RULES: At exactly what point does a goal stand?

[seysearles]

I was hoping someone could clear up a query I had regarding the classification of a goal in the scenario where the ball crosses the line but skims the post AFTER it has cleared the goal line.

Am I right in saying that as soon as the entire ball has crossed the line it is a goal regardless if it goes on to skim the padding of the goal post there after?

I have seen a few examples which I feel fall into this category where the goal umpire has somehow over ridden the fact that the ball has crossed the line because of the incidental fact that it made contact with the post. I have even seen examples where the ball bobbles over the line and then lolls back against the padding. Again the goal umpire paid a "post behind" deferring to the fact that it had made contact with padding rather than the fact that it had cleared the line first.

The fact that it happens to hit the post should really not come into it, just as it would not come into it if the ball cleared the line by a metre then bounced on it's end back into the post.

I attach an illustration of the scenario I am referring to as reference.

Is anyone able to shed on light on this so that I am able to sleep better at night?

 

[manicmagpie]

I was hoping someone could clear up a query I had regarding the classification of a goal in the scenario where the ball crosses the line but skims the post AFTER it has cleared the goal line.

Am I right in saying that as soon as the entire ball has crossed the line it is a goal regardless if it goes on to skim the padding of the goal post there after?

I have seen a few examples which I feel fall into this category where the goal umpire has somehow over ridden the fact that the ball has crossed the line because of the incidental fact that it made contact with the post. I have even seen examples where the ball bobbles over the line and then lolls back against the padding. Again the goal umpire paid a "post behind" deferring to the fact that it had made contact with padding rather than the fact that it had cleared the line first.

The fact that it happens to hit the post should really not come into it, just as it would not come into it if the ball cleared the line by a metre then bounced on it's end back into the post.

I attach an illustration of the scenario I am referring to as reference.

Is anyone able to shed on light on this so that I am able to sleep better at night?
View attachment 262699

The goal line is meant to be set to be level with the thickest part of the padding so your diagram would be incorrect.

It would still be possible for the ball to bounce back from completely across the line to touch the post but that should still be a goal.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

As manicpie said, the "goal line" includes the back edge of the padding, so in that scenario, by hitting the padding it is considered to have hit the post.

Confusingly, if the ball had bounced over the line, touching the ground with all parts clear, and THEN his the post, it would be a goal.


A ball in the air needs to clear the padding/post/line (depending on the height of the ball at intersection), a ball on the ground needs only clear the line.

 

[seysearles]

The goal line is meant to be set to be level with the thickest part of the padding so your diagram would be incorrect.

As manicpie said, the "goal line" includes the back edge of the padding, so in that scenario, by hitting the padding it is considered to have hit the post.

The padding is definitely thicker than the goal line ...

The second photo almost illustrates the scenario I describe if you move the ball 15cms to the left.

Another scenario is that the ball clips the umpires flag (which is considerably past the goal line) on the way through. I would be willing to bet that the umpire would pay a point in that scenario when in fact it is technically a goal.

I feel that there is a 'grey area' here that could very easily be contentious should it have a bearing on the result of the game.

 

[manicmagpie]

Another scenario is that the ball clips the umpires flag (which is considerably past the goal line) on the way through. I would be willing to bet that the umpire would pay a point in that scenario when in fact it is technically a goal.

I believe (not 100% though) that the flags are technically considered part of the post. If the goal ump didn't secure them properly and they were sticking out too far that could cause a controversy but otherwise you just have to cop it if you're unlucky enough to clip them.

 

[D-N-R]

The padding is definitely thicker than the goal line ...

The second photo almost illustrates the scenario I describe if you move the ball 15cms to the left.

Another scenario is that the ball clips the umpires flag (which is considerably past the goal line) on the way through. I would be willing to bet that the umpire would pay a point in that scenario when in fact it is technically a goal.

I feel that there is a 'grey area' here that could very easily be contentious should it have a bearing on the result of the game.

View attachment 262844

View attachment 262845

It's not really a grey area. If the ball clips the post, which includes the padding that extends a little bit over the back of the line, then it is a point. Those photos show the padding around 20mm over the back of the line, which isn't much. The image you have posted isn't really indicative of how it really is. Conversely, the posts taper at the top, so in effect the goal mouth is wider at the top.

Ideally, they should have a goal-post that is narrower at the bottom so when they attach the padding it doesn't stick out, or doesn't stick out as much.

 

[seysearles]

It's not really a grey area. If the ball clips the post, which includes the padding that extends a little bit over the back of the line, then it is a point. Those photos show the padding around 20mm over the back of the line, which isn't much. The image you have posted isn't really indicative of how it really is. Conversely, the posts taper at the top, so in effect the goal mouth is wider at the top.

Ideally, they should have a goal-post that is narrower at the bottom so when they attach the padding it doesn't stick out, or doesn't stick out as much.

So you're saying that it is a behind despite the fact the ball clips the padding or the flag after crossing the line in its entirety?

How would you adjudicate a ball that bobbles across the line then back against the padding somewhat similar to the second photo attached only in this scenario the ball clears the line briefly (by lets say 3cms) then brushes the post?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

So you're saying that it is a behind despite the fact the ball clips the padding or the flag after crossing the line in its entirety?

How would you adjudicate a ball that bobbles across the line then back against the padding somewhat similar to the second photo attached only in this scenario the ball clears the line briefly (by lets say 3cms) then brushes the post?

See my previous post. If the ball is grounded, clear of the line - it's a goal regardless if it then hits the post.

If it's in the air, then the post is considered part of the goal line, therefore would be a point.

 

[seysearles]

See my previous post. If the ball is grounded, clear of the line - it's a goal regardless if it then hits the post.

If it's in the air, then the post is considered part of the goal line, therefore would be a point.

I was posing that question to D-N-R to get his/her take on it.

Is your answer based on a rule which we can refer specifically to or just an assumption on your part? Because I can not understand the distinction between the two scenarios?

 

[D-N-R]

So you're saying that it is a behind despite the fact the ball clips the padding or the flag after crossing the line in its entirety?

How would you adjudicate a ball that bobbles across the line then back against the padding somewhat similar to the second photo attached only in this scenario the ball clears the line briefly (by lets say 3cms) then brushes the post?

Like Simon Nesbitt says, if the ball crosses the line whilst touching the ground, then hits the post, it is a goal. No different to a ball bouncing 2m over the line and then coming back onto the post. 3cm or 2m, makes no difference.

If the ball is in the air and touches the post on the way through it is deemed to have touched the post.

I suppose there is the remote chance of a ball crossing the line and the wind blowing it back onto the post, or a player putting such a wicked spin on the ball it has time to cross the goal-line and come back onto the post, but these situations are beyond rare.

The second situation is probably what you are getting at, but the ball would have to have crossed the line and started to move back towards the post. I doubt you can get enough spin on a ball for this to even be possible. If it were possible, the ball would be crossing the line in the centre of the goal or close to the opposite post. It wouldn't be able to cross the line near the post and then come back and hit that same post.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Don't know where it is written, but Dunstall showed it on OTC, maybe last year or one before.

The goal line is tested on impact essentially.

 

[seysearles]

Don't know where it is written, but Dunstall showed it on OTC, maybe last year or one before.

The goal line is tested on impact essentially.

I suppose there is the remote chance of a ball crossing the line and the wind blowing it back onto the post, or a player putting such a wicked spin on the ball it has time to cross the goal-line and come back onto the post, but these situations are beyond rare.

The second situation is probably what you are getting at, but the ball would have to have crossed the line and started to move back towards the post. I doubt you can get enough spin on a ball for this to even be possible. If it were possible, the ball would be crossing the line in the centre of the goal or close to the opposite post. It wouldn't be able to cross the line near the post and then come back and hit that same post.

Well it can happen just with the rotation of the ball (not because of back spin) and I don't think it is that rare either, especially with banana kicks from tight angles. Using Luke Parkers goal from this very weekend as an example, if it were to make impact as a result of it rotating in the air at the point I have taken the screen grab (i.e over the line) then from what I gather you are saying is that it is a goal as it appears to have crossed the line and touched the ground before the spin on the ball has made it impact with the post. I find it a bit ambiguous to be honest. At worst it is very hard to adjudicate. I also disagree a bit about how rare it is. I have noticed quite a few examples and by no means do i watch every game of football. I have noticed the bobbling example 3-4 times (which is not quite what you are describing incidentally). If I can track down some footage of that I will post it for your reference.

 

[D-N-R]

Well it can happen just with the rotation of the ball (not because of back spin) and I don't think it is that rare either, especially with banana kicks from tight angles. Using Luke Parkers goal from this very weekend as an example, if it were to make impact as a result of it rotating in the air at the point I have taken the screen grab (i.e over the line) then from what I gather you are saying is that it is a goal as it appears to have crossed the line and touched the ground before the spin on the ball has made it impact with the post. I find it a bit ambiguous to be honest. At worst it is very hard to adjudicate. I also disagree a bit about how rare it is. I have noticed quite a few examples and by no means do i watch every game of football. I have noticed the bobbling example 3-4 times (which is not quite what you are describing incidentally). If I can track down some footage of that I will post it for your reference.



View attachment 262986

I'd be interested in seeing the video. What I was suggesting was 'rare' was a ball crossing the line and curving so much that it was essentially on its way back out the goal, boomerang-like. Maybe it does happen more often, but it must be difficult to judge. Easier to say it hit the post so it's a point.

It's a good point you've raised and it could be better explained in the rules.

 

[seysearles]

This weekend's Crows v Hawks game provided another example of the ambiguity surrounding this rule when Will Langford's kick on goal cleared the goal line and the goal post but not the post padding before it was touched. In the attached image you can actually see the ghosting of it clearing the post before the defender makes contact with it. Despite this when it was reviewed it was deemed to be a point. I presume that that was because the ball appears not to have cleared the padding before it is touched. This begs the question though, had the defender touched it at the same point above the padding where there is daylight between the ball and the post, would it have also been a point?

 

[cryptor]

Just another great example of why they should change the rule so that if the ball goes between the goal posts it is a goal, regardless of whether it touched or hits the post. If it hits the post and stays in then play on. No more having to wait for or whinge about the result of an inadequate score review system.

 

[D-N-R]

Just another great example of why they should change the rule so that if the ball goes between the goal posts it is a goal, regardless of whether it touched or hits the post. If it hits the post and stays in then play on. No more having to wait for or whinge about the result of an inadequate score review system.

Are you advocating touchdowns? I'm not sure the game needs that.

Cameras with a higher frame-rate to review the results would be a better solution.

Someone design a goal post with more slim-line padding and we might improve it even more.

 

[cryptor]

Are you advocating touchdowns? I'm not sure the game needs that.

Cameras with a higher frame-rate to review the results would be a better solution.

Someone design a goal post with more slim-line padding and we might improve it even more.

Not at all. Players would still need to kick it. If a teammate touches it before it crosses the line then it would be a behind. For every thing else (bouncing off the post or any part of an opposition player the score would be awarded based on whether or not it went through the goals.

It will never happen though. I'm just an advocate for rules that reduce the need for interpretations and shoddy score review systems.

 

[BF Tiger]

This weekend's Crows v Hawks game provided another example of the ambiguity surrounding this rule when Will Langford's kick on goal cleared the goal line and the goal post but not the post padding before it was touched. In the attached image you can actually see the ghosting of it clearing the post before the defender makes contact with it. Despite this when it was reviewed it was deemed to be a point. I presume that that was because the ball appears not to have cleared the padding before it is touched. This begs the question though, had the defender touched it at the same point above the padding where there is daylight between the ball and the post, would it have also been a point?

View attachment 385330 View attachment 385332

Why is this so hard for people to understand. The uprights define the goals. The inside of the uprights define the width of the goals. The back of the padding defines the plane of that line. It's technical, bug it is a clear definition.

 

[seysearles]

Why is this so hard for people to understand. The uprights define the goals. The inside of the uprights define the width of the goals. The back of the padding defines the plane of that line. It's technical, bug it is a clear definition.

So you're saying that scenario 1 is a touched behind and scenario 2 is a goal?

 

[BF Tiger]

So you're saying that scenario 1 is a touched behind and scenario 2 is a goal?

View attachment 385602

View attachment 385603

Quite possibly. Or it is a case where the goal padding line extends in scenario one extends upwards.

I agree that some clear definitions need to be agreed upon by the AFL though.

 

[realbez]

All of your diagrams are wrong, which is causing your confusion. The goal line is in line with the back of the padding, not the goal posts. You are drawing it to be in line with the width of the actual post, but it isn't. The photos you have posted show this to be the case very clearly.

 

[FoolCat]

This weekend's Crows v Hawks game provided another example of the ambiguity surrounding this rule when Will Langford's kick on goal cleared the goal line and the goal post but not the post padding before it was touched. In the attached image you can actually see the ghosting of it clearing the post before the defender makes contact with it. Despite this when it was reviewed it was deemed to be a point. I presume that that was because the ball appears not to have cleared the padding before it is touched. This begs the question though, had the defender touched it at the same point above the padding where there is daylight between the ball and the post, would it have also been a point?

View attachment 385330 View attachment 385332

It may have been this review I was thinking about. Do you have a screen shot of the goal line?

There was a review, may have been Sydney game, where I thought the goal line looked off compared to the posts.

 

[seysearles]

It may have been this review I was thinking about. Do you have a screen shot of the goal line?

There was a review, may have been Sydney game, where I thought the goal line looked off compared to the posts.

All of your diagrams are wrong, which is causing your confusion. The goal line is in line with the back of the padding, not the goal posts. You are drawing it to be in line with the width of the actual post, but it isn't. The photos you have posted show this to be the case very clearly.

I see some examples that support what you're saying but I see other examples that show the padding behind the width of the goal line.

​

In the event that you're right and the line is aligned to the back of the padding how would you adjudicate Scenario.2 in my previous example then? I am almost certain that it would be adjudged a goal given that there is daylight between the post, however by your calculations it has not crossed the goal line (which is aligned to the back of the post). Very muddy if you ask me.

 

[realbez]

I'm not sure. In the event someone managed to jump that high to get a touch in, I imagine they would ignore the goal line and just go off the post in any review. They would be wrong but they'd probably do that.

 

[BF Tiger]

I'm not sure. In the event someone managed to jump that high to get a touch in, I imagine they would ignore the goal line and just go off the post in any review. They would be wrong but they'd probably do that.

I see some examples that support what you're saying but I see other examples that show the padding behind the width of the goal line.

View attachment 385617

View attachment 385621

View attachment 385618

View attachment 385620
​

In the event that you're right and the line is aligned to the back of the padding how would you adjudicate Scenario.2 in my previous example then? I am almost certain that it would adjudged a goal given that there is daylight between the post, however by your calculations it has not crossed the goal line (which is aligned to the back of the post). Very muddy if you ask me.

View attachment 385628

Just make the padding 5 metres high