Thinner posts would be hard to see from a distance and likely cause more confusion with narrow misses.

The laser beams are a much better idea. If a ball "hit the post" it would be incinerated by the laser beam and explode on the spot. There'd be no necessity for a goal review system then. We could fill the balls with fireworks to make sure everyone could see.

Thinner posts would be hard to see from a distance and likely cause more confusion with narrow misses.

oh dear

Thinner posts would be hard to see from a distance and likely cause more confusion with narrow misses.

Then how about we have a GPS device inserted in the ball which is synchronised with other GPS devices that are attached to the four goal posts and four point posts...this could then all be hooked up to an automated scoring system that registers the goal or point, automatically updating the scoreboard, This will save the AFL the wages they currently pay the goal umpires and score board attendants (all no longer required). In fact the same technology could be used for boundary line calls.

Edited July 8, 201411 yr by hardtack

The laser beams are a much better idea. If a ball "hit the post" it would be incinerated by the laser beam and explode on the spot. There'd be no necessity for a goal review system then. We could fill the balls with fireworks to make sure everyone could see.

great idea

i also think goal posters should be worth 3 points

Then how about we have a GPS device inserted in the ball which is synchronised with other GPS devices that are attached to the four goal posts and four point posts...this could then all be hooked up to an automated scoring system that registers the goal or point, automatically updating the scoreboard, This will save the AFL the wages they currently pay the goal umpires and score board attendants (all no longer required). In fact the same technology could be used for boundary line calls.

i like it hardtack, but you must have more accurate gps up in sydney than we do in melbourne

Has the AFL ever considered treating the goal posts the same way as soccer (football) deals with them. If the ball hits the post and still goes through - its a goal. If the ball hits the post and bounces back into play, its play on. This would be a solution to Video Review System and speed up the game. Thoughts?

I have been of the same opinion for a while now. If they can't decide if it touched the post then change the rule and take away the problem.

There are some things in our game that make it unique. But just because something is different doesn't necessarily make it better. taking away the hit the post rule will not change the game it will just make it simpler and much less annoying.

The laser beams are a much better idea. If a ball "hit the post" it would be incinerated by the laser beam and explode on the spot. There'd be no necessity for a goal review system then. We could fill the balls with fireworks to make sure everyone could see.

Now you are on to something. And if you still didn't like the goal umpire's decision, you could just give him a little nudge in to the 'post', and he'll never make a wrong call again!

I don't like reviews in any sport.

My attitude is that all rules should be app-liable and accessible at grass roots level.

How are you going to groom officials/players for bigger roles if they need to make/accept calls in "development" leagues with the view that they will not need to worry about it once they step up in class.

I think it makes a better spectacle to discuss if an umpire made an error in real time than driving a computer.

I think a lot of people would have the attitude of we were lucky/robbed, but it will even out next time, as opposed to "how did they get it wrong, even with a video reply/review.

That being said, I don't think umpires market themselves very well. A lot of focus gets put on the 2 or 3 errors umpires may make a game. I am pretty sure most of the Melbourne players are paid more, have less pressure, more support and make at least 10 times (I am being generous, it would be way more)more errors by regularly getting caught out of position, missing passes, dropping balls, or choose wrong options.

Now you are on to something. And if you still didn't like the goal umpire's decision, you could just give him a little nudge in to the 'post', and he'll never make a wrong call again!

WOWWEEE BARREL BOY'S ARM HAS JUST BEEN SLICED OFF AFTER BIG BOY MCEVOY BUMPED HIM WHILE TRYING TO SPOIL THE BALL!! BOY OH BOY!! WOWEEEEE!! GET A LOOK AT THAT RICHO!

Does anyone know if the rule is that the entire ball needs to be over the goal line for it to be a score? Or is it just part over the line or just has to touch the line?

Does anyone know if the rule is that the entire ball needs to be over the goal line for it to be a score? Or is it just part over the line or just has to touch the line?

entire ball

entire ball

That's what I thought. So how come the ball can hit the post and not go over the line and still count as a score?

That's what I thought. So how come the ball can hit the post and not go over the line and still count as a score?

modification: "entire ball unless hit post"

modification: "entire ball unless hit post"

We really do have an overly complicated scoring system. I think the Joel Selwood NAB add in the back of the taxi sums it up perfectly

We really do have an overly complicated scoring system. I think the Joel Selwood NAB add in the back of the taxi sums it up perfectly

I think the ability of kids and foreigners to grasp the concept pretty simply shows it's not that hard.

Sure it's not soccer but it's more simple than a lot of sports.

Does anyone know if the rule is that the entire ball needs to be over the goal line for it to be a score? Or is it just part over the line or just has to touch the line?

Yes..just as it needs to be entirely across the boundary line to be OOB

We really do have an overly complicated scoring system. I think the Joel Selwood NAB add in the back of the taxi sums it up perfectly

and for these of us who don't take taxis is..................................?

Yes..just as it needs to be entirely across the boundary line to be OOB

and for these of us who don't take taxis is..................................?

well it was an add on tv with selwood in a taxi. not an add in the back of a taxi

The only rule modification required is if the ball hits the post and passes through, the appropriate score is awarded. If the ball hits the post and returns to the playing area the current rule applies. This is just simplifying the scoring procedure without a radical change.

Exactly. Hits the post and goes through for a goal then it is a goal. Everything else remains the same. Last week i heard a guy om 3aw call in with that suggestion and that [censored] Tony Shaw and Caro both cut him off and dismissed it out of hand, making the assumption that his idea would be the same as the one trialed in the NAB cup (and not letting him finish).

They argued that it would change the game too much. Rubbish. I would argue the rule noted above is actually how it has in effect always been paid. That's to say goal umpires have always missed the odd one that has actually hit the post (rarely the other way i guess). Stopping the play for 2 minutes while someone looks at ridiculous and not useful camera shots that hardly ever change the initial call from the ump is in fact changing the game.

Why not choose an option that is free, does not stop play and is accurate as the alternative method (video, hawkeye etc)?

Edited July 8, 201411 yr by binman

well it was an add on tv with selwood in a taxi. not an add in the back of a taxi

[take2] ......and for those of us who haven't seen the ad with Selwood in the back of a taxi, is................?

Maybe they should bring in a rule that if you pass through the opposition's goals while being tackled it just counts as a behind.

Oh, wait.............

The only rule modification required is if the ball hits the post and passes through, the appropriate score is awarded. If the ball hits the post and returns to the playing area the current rule applies. This is just simplifying the scoring procedure without a radical change.

And if the ball is kicked over the top of a post?

And if the ball is kicked over the top of a post?

out of bounds on the full

i wonder if anyone checks if the gap at the top of the goal posts is the same as at the bottom (ignoring padding)

if the posts are tapered then probably not

if they are not perfectly vertical then probably not

if they sway in the wind then probably not

i could go on.......

i wonder if anyone checks if the gap at the top of the goal posts is the same as at the bottom (ignoring padding)

if the posts are tapered then probably not

if they are not perfectly vertical then probably not

if they sway in the wind then probably not

i could go on.......

I think you have left out a very important possibility, DC. What if the defensive team could shake the post, so that a shot that might scrape through hits the post instead? Or perhaps if you take too long for a set shot, the posts start narrowing automatically? Or if you are Buddy Franklin the posts bend automatically to take into account his 'natural arc'? Or rather than nine points for outside 50, what about 12 points if the kick is within 1 metre of the centre of the posts? Or ... I think I need my morning coffee ...

I think you have left out a very important possibility, DC. What if the defensive team could shake the post, so that a shot that might scrape through hits the post instead? Or perhaps if you take too long for a set shot, the posts start narrowing automatically? Or if you are Buddy Franklin the posts bend automatically to take into account his 'natural arc'? Or rather than nine points for outside 50, what about 12 points if the kick is within 1 metre of the centre of the posts? Or ... I think I need my morning coffee ...

but wouldn't that be fun - the score reviews could take maybe five minutes!!