No big deal, just that logic dictated the change, as I see logic will eventually dictate a goal in Aust Rules will be scored if it passes between the main uprights whether it hits one of them or not. Probably similar to when an opposing player touches the ball and it goes between the posts. This should also be a goal IMO. But that’s another argument! LOL

the post is part of the boundary, the ball must completely ‘clear the boundary’ for example to be out on the full, or to be a registered score,

if the ball strikes any of the goal/point posts, it is deemed to have clearly crossed the LESSER of the two connected ‘boundaries’

So, quite simply, a ball striking the goal post MUST be considered a ‘behind’.

To change it now would be inconsistant.

However, look at Rugby where the ball need not be over the sidelines, just, part of the body, which then becomes inconsistant with scoring a try where the ball MUST touch the ground – - – why not just part of the body of the bloke holding the ball????

In Australian football, the ball must be ENTIRELY over the line, and this is illustrated by the regard of the back of the post thickness of the goal pads now being deemed as the ‘line’ past which the ball must pass to be counted a ‘goal’,

the notion that the ball needs to do so without any deflection other than the technical definitions of a kick by an attacking player holds. This is important – it helps clearly define the value of a kick above all other ‘propulsion’…..along with awarding marks only from a kick – it helps clearly define the game as a kicking game.

To reduce the technical definition of a goal would be to lessen the skill requirement in KICKING a goal, as, we hardly want something as loosely defined as a soccer ‘scored’ goal. The danger is to lessen it a little opens the door to lessen it further…..we don’t want a Gaelic style of game allowing goals to be ‘knocked’ through.

However, re ‘behind’ : a ‘behind’ should travel ‘behind’ the post??? Perhaps, but, a ‘behind’ has effectively been made to be a ‘name’ or label to incorporate all 1 pt scores including a ‘touched’ or ‘poster’ or ‘rushed’. The name isn’t all that important. Just like in Rugby a ‘try’ is now worth points and worth MORE points than a goal?!?!?!? go figure.

The problem is you can pick all sports apart and say why dont they do this or that. The essence of the game does not need to change they are the rules.

One rule that was changed this year was the ‘rushed behind’. For years it was never really exploited, but in 2008 several teams deliberately rushed a behind through as a way of providing more time for the fullback when teams started using zone defences. The AFL changed the rule and the game was the better for it.

That is the test.

Redb

I’m sorry, but there is just no logic whatsoever in calling a score a behind if it goes through the uprights, but touched a post on the way through. I wander how many goals are either scored or not scored because the ball was so close to an upright it may or may not have grazed it and the goal umpire makes a ‘group 9er’, goal, no goal.

Clearly, if someone can pinpoint a finite reason as to why this rule should not be changed, I will listen and learn. However, I’m not at all interested in tradition or the like…it makes no logical sense in the current scheme of the game, unless you want technology to take over, and that’s ridiculous for something so easily fixed. My above point on ‘rules’ stands.

a good point really – - – and in reality, at least half of those ‘mistakes’ were absolutely correct from the umpires perspective, but, quite wrong from over the fence.

The Hawkins kick – - ideally one of the field umpires should’ve been able to pick up on it, but, if they weren’t in position, then…..really, it’s just one of those things.

i think its the feild umpires error who called the ‘all clear’ to the goal ump before he signalled a goal. the feild ump has a much better position on the park to adjudicate this particular incident. a bloke standing on the line would have no chance seeing a deflection off the post from point blank range after the switch in play. its the feild umpires fault.

anyway, the game is already fucked with too many rules and umpires and changes etc. i dont think we need video replays. even if the saints had lost by 1 point i dont think the coach or players would complain or want the introduction of video replay.

the umpires make a million mistakes every game. it just so happens that this instance is very rare and directly cost a team 5 points. but there are bad umpiring decisions all around the ground that indirectly result in goals and behinds, but everyone gets on with it, just like the saints did with the hawkins decision.

If 4 goal umps improves the accuracy of decisions, then why not introduce them for finals. Especially if costs is the only reason agst it. Im sure the big-business AFL can afford a few more goal umps for the crucial finals. Makes sense yeah?

Melbourne Rules 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.

AFL has enough rule changes every year anyway…no need to chage something based on extremely isolated incidents.
And this can not justify the use of video technology either. I can assure you that supporters get much more frustrated with umpires interpretations of the play the ball rules, then on occasions such as tom harleys “goal”

I’d also add that I hate when they replay the same three frames, over and over and over and over and over and over again…

Surely if you can’t make a decision the first two times you see a slow-motion replay, the batsman should be given the benefit of the doubt? Or, in the case of State of Origin, Jarrad Hayne’s try should be awarded (with the same benefit of the doubt ruling)?

The whole replay thing can cause the same division among the fans as the human possibility of error – so what’s the point, especially since it takes more time?

But I’d have say that I’m with you Pip,

It’s really a toss-up – Do we accept the human element of possible error in judgment, or do we come up with a system of never-ending replays whenever there’s the slightest bit of doubt? I’d say keep the current system, and allow the field umpires to have a quick word to the goal umpires if they disagree with their outcome. This was probably my only concern for the result in the Grand Final – that the field umpires should have seen it and overruled the decision. Maybe when they have their yearly pow-wow, they’ll discuss the matter and make it a bit more definite.

However, the problem is not the technology, but the human factor. And you need humans to operate the technology. Put a guy in front of a TV replay monitor, place him under pressure to make a decision in less than a minute, & it’s amazing how his brain goes to mush, & he begins seeing things that no-one else can see!

Quite often the first instinct is the correct one, so let’s go back to the good old days of the ref/umpire making the decision on the spot.

So – - perhaps video ref’s are a tad over rated, and perhaps, more so in a game of fast and constant action – such as AFL – let’s just leave it all to the ‘hand’ of humans.

Umpiring CAN annoy the heck out of us at times, – but, as Darren Milburn showed, arguing does no good (especially if you happen to be wrong!!). As soon as people focus on things they can’t control (the irrelevant things) – then they lose focus on the things they can (the relevant things). Sports (AFL very much so) teaches us this…..that you just get on with it and redemption can often be right around the corner.

In rugby league, rugby union and soccer, an “in-off” shot is a goal. Of course it is . . . the ball has gone between the posts, so what difference does it make if it brushes a post on the way through?

The AFL gets almost everything right. Why is it so stubborn about this silly rule?

So no, we need neither goal line technology or a 2nd goal umpire – especially the latter – there are already 7 officials on the field!!