Rules Poll: Should we get rid of the hit the goal post automatically equals a behind rule?

[Jazny]

I think it would solve a lot of problems and would lead to less boring reviews. The Adelaide Crows result would never have happened. Basically as long as the ball goes through the goals from an attackers boot without being touched, then it is called a goal. If the ball rebounds back into play, it is a point. I would be interested to see if this would be a popular rule change of not so please vote in the poll

Personally I dont like the proposed rule change that says if the ball hits the post and rebounds in play, then it's play on. What if you need a point to win after the siren and you kick for goals, it hits the goal post and rebounds back in play? It would be a silly way not to win. I also don't like the rule proposed by McGuire that it is a goal even if it is touched. I think it would just encourage teams to kick to the top of the goal square and for forwards to just try and punch it through. Not very exciting.

 

[Quivorir]

Yep. Happy for little touches to be allowed as a goal too. We let 4 different hands touch it in a pack mark and still call it a mark. Who cares if a finger nail hit the ball on its way through sticks. If it goes in just make it a goal. Obvious exception to being punched through the goals.

 

[Jazny]

Yep. Happy for little touches to be allowed as a goal too. We let 4 different hands touch it in a pack mark and still call it a mark. Who cares if a finger nail hit the ball on its way through sticks. If it goes in just make it a goal. Obvious exception to being punched through the goals.

So incidental touches don't count as a behind? Like a finger tip off the boot or a defender touching it on the line? Maybe it's a goal so long as it last came off an attacking players boot. If an attacking player last touches it over the line with an other part of the body than the boot it is a behind. I could support something like that, but the simplest change is just to make the ball brushing the post not matter with regards to whether it is a goal or behind.

 

[MF]

Yep. Any touches to still remain a point however.

Only because it will just become another thing for the umpires to screw up. I'd rather them debate whether the ball was touched at all, rather than whether or not it was touched too little, too much, by too many people, changed trajectory too much etc.

 

[kreuze_missile]

Never change, preserve history etc.

But also it would be cool if it was play on when the ball hits the post and comes back into play.

 

[Lsta062]

If it goes through the middle sticks, then it’s a goal. I don’t care if it ricochets off 20 fingers and both middle goal posts. If the defender doesn’t want to concede the goal, then they better deviate the ball’s trajectory or catch it.

The only reason why I say this is because it’s otherwise too difficult to consistently adjudicate with the current technology. The AFL have set up what looks like a one megapixel camera on the goalposts to determine whether the ball was touched. I struggle to identify which pixel is the finger, let alone whether or not it was touched.

It’s just easier for all involved.

 

[Golden_6]

I've thought about it before and it wouldn't be the worst idea but I don't think it would ever be implemented.

I mean pretty much every other sport with goals (Soccer, NRL, NFL etc.), it doesn't matter if it hits the post as long as it goes through.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

We haven't changed the sport for a couple of weeks. Go at it.

 

[Quivorir]

So incidental touches don't count as a behind? Like a finger tip off the boot or a defender touching it on the line? Maybe it's a goal so long as it last came off an attacking players boot. If an attacking player last touches it over the line with an other part of the body than the boot it is a behind. I could support something like that, but the simplest change is just to make the ball brushing the post not matter with regards to whether it is a goal or behind.

Yeah I'm talking those "smothers" off the boot that might bend a pinky back if you really squint. Has no affect on the flight of the ball. Don't waste my time reviewing it. Call it a goal and move on.

 

[Dazzler9]

What you can't have is play-on after the ball comes back into play. You're denying the team a point for being more accurate in their shot at goal than if they had missed by more.

The counter-argument is that they have a second chance at goal if they gather the rebound, but then counter to that is the kick after the siren scenario.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Keep the rule. Change the process around the adjudication of it. If it's clearly hit the post pay the behind. If it hasn't but the ball was close to the post, send it to review - if there is any conclusive evidence that the ball hit the post, pay the behind. Otherwise it's a goal. No more I believe it hit the post but can you check. Take that goal umpire call out of it. Applying this logic, to the Adelaide situation, the goal umpire would have paid the goal and sent it to review to check if it hit the post - no conclusive evidence there, goal stands. Also allow the field umpire to call for the review.

This situation stems from the ruling that says the goal umpire must pay the lower score if they're not sure. That's stupid. Pay what you know not what you believe.

 

[Dazzler9]

Yeah I'm talking those "smothers" off the boot that might bend a pinky back if you really squint. Has no affect on the flight of the ball. Don't waste my time reviewing it. Call it a goal and move on.

But how much of a touch does it have to be before it is counted as a touch? Umpires will have to make a subjective decision.

No thanks. It's a clear, black & white rule at the moment. Leave as is.

 

[Quivorir]

But how much of a touch does it have to be before it is counted as a touch? Umpires will have to make a subjective decision.

No thanks. It's a clear, black & white rule at the moment. Leave as is.

I'd be happy for any touch tbh. If it's still got the power to make and accuracy to go through the touch means nothing. It's not a smother.

Sorry I've kinda derailed the thread with this comment.

 

[tandino]

I wonder where the rule came from in the first place. It exists in the Melbourne Rules of 1859.

3. A Goal must be kicked fairly between the posts, without touching either of them, or a portion of the person of any player on either side.

But why did they care?

 

[PerthBoy86]

Don't mind either way, but I'd prefer to keep the touch = behind rule. I see no reason to keep the if it hits the post but still goes through it's a behind rule though. It would eliminate a lot of reviews. But not losing over sleep over it, as long as they really improve the review system.

 

[BobbyMorri]

I thought this is the way it should be regarding the post. The smallest of touches can be really hard to tell sometimes.. I am surprised by the results thought. I thought more people would be resistant to a change like this.

Actually, the non touch rule sounds fun as well. Would get rid of deliberate points in a way. But you would get times where a making contest becomes a fist contest to fist it over the line, so have to make sure the last touch from an attacking side comes from the boot.

if we had a pre-season comp, I would love to see these in action.

in summary, yes for poster. Comes back in play, it is a point. Wait and see on the touch.

 

[Jazny]

I thought this is the way it should be regarding the post. The smallest of touches can be really hard to tell sometimes.. I am surprised by the results thought. I thought more people would be resistant to a change like this.

Actually, the non touch rule sounds fun as well. Would get rid of deliberate points in a way. But you would get times where a making contest becomes a fist contest to fist it over the line, so have to make sure the last touch from an attacking side comes from the boot.

if we had a pre-season comp, I would love to see these in action.

in summary, yes for poster. Comes back in play, it is a point. Wait and see on the touch.

Im surprised the poll isn't 80% in favour of not worrying about if the ball grazes the post. Seems like a easy rule change that will solve some problems and make the game easier to umpire.

 

[BG32]

How about any type of touch and it's still a goal, which means defenders will have to either aim for the behinds or fist it back into play. This makes it easy for the umpires.

 

[Jazny]

How about any type of touch and it's still a goal, which means defenders will have to either aim for the behinds or fist it back into play. This makes it easy for the umpires.

I think then every player will always just kick to the top of the goal square and the best forwards in the competition will just be jumping up and punching it through the goals.

 

[Dazzler9]

Make it 3 points if it's touched or hits the post

On SM-G970F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

How about any type of touch and it's still a goal, which means defenders will have to either aim for the behinds or fist it back into play. This makes it easy for the umpires.

RIP the mark in the goal square. Forwards taught to punch the ball through the goalposts instead of mark.
Rucks doing the same from stoppage.

A little change that changes the whole game.

 

[BG32]

RIP the mark in the goal square. Forwards taught to punch the ball through the goalposts instead of mark.
Rucks doing the same from stoppage.

A little change that changes the whole game.

Do you think Curnow is gonna be whacking through a Matthew Owies set shot that is falling short?

 

[Wallaby]

I like the history of Australian Rules, and I grew up liking the game as it was played in my youth. Since then, there have been many rule changes (Out of Bounds on full - good, centre square - hmmm, OK, probably good, Interchange - terrible, 6-6-6 - meh, etc. We tried 'hands in the back' to remove those 'gentle shoves' that full-forwards have been doing for years, people complained 'Oh, that wasn't a free in my day!', so we got rid of it - and we're back to complaining about 'gentle shoves' again.

The scoring rules have never changed. Video replay has improved things quite a bit (as has taller goal posts - check out some footage from the 1950 or 60s - you rarely hear 'over the post' these days), and there are more improvements possible with better technology, but it's unlikely to ever be 100% perfect. Live with it.

The idea of the ball bouncing back into play off the post is 'play on' is terrible. You miss a goal - it's a behind. Has been for 100+ years. Rugby, NRL, soccer and NFL have confusing rules - if it's in general play, hitting the post is play on, if it's a penalty shot in rugby, NRL, a field goal in NFL or a penalty shootout in soccer - it's a miss. You don't get another chance. This argument is about Australian Football. Who cares what other codes do.

As for reviewing only last 5 minutes, or only 'obvious' touches, or only last round etc - well, in just a quick 5 minute search I found that if Carlton or the Bulldogs had just one goal decision reversed in their 2022 game (ie bulldogs have a goal changed to a point, or Carlton have a point changed to a goal), it wouldn't change the game result, but Carlton would have made the finals and the Bullies would have missed.

Be careful of rule changes - there are often a number of ramifications that no one anticipates, because 'That would never happen!'.

I say - 's**t happens - Do your best with technology, human umpires, and reviews at the time - if later on, technology finds 'A Mistake Was Made!' - live with it.

So - no rule changes for me.

 

[maskmcgee]

More important to change the touched rule, if the ball isn't touched to the extent that the ball changes it's trajectory it dosen't matter. Fingers bend back, so what, if the ball kept going on the path it was already on it's not touched.

 

[JackFlash]

In the game of Australian Rules football you score a goal by kicking the ball between the big sticks, just like Ben Keays

2

Ben Keays

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.1

3star

K

5.8

2star

HB

7.3

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.9

5star

G

0.4

3star

D

13.7

3star

K

8.7

3star

HB

5.0

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.7

4star

G

0.3

3star

D

13.0

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

8.2

5star

M

1.4

2star

T

4.4

5star

G

0.4

3star

did last week. The AFL can get the technology ready by 2024 and the cost shouldn't be an issue considering they are putting the AFLW on an equal par with the blokes game They must also empower the field umpires to overrule the Goal Umpire and call for a review at any time. This was a major human error and it could've easily been avoided if the Field Umpires ( 4 of them ) were on the ball! We have just seen the worst decision in AFL history, the fact that it was Adelaide who had their season ruined is the only reason this hasn't gone further into legalities. Imagine fellow footy fans if that was Carlton or Collingwood who had their season ruined.?