Question regarding rules

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,658]

I always thought if a player with the ball touched the goal post then it was a behind.

 

Does anyone know this rule? Was the Goldstein goal in the first correct or another umpiring screw up?

[Moonshadow 17,678]

Then he proceded to take tha ball over the goal line by hand before kicking it back through the goals. Even the commentators mentioned it during the bullshlt review. Top teams are generally favoured in decision making in all levels of the AFL

Edited April 10, 2016 by Moonshadow

[grazman 7,537]

56 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

I always thought if a player with the ball touched the goal post then it was a behind.

 

Does anyone know this rule? Was the Goldstein goal in the first correct or another umpiring screw up?

Not as far as I know.  I thought it was the correct decision.  If it were a Melbourne player though....

[sue 9,235]

Looked like he took it over the line to me, but the review didn't have a camera in the right spot.

[Deestroy All 14,266]

Are there rules?

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,658]

5 minutes ago, sue said:

Looked like he took it over the line to me, but the review didn't have a camera in the right spot.

Agree it looked over, irregardless was hoping someone might know answer about touching post

[leave it to deever 17,598]

Yea I thought that was a behind as his am was in contact with the post.But it was one of many many clangers by the chumpires today. It wasnt just the free kicks given for nothing but where they were given. Say no more.

[daisycutter 29,917]

4 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Yea I thought that was a behind as his am was in contact with the post.But it was one of many many clangers by the chumpires today. It wasnt just the free kicks given for nothing but where they were given. Say no more.

afaik it's always the position of the ball. think about boundaries, goal line marks etc

there was a rule i think of somebody deliberately rocking the goal post to attempt to alter a score, but that would be different to this case

[Biffen 12,949]

Sadly, this thread is an exercise in futility. 

The umpires don't know the rules.

Neither do I anymore.

[FireInTheBennelly 4,104]

I thought this thread might have been about the blatant throw that led to one of their last quarter goals.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

I always thought if a player with the ball touched the goal post then it was a behind.

The 2016 laws of the game make no mention of such a thing.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

While we're at it, the laws of the game make no mention of certain other things.

Such as ... how long you have to dispose of the ball after a mark or free. Usually the umps will give a handful of seconds and then call play on.

Today we saw in the 4th quarter, Wells I think it was, took a mark and then knelt down and took plenty of time tying up his boot lace. (Conveniently, his teammates were able to get into position.) Only when he went back to take the kick, did the ump put him on the clock.

I went to the rules to see what they said about this.... turns out he was within his rights to do this because THERE IS NO MENTION of any time limit for disposing after a mark or free. The word "seconds" does not appear even once in the rules.

But the umps still hustle players on if they take "too long" after a mark or free.

The umps are adjudicating on something that is not even in the rules!!!

[Wrecker45 3,378]

28 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I thought this thread might have been about the blatant throw that led to one of their last quarter goals.

What about the 50m that lead to one of boomers. What happened there? Did someone swear at the ump or something because even after the replay came on there was nothing that could have possibly led to a 50m.

[FireInTheBennelly 4,104]

Just now, Wrecker45 said:

What about the 50m that lead to one of boomers. What happened there? Did someone swear at the ump or something because even after the replay came on there was nothing that could have possibly led to a 50m.

Apparently Oliver said something but no idea what. Surely he was within his rights as Hogan was just dragged off the play and then Harvey ducked.

[JV7 2,375]

Yeah I was always of the view of the player with the ball was "in play" like how Goldstein was after playing on, touching the post ment a behind. I thought I could recall times a player has touched the behind post and it being called for a throw in ? Maybe I'm wrong and making it up haha. But I thought it was a point once he touched the post!

[Demon Disciple 12,492]

i always thought that the ball had to physically touch the post, not that a player touches the post, whilst in possession of the footy.

[jnrmac 20,306]

3 hours ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

I always thought if a player with the ball touched the goal post then it was a behind.

 

Does anyone know this rule? Was the Goldstein goal in the first correct or another umpiring screw up?

I have seen an umpire standing next to the goal post and the ball hit the umpire. It was deemed a point as it had 'hit' the post. That should have been the interpretation today. Needless to say there were some unfathomable interpretations of rules today.

Vince's deliberate OOB was a farce

Gawn's ruck infringement was worse and cost a goal.

Wagner was lucky not to give 50m away when he pushed over Waite..

[Tony Tea 2,816]

2 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I thought this thread might have been about the blatant throw that led to one of their last quarter goals.

North didn't get a goal from the blatant throw. That's assuming you mean the blatant Dal Santo throw, and not another blatant throw which probably occurred, but which I missed.

[Clintosaurus 7,936]

The scoop throw was the last touch for one of Harvey's goals. Watts being put on an angle after marking in the square really annoyed me too.

[Seraph 1,824]

22 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Wagner was lucky not to give 50m away when he pushed over Waite..

You must have missed the replay that showed Waite making a claim for the 2016 Rio Olympics diving team. 

[FireInTheBennelly 4,104]

Maybe Norf should enter a team in a Dodgeball league. I mean they can duck, dive, chuck, surely they can dodge too.

[The Backyard Charizard 1,202]

Well, I am disappointed to say the least...

I thought, after reading the topic, that this thread was actually started by the umpire's from today's match 

[hardtack 10,982]

2 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

The scoop throw was the last touch for one of Harvey's goals. Watts being put on an angle after marking in the square really annoyed me too.

I thought that about Watts as well, but on watching the replay the ump got that one right...he was about 15cm out of the square. As for touching the post while in possession of the ball, I suppose it's the same as having your foot over the boundary line while holding the ball in the field of play...it's adjudicated as still in play; at least there is some consistency in that unlike the deliberate out of bounds and some of the in the back rulings.

[ManDee 7,347]

Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

[Pates 9,688]

The rule that has become a running is deliberate out of bounds. Fans are now cheering ironically for it and the umps are actually paying it. 

The AFL appear to be trying to rewrite the Oxford dictionary's definition of "deliberate". 

The umps most definitely got sucked into Norths BS playing for cheap frees, what would you expect when they have the greatest cheap free kick guy ever?