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

[Sarcoidevo]

What if the ball goes over the top of the goalpost? Goal or point?

Goal if camera technology and the ump is unsure ..... put wide lens camera facing towards the sky in the top of the goal post ...... could that work?

 

[tandino]

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.

There was no soccer in 1859

It's a bit of a head scratcher. Early versions of Rugby School rules back when Wills attended mentioned balls touching the crossbar and going over as being fair goals. Touched (by another player) balls not being fair goals are definitely Rugby rules.

Maybe it was a house rule at one of the local schools/clubs that got in there somehow. Maybe it was a holdover from the days where trees were used as posts. It's just interesting that it was so definitive.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

What if the ball goes over the top of the goalpost? Goal or point?

Goal.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

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.

No thanks, it would change the whole way goals are kicked .

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Take post touches out of it altogether, if it passes entirely across the line, goal.

Attacker kicking at goal, passes through defender's fingers, goal.
Attacker kicking at goal, passes through attacker's teammates fingers, goal.

Defender kicks it through goal, under existing pressure rule (ie NO attacker within goal square distance) own goal.
Defender kicks it through goal under pressure (ie attacker within goal square distance) rushed behind.

Defender walks, fumbles, handballs it through goal, under existing pressure rule, own goal.
Defender walks, fumbles, handballs it through goal, under pressure, rushed behind.

Its really not that hard and would all but eliminate the need for reviews.

 

[Jazny]

Take post touches out of it altogether, if it passes entirely across the line, goal.

Attacker kicking at goal, passes through defender's fingers, goal.
Attacker kicking at goal, passes through attacker's teammates fingers, goal.

Defender kicks it through goal, under existing pressure rule (ie NO attacker within goal square distance) own goal.
Defender kicks it through goal under pressure (ie attacker within goal square distance) rushed behind.

Defender walks, fumbles, handballs it through goal, under existing pressure rule, own goal.
Defender walks, fumbles, handballs it through goal, under pressure, rushed behind.

Its really not that hard and would all but eliminate the need for reviews.

It would ruin forward craft. Just put a 210cm player in the goal square and he can punch through goals all day

 

[PenfoldsFan]

It would ruin forward craft. Just put a 210cm player in the goal square and he can punch through goals all day

Not really, it would make no sense to kick shots that drop in that zone deliberately when a 210cm defender could also punch it away.

 

[Toump Ass]

Why not just use technology and common sense to enforce the rules we have?

Said it before, but a captain being able to challenge a number of decisions like in tennis would be really useful.

 

[ChickenSalt]

Goal.

So two kicks at goal which follow the same trajectory are treated differently according to how high each kick is?

Too inconsistent. Leave the hit-the-post rule as it is.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

So two kicks at goal which follow the same trajectory are treated differently according to how high each kick is?

Too inconsistent. Leave the hit-the-post rule as it is.

No because the high one has "hit" the post and gone through.

 

[MF]

I'm not a big fan of the "let it be a goal if its touched but does not change trajectory thing". We'll just end up arguing over whether or not a ball slightly deviated from a touch. It's far easier to determine if a ball was touched or not than to determine to what extent it was touched.

Hits a post and goes through: Goal
Hits a post and comes back into play: Point
Touched and goes through: Point

 

[ChickenSalt]

No because the high one has "hit" the post and gone through.

I take your point, but a low ball that hits the “behind” side of the goal post wouldn’t go through for a goal. If a high ball clears the goal post but on the “behind” side then it’s treated differently.

I guess the point is that nothings perfect so I say no change.

 

[kickazz]

There is a case for this, along with the touched rule too.

It's a bit radical, but you could have:

Hit the goal post = goal if goes through goals, point if goes through points or rebounds back into play
Hit the point post = point if goes through points, OOB if goes OOB, OOB (or potentially play on) if rebounds into play.

The above would make the sport consistent with most other football codes and would be easy to adjudicate.

'Play on' for rebounding off point post adds something to the game we have never had and I'd understand not wanting that. (Hence preference for OOB)

You could make the distance between posts shorter to compensate for the fact that goals are now "easier" to get, and so to try and keep scoring/records 'consistent' with history. But no matter what you do in that regard, goals from tight angles would forever be easier as hitting the post is more of a factor for angle shots.

In principle, I don't mind touched on the line being a point, but a slight touch off the boot that the umpire barely notices? Not so much. If you cannot impede the kick enough to stop it going through, then why should you be rewarded with conceding a lower score?

I get that this would bring in grey areas. Perhaps, then make this the rule:

Any ball going through the goals posts that last comes off a) An attacking player below the knee or b) ANY PART of a defender - is a goal. This means the defender's job is to stop the ball going in the goals (ostensibly logical) but means the forwards cannot score a goal by just bombing long and punching through. The main drawback of this is that it takes away a traditional part of the game - 'rushing a behind' - but we have basically been phasing that out anyway.


*One exception to 'rushing' I would add is that a defender can rush it through provided they maintain possession (and not knock it through). This would also prevent attackers from scoring goals by essentially scrumming the ball over the line by gang tackling a defender.

 

[kickazz]

I'm not a big fan of the "let it be a goal if its touched but does not change trajectory thing". We'll just end up arguing over whether or not a ball slightly deviated from a touch. It's far easier to determine if a ball was touched or not than to determine to what extent it was touched.

Hits a post and goes through: Goal
Hits a post and comes back into play: Point
Touched and goes through: Point

Tend to agree. I hate the slight touch off the boot being a point, but with scoring we don't want grey areas. My alternative (suggested above) would make any touch by a defender a goal.

 

[Orange crush]

Touched is a behind, in off the post a goal .. as in rugby codes

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

1 bad umpire call and we’re ripping up the rule book again. We have an incident like this happen maybe what, once every 10 years? If this happened mid year no one would even be talking about it 24 hours after the game.

Bad call and the system broke down. Get the system and process correct rather than ripping up the rule book again.

No different to an umpire paying a clearly incorrect free kick in front of goal which decides a game. Umpire error decides a game. The umpires are what we need to fix and improve, not the rules.

 

[BobbyMorri]

Why do we have to use wooden posts.

Aren't we good enough as a society to have lasers as goalposts now? And when a ball hits them, they can make a noise like at the checkout. beep.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

No thanks.

Just get better cameras and actually use the ducking things

 

[kickazz]

Why do we have to use wooden posts.

Aren't we good enough as a society to have lasers as goalposts now? And when a ball hits them, they can make a noise like at the checkout. beep.

My brother and I have had several conversations about how lasers would solve all manner of footy problems.

 

[Dirty Bird]

No

Hit post, goes through behind = behind - nothing changes
Hit post, goes through goal = goal - I get the logic and can understand it if it's that simple
Hit post, returns into play. What does that equal? Play on? That seems awfully unfair as it was close than when it goes through for a behind. So you'd want to keep it a behind.
Hit post, returns into play, bounces through goal. What does that equal? Is it a behind as it hit post before going back into play. But it still goes through goal later. You'd feel robbed.

You keep it as it is. Because as you start working down through the what-if scenarios, it unravels and is either unfair or illogical.

 

[Dirty Bird]

My brother and I have had several conversations about how lasers would solve all manner of footy problems.

Maybe lather a coat of pain on the post right before the game so if the ball hits it, it gets stained with wet paint?

 

[Truetiger]

1 bad umpire call and we’re ripping up the rule book again. We have an incident like this happen maybe what, once every 10 years? If this happened mid year no one would even be talking about it 24 hours after the game.

Bad call and the system broke down. Get the system and process correct rather than ripping up the rule book again.

No different to an umpire paying a clearly incorrect free kick in front of goal which decides a game. Umpire error decides a game. The umpires are what we need to fix and improve, not the rules.

Interesting point, do we need more rule changes? Or upgrade the technology that they are using. Human error umpires and players will happen.

 

[kickazz]

Interesting point, do we need more rule changes? Or upgrade the technology that they are using. Human error umpires and players will happen.

Yeah they are rare enough that you just have to say "stiff s**t" and move on.

Conceptually talking about the mechanics of what should and should not be a goal is interesting though. And I think any merit it has would be not so much for these scenarios, but more to eliminate the tedium of replays and reward good play.

 

[Full Chooks]

I hated it at first, but the pure and simple idea of; If the footy passes completely over the goal line, while in play, by any means, it is a goal, it's growing on me.

It makes it much simpler to adjudicate on a number of rules, obviously touched behind and hit the post rules but also deliberate rushed behind (which is one of the dumbest rules) will be redundant.

Play around the goals will be more tense and better to watch because defenders don't have an easy out anymore.

Make the same rules for the behinds and then introduce the chaos of if the ball hits the post and stays in play, PLAY ON! That has highlight reel potential all over it!

 

[Full Chooks]

Sorry, not by any means. Has to be kicked by the team who's goal it is. Defenders rushing it over by any means is a goal.