Rules Poll: Should we get rid of the hit the goal post automatically equals a behind rule?
- Thread starter Jazny
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Exactly, if it's virtually undetectable, as it was in Melbourne v. Carlton, because it wasn't touched, the call should be a goal.
I think where the ball drop is close to the goal square, 10 guys are going up for that ball. Maybe 2 are trying to mark it, but the rest are trying to punch it either to the pocket or through the goalposts.
I think ruckman just became super important in stoppages less than 20m from goal: 1 ruck will be considering punching it through for a goal.
18 coaches will be trying out all sorts of crazy stuff.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,382
- 2,598
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
Keep the rule as is, for me.
In a free-flowing sport without an offside rule, it's already comparatively easy to score goals, so the insistence on doing so cleanly is a welcome one that I wouldn't like to see diluted. The posts exist for the functional reason of marking out the space between as the goal, not the area behind it, so any ball currently "hitting the post" is inherently missing the goal - in that all or part of the ball fails to pass through the designated area which determines what a goal is. The fact we mark this out with a physical post for practical/historical/aesthetic purposes shouldn't change the principle that a shot 'passing through' that spot is a shot that misses.
What would a shot that goes over the post be under this proposal? It can't be about which direction the ball ends up going afterwards, because that's clearly not where goals are decided - it would be farcical to call a standard behind a goal simply because it ended up behind the goal line afterwards, for example. But if, instead, it's understood that crossing the goal line there is defined as not having passed through the goal area, then again, the practical necessity of putting a physical post in the ground to mark that out lower down shouldn't change anything about that.
You can easily tinker with the definitions to make the change work - I'm not pretending the above is some killer argument for maintaining the status quo. But there's a consistent rationale to the way it works at the moment, one that gets lost a bit if we have to start defining over-the-post differently to make sense of it in light of rebounding in off the post now being a goal.
(For what it's worth, I'd say touched scores being behinds should be kept as well. It likewise keeps that notion of having to cleanly score goals intact - whereas any deviation, from allowing minor deflections off defenders' fingertips right through to letting attacking teams handball or fumble or run it through for a goal, cheapens all goalscoring, and either introduces irksomely impossible thresholds ("has the ball deflected enough to count it as touched?") or fundamentally changes the game.)
In a free-flowing sport without an offside rule, it's already comparatively easy to score goals, so the insistence on doing so cleanly is a welcome one that I wouldn't like to see diluted. The posts exist for the functional reason of marking out the space between as the goal, not the area behind it, so any ball currently "hitting the post" is inherently missing the goal - in that all or part of the ball fails to pass through the designated area which determines what a goal is. The fact we mark this out with a physical post for practical/historical/aesthetic purposes shouldn't change the principle that a shot 'passing through' that spot is a shot that misses.
What would a shot that goes over the post be under this proposal? It can't be about which direction the ball ends up going afterwards, because that's clearly not where goals are decided - it would be farcical to call a standard behind a goal simply because it ended up behind the goal line afterwards, for example. But if, instead, it's understood that crossing the goal line there is defined as not having passed through the goal area, then again, the practical necessity of putting a physical post in the ground to mark that out lower down shouldn't change anything about that.
You can easily tinker with the definitions to make the change work - I'm not pretending the above is some killer argument for maintaining the status quo. But there's a consistent rationale to the way it works at the moment, one that gets lost a bit if we have to start defining over-the-post differently to make sense of it in light of rebounding in off the post now being a goal.
(For what it's worth, I'd say touched scores being behinds should be kept as well. It likewise keeps that notion of having to cleanly score goals intact - whereas any deviation, from allowing minor deflections off defenders' fingertips right through to letting attacking teams handball or fumble or run it through for a goal, cheapens all goalscoring, and either introduces irksomely impossible thresholds ("has the ball deflected enough to count it as touched?") or fundamentally changes the game.)
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
As much as I love the sport, all the rules around the scoring system are fairly bonkers when you think about it.
"Goal-based sports" (for want of a better term) don't usually have so many restrictions about how the ball gets in the goal.
"Goal-based sports" (for want of a better term) don't usually have so many restrictions about how the ball gets in the goal.
Well they came from a soccer background didn't they? In Soccer if the ball hits the post it's not a goal, so it'd be natural for the new ball to be the same.
Yes. Lets go full rehtard. Anything that goes through the big sticks, no matter how it makes it through, 6 big ones.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
reminds me of the AFL Lightning Premiership, and since Essendon won that, it is better left forgotten.
en.wikipedia.org
1996 AFL Lightning Premiership - Wikipedia
The Educator
All Australian
- Jan 23, 2023
- 806
- 767
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
There was no soccer in 1859
The Educator
All Australian
- Jan 23, 2023
- 806
- 767
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
God I am glad I am not one of these types that has a panic attack when they can't find a correlate in a foreign sport for an aspect of Australian football.
It is just not an argument. As hcd199 notes above, the principle is that the ball must go through the goal cleanly from the foot of an attacking player. It has been this way so the original rules. It is also the oldest continuous "goal based sport". Maybe everyone else screwed up?
- May 29, 2013
- 3,859
- 9,320
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
If the ball hits the big posts without being touched and goes thru the goal it's a goal
If the ball hits the behind posts and goes thru for a behind its a behind If it goes out of play it's a throw in even if it hits the post on the full
If the ball hits any post goes back into play it's play on ..... would add to the excitement and players would have to be aware that the ball is still live and be alert
If the ball goes thru for a goal but the Goal umpire believes the ball is touched it goes for review and VAR has to deem it has been touched without any doubt or else it called a goal
Now that would simplify things
If the ball hits the behind posts and goes thru for a behind its a behind If it goes out of play it's a throw in even if it hits the post on the full
If the ball hits any post goes back into play it's play on ..... would add to the excitement and players would have to be aware that the ball is still live and be alert
If the ball goes thru for a goal but the Goal umpire believes the ball is touched it goes for review and VAR has to deem it has been touched without any doubt or else it called a goal
Now that would simplify things
Nope.
I've been saying this for years - make it like other sports so that if it goes in, it's a goal. Saves all the * ing around.
- May 29, 2013
- 3,859
- 9,320
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Why not?
No need.
The Educator
All Australian
- Jan 23, 2023
- 806
- 767
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
Wow, I thought it was ridiculous but if you've been saying it for years.....
I posted this in another thread...
Petracca made a very good point on 360 tonight.
Why don't we just simplify the process?
Then the only decision that needs to be made is whether the ball fully crosses the line, which can be addressed by technology.
Petracca made a very good point on 360 tonight.
Why don't we just simplify the process?
- If it goes through the goals, it's a goal. Regardless of whether it is touched or it hits the post. Like in soccer.
- Same with a behind.
- If it hits any post and remains in play, it's play on.
Then the only decision that needs to be made is whether the ball fully crosses the line, which can be addressed by technology.
- Sep 28, 2018
- 2,633
- 5,083
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I think this is a great idea - let’s run with it!
Goal if not touched , hits post but still goes through.
Goal if not touched , hits post but still goes through.
ChickenSalt
Debutant
- Jun 7, 2010
- 102
- 267
- AFL Club
- Sydney
What if the ball goes over the top of the goalpost? Goal or point?
"Records show that, in 1314, the Lord Mayor of London banned football in the city due to it causing ‘chaos’. If you were caught playing the game in London, you could be imprisoned."
So what were they playing?
- Jun 17, 2019
- 7,362
- 17,447
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Simple rule change, it only counts if there's a deflection. If a touch from a player or goal post isn't enough to generate a deflection then it shouldn't count. Make the rule clear and have no grey areas.
- Jul 15, 2014
- 21,836
- 42,049
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, LA Lakers, Western United
Well the AFL could do it like this:
- If a player kicks for goal and contact was made by any player, then it is not a goal if the contact was forceful enough to change the ball's trajectory (e.g., the player punched the ball through when the ball was falling short/heading to the outer posts). This is quite easily determined upon review.
- If a player kicks for goal and a player touches the ball without significantly* changing the trajectory of the ball, then it would be a goal.
*Whether the change in trajectory is significant or not will depend on whether it is obvious to the average observer. If it's ambiguous (i.e. slightly ricocheting off the palm of a player's hand), then chances are that the change in course is not significant enough to rule it a behind. A punch or a kick by a defender would be obvious, so that would be a behind. Same for a teammate in the kicker's team punching it through.
Although the above is wordy, this system is much easier to implement than what it sounds. Beats our current system at least, which reviews whether the ball grazed a goalpost or a fingernail. It's too difficult for umpires to adjudicate our game right now.
Once they develop or implement better technology for determining contact, then they can go back to our current system.
Similar threads
- Poll
