. Install Goalposts that are high enough so that the ball cannot ever go over the highest point. These should probably be a minimum height of 50 metres, and they may need to be suspended from a high crane at each end of the pitch.

2. Use technology. Install Laser beams in the Goalposts that will act like tennis line monitors. These can be connected up to large "traffic lights" that light up to confirm each score or miss.

3. An alternative to 2, give the umpires Bionic Eyes (as proven in the field by Steve Austin many years ago). This would enable the umpires to track the ball's trajectory, extrapolate its parabolic path and confirm with unerring accuracy whether the ball hits a post or passes clean through. The addition of Bionic Ears may also help to listen for faint contacts with woodwork, although I would allow them to omit Jamie Sommer's poor taste in ear-rings.

4. Why not follow the example of the International Rules! This is their ruling - short and simple -
---------------------------------------

4.3.4 STRIKES POST

When the ball strikes a goal or behind post and crosses the goal or behind line, a score shall be registered.

4.3.5 If the ball strikes the post and is deflected wide, no score shall be registered.

4.3.6 If the ball comes back into play, having struck a goal or behind post or cross bar, without going wide over boundary end line, a "play on" situation shall apply.

See! A little Irish influence and it's all so simple.

 

[hotpie]

Re: Re: and...

Originally posted by shiva25


I dont know about the one about hitting the goal posts and going through the goal being awarded a goal
If you havnt been accurate enough to kick through the big sticks then you dont deserve the goal

.....and you certainly dont deserve seven points after missing at your first attempt and lucking out on the rebound.

 

[Dan26]

The aim of the game is to score a goal through the goals. If the ball hits the post but still goes through the goals and over the line, it should be a goal.

Imagine if a Soccer goal didn't count because it hit either the post or the crossbar (even though it still crossed the line)? Imagine how stupid it would be. Rugby Union, Rugby League and Gridiron, are all games where the ball can hit the psot and still score as long as it goes through the scoring area and crosses the line.

In my opinion, all 4 posts should be the same height. Why are the bloody behind posts smaller? it just makes it more difficult for the goal umpire! They should be the same height, with the behind posts perhaps painted a different colour.

Then, if any ball hits any post and still crosses the line, a score is registered. If the ball comes back into play, it is "play on."

To me, it is just a common-sensical step. If it crosses the goal line without being touched, it should be a goal, regardless of it it hits the post. Does a player lose a Tennis point if the ball hits the net, and still goes over? Of course not. The ball remains in play.

 

[ozzult]

I agree that if it hits the post and travels over the line it should be a goal.

This rule was trialled (the hit the post and play on) in one of the pre season comps one year, can't remember how it went though.

And I don't understand why people are going on about these seven point plays?? If it hits the post and rebounds directly back into play, and then the person scores a goal, it's 6 points, you wouldn't get a point if it hits the post and rebounds back in to play, it's play on straight away.

An example, where this could have happened was in the opening minutes of the grand final when Aker was running into goal, it hit the post and it came straight back to him, if this rule was implemented, he could have easily kept running back into goal would have scored 6 points.

Posts should be higher as well.

 

[fabulousphil]

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**

Also you could stop people from using their arms but let them use their head........yer thats right.....hit the ball with their head.......that sounds smart.

Also if the game got boring ( which it probably will ) you could introduce some flares, crowd riots and fences to stop spectators getting on the ground or at each other.

 

[scmods]

I'd take this even further and say that if the ball passes between the goal posts, it is a goal no matter how it gets there - off the post, touched, punched, handballed, carried, whatever.

Same deal for the point posts.

 

[LordLucifer]

Originally posted by 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

I like the idea of rewarding the 'bomb' from outside 50m with an extra 3 points. But cutting the 50m arc into two sections and having two seperate scoring zones is just way to confusing.

 

[ozzult]

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

No way.

How is taking an uncontested mark on the 50m line and kicking it from 53m out worth more than a full back and full forward wrestling and the full forward taking a strong contested mark and kicking a perfect banana from the boundary?

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by ozzult


An example, where this could have happened was in the opening minutes of the grand final when Aker was running into goal, it hit the post and it came straight back to him, if this rule was implemented, he could have easily kept running back into goal would have scored 6 points.

.....and if this example if Collingwood cleared the rebound the LIons would not record a score at all. Six inches either side its a score but hit the post and its not? Ludicrous.

If it aint broke don't fix it. Aussie Rules is one of the few sports where you get a small reward for missing. In soccer its either a goal or its not.

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by hotpie


.....and if this example if Collingwood cleared the rebound the LIons would not record a score at all. Six inches either side its a score but hit the post and its not? Ludicrous.

If it aint broke don't fix it.

I'm sure that a team would rather take the chance at another goal so close to the line, rather than scoring a point and giving the opposition the ball.

Personally, I think it's a top rule, and should be trialled again.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by ozzult


No way.

How is taking an uncontested mark on the 50m line and kicking it from 53m out worth more than a full back and full forward wrestling and the full forward taking a strong contested mark and kicking a perfect banana from the boundary?

......or a 65 metre bomb to the full forward in a one out contest in the goal square?

 

[Bob_vic]

Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by napsyd


Up yours.

There is still potential for a score.

Not after the siren, there isn't. That's why having play on is unworkable.

Imagine, siren goes, scores are level, the ball is kicked, ball his post, rebounds back into play, no score. The player may as well have aimed wider for a definite behind, instead of going for goal!

Bob

 

[napsyd]

Originally posted by snakebite01
It's definitely worth a thought napsyd and I would just like to know what you think happens if the ball goes over the line after hitting the post either on the point or goal side.

Possiblities are:
Award a goal if goes through goals, point if goes through points
Ball it up, for instance 30m out from goal
Give opposition a kick-in from goal, awarding no score

What do you think would happen if the situation happened? I defintely think it would make it a little more interesting if you could still risk not scoring from 10m if you hit the post.

snakebite01, I think the score must be awarded. If it hits the post and goes through for a goal, it's a goal. Similarly, if it goes through for a point it's a point.

Not sure if the other concepts would work though.

 

[napsyd]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitting the post

Originally posted by Bob_vic


Not after the siren, there isn't. That's why having play on is unworkable.

Imagine, siren goes, scores are level, the ball is kicked, ball his post, rebounds back into play, no score. The player may as well have aimed wider for a definite behind, instead of going for goal!

Bob

As discussed with hotpie, perhaps the point could still be awarded for a hit the post that comes back into play. In the event that the siren goes then the point still counts. If the siren has not gone then it is play on and there exist potential for a further score.

The possibility of a 7 point play does not really bother me. There may be an element of luck involved in this, but it would require skill in the anticipation and reaction to the ball being live, so the reward is acceptable IMO.

 

[hotpie]

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

Originally posted by napsyd




The possibility of a 7 point play does not really bother me. There may be an element of luck involved in this, but it would require skill in the anticipation and reaction to the ball being live, so the reward is acceptable IMO.

It would require luck, not skill. The defenders are invariably more likely to be out of position (defending the goal line, not crumbing the rebound 5 meters out) so the poor kick for goal will often be rewarded with seven points.

Stupid, stupid idea.