say again?

[stinger]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 5903916198


flowering idiots.....the maggots can't get it right...so why not make it just two posts......6 points if it goes through........i'm kidding of course....

"The AFL is considering radical change in how the game is scored for next season.

The law change being floated is to allow a goal when the ball hits the post and goes through the goal.

The same would apply to a ball which hits the behind post and goes through.

Currently a ball which hits the goal posts is counted as a behind, with a ball that hits the behind post out of bounds.

“It's a proposal to get feedback on, it was a late inclusion and we hope it will reduce goal umpiring errors,â€

[Life Long Saint]

Makes perfect sense to me.

This is one rule change that they should bring in.

The only change that I would make is that if it hits any post and comes back into play then it is play on.

I'd rather see this trialled in the NAB cup than the ridiculous super goal crap.

[Teflon]

Thats a farce. we cant get it right....so let em through so we are devoid of any responsibility?

incredible.

[Sainterman]

Makes perfect sense to me.

This is one rule change that they should bring in.

The only change that I would make is that if it hits any post and comes back into play then it is play on.

I'd rather see this trialled in the NAB cup than the ridiculous super goal crap.

Not something we should be messing with IMO.

What about if the ball hits the post, bounces off it back in to play, then again bounces the other way and through the goals without being touched? Is that a goal too?

If it hits the top of the post and bounce up and off it...?

This rule will create its own set of issues to deal with, better to use technology to correctly adhere to the current rule i reckon. This change would be a very significant one in the history of the game.

Knee jerk reaction to the problem, but then this is the AFL and AA making their usual well considered decisions on the game and its rules, so nothing to worry about here.

[bergsone]

Leave it as is,just have a um behind each post

[bigred]

FFS why.

Why the hell must they mess with this bulltish.

Sure more umps maybe, but if it hits the post it is ONE point only. Has been for over a hundred years.

[SainterK]

Leave it as is,just have a um behind each post

I agree bergsone, at least try it to see if it helps....it certainly would of in 2 out of the 3 cases on the weekend.

[Life Long Saint]

What about if the ball hits the post, bounces off it back in to play, then again bounces the other way and through the goals without being touched? Is that a goal too?

Obviously, yes.

If it hits the top of the post and bounce up and off it...?

I think that we can call that a point...

If that's the best you've got then it's not much of an argument...in my 30+ years of watching footy I've never seen either of those scenarios.

Geez...we have adapted to playing indoors and had to write a rule for the ball hitting the roof...but will we ever see it implemented?

Honestly, who cares if the ball grazes the post on the way through the goals? The ball has still crossed the line between the two posts so pay the goal.

[bergsone]

Leave it as is,just have a um behind each post

I agree bergsone, at least try it to see if it helps....it certainly would of in 2 out of the 3 cases on the weekend.

And if they get it wrong then so be it,afterall there have been errors made in this game,by ALL involved,since the game first started

[Bernard Shakey]

Not a radical change, just a logical change. I'm all for it, and if it hits a post and stays in bounds just play on. Will simplify scoring and add a new dynamic to forward play.

[Sainterman]

What about if the ball hits the post, bounces off it back in to play, then again bounces the other way and through the goals without being touched? Is that a goal too?

Obviously, yes.

If it hits the top of the post and bounce up and off it...?

I think that we can call that a point...

If that's the best you've got then it's not much of an argument...in my 30+ years of watching footy I've never seen either of those scenarios.

Geez...we have adapted to playing indoors and had to write a rule for the ball hitting the roof...but will we ever see it implemented?

Honestly, who cares if the ball grazes the post on the way through the goals? The ball has still crossed the line between the two posts so pay the goal.

I have seen both those things happen and on more than one occasion in my 30+ years of watching the game, and even if it had never happened before does not mean it won't happen sometime soon. We see new things all the time.

Now if I wanted football to be more like soccer then lets have the ball bouncing of posts and then through for a goal, or even better why don't we then put a crossbar over the top of the goals so we can see clearly whether it has sailed through or not. Imean if it went through to high, we might have some doubt there too, and it might be too hard so why not have another "little" modification.

I care if the ball grazes the post because it is an integral part of the game, the poster. All we need is to use appropriate technology to help in dubious situations, and I would think/know that at the dawn of the technological age, we might just be in a good position to do this.

But...it is easier to simply change the rules...

[widereceiver]

I wouldn't mind if they abandoned behinds altogether. It has always seemed bizarre to me, there's a consolation prize for poor kicking. Therefore, if it grazed the post going through, it would still be a goal.

I hasten to add, this would not apply retrospectively so Barry Breen's point would stand.

[FQF]

I wouldn't mind if they abandoned behinds altogether. It has always seemed bizarre to me, there's a consolation prize for poor kicking. Therefore, if it grazed the post going through, it would still be a goal.

I hasten to add, this would not apply retrospectively so Barry Breen's point would stand.

That's absurd.

Why don't we change to a round ball while we're at it, because it's bizarre we would complicate the game with strangely bouncing balls.

[python]

Why are people seemingly determined to eradicate all that is unique with our game? The odd rule change is fine, but this destroys an aspect of the game which has been there since the beginning, something all of us have grown up watching and accepting. Why should the rules conform with that enforced by other codes? Do you think the NRL is sitting back thinking, 'well the AFL uses behind posts, so maybe their is some value in that?' Of course they aren't, and neither should we. The AFL should stop trying to make this game something it isn't, leave the rules alone, and realise it is the uniqueness of our game that makes it popular, and it certainly is the reason why i follow the sport.

[widereceiver]

I loathe soccer so my suggestion is not about trying to emulate it. The shape of the ball and whether there is a consolation prize for bad kicking are two different things.

My remark was meant in jest, but if you can't see the humour in it, do at least try to be logical.

[FQF]

I loathe soccer so my suggestion is not about trying to emulate it. The shape of the ball and whether there is a consolation prize for bad kicking are two different things.

My remark was meant in jest, but if you can't see the humour in it, do at least try to be logical.

A strange expression of jest, but if that's the case then I nullify what i wrote.

[Beej]

You can bet that as soon as the rule is brought in, a ball will float towards goal and on its way down will hit the post and someone will touch it just after it's hit the post.

People will still ask, "did the ball cross the line before it was touched?"

Too big a change IMO. Pointless change just for the sake of change.

Hitting the post is such a massive part of our game.

[Grimfang]

Stupid, stupid concept dreamt up by a committee that has to come up with rule changes every year to justify its existence.

What happens when the ball sails directly over the top of a post without touching it?

[plugger66]

I think the ideas are just being put out there. Some people think they are great, some people hate them. I dont mind it all if it is changed but they are probably better to keep as is. Even though some people dont want rule changes most that have been made havent hurt the game at all. I do find it funny though when people say I dont want rule changes but then proceed to say this is a good rule change.

[markp]

Daft.

Why not make it a goal regardless of whether it's kicked, hand-balled or rushed over the goal line too?

[Wrote for Luck]

There's something pure and sweet about a ball soaring between the posts, without a nick, classic, especially when the goal is a match winner. And when a ball does hit the post, there's real drama, no confusion. It's great.

You'd lose a little of that beauty.

New descriptions would be created; ugly goals etc...

If umps are stuffing it up currently, they'll stuff up the glance-goal more, be sure of that. Sometimes when it hits the post it saves the bacon of the out of position ump.

Technology is the only way imo. Like tennis maybe give coaches three challenges per match? I think two goal umpires would look ridiculous and still wouldn't help with close to the line stuff ups like last weekend.

[Life Long Saint]

Daft.

Why not make it a goal regardless of whether it's kicked, hand-balled or rushed over the goal line too?

Because the game is called football...and that's why we can call it football and other sports can not.

We have to kick the ball by foot over the goal line to produce our maximum score. Name any other "football" code that forces that rule...

In soccer, the ball only needs to come off a body part other than an arm...it doesn't even need to be your own player.
In both rugby codes, the ball is placed on the ground.

[ThomasR]

We can't get rid of the bounce because of "tradition" but we can change the entire scoring system?? Talk about kneejerk..

[3:16]

it's that F()ckwhit Luke Darcy, he's a fairdinkum c0ckwhinder!!!!!

[saintspremiers]

One thing the AFL should consider is 4 goal umpires JUST FOR THE FINALS.

FFS why can't those tight arsed pricks spend a bit more just for finals, when it really counts, even if they are too tight to spend the extra $$$ on the H&A season.

It's time they think out of the box a bit, and look at finals games a bit differently to H&A matches given their importance.

......just an idea Dimwit!!!