The death of the 'poster'?

[Ron The Bear]

The AFL is seriously considering a major change to the way the game is scored. A proposal to weaken the historic “poster” rule is up for discussion as a potential rule for change for as early as next season.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...-goal-post-rules/story-e6frf9jf-1225903913942

Rather than putting it in the 'too hard' basket, perhaps the AFL should be questioning why goal umpiring is suddenly not up to scratch, even with the number of scores per game at its lowest for forty years. Which begs the question of cynical me - is this merely a way of alleviating the decay in goalscoring so as to squeeze in more ad breaks?

TV is having an unwholesome influence on the evolution of the game.

 

[Rassilon]

I'm furious about this proposed change.

The scoring system is one of the few constants this game has had for 150 years.

There is absolutely, indisputably and utterly NO reason or evidence FOR a reason for there to be a change.

It's wrong.

 

[Pessimistic]

I'm against changes but this is one which actually simplifies things for umpires. theres no downside IMO

Not so sure about the interchange cap - how doe they track it ? on the scoreboard ?

What happens if a team transgresses ? another stupid 50m free ?
it makes things too complex

22 players by 4 quarters is 88 changes - its basically saying one rest per half per player (as well as the 3 main breaks) so each palyer gets 5 rests.

If each player gets one rest per quarter, thats 2 intrchanges. off and on

2 x 22 x 4 = 176 interchanges - put that way its not much they use at the moment

 

[skill1414]

This new rule would make wide angle shots easier as you see many of them slam into the post. Now they some of those posters would become a goal.

 

[LordLucifer]

I am so close to giving this game away completely its not funny.

 

[Brad Roo]

This is a good rule for a change.

No more endless crap about whether the ball hit the post or not.

 

[ManicMiner]

I much prefer the ball staying live after bouncing back into play - adds another dimension to the game I reckon

 

[Pessimistic]

Theres a hell of a lot of people emotionally supportive of this rule as it exists.

Cant see it changing

 

[cAsEy_18]

I think there is one glaring weakness with this rule - a shot after the siren, needing just a score to win. It's online, up they go to celebrate, it smacks bang into the middle of the post and back in play, stiff?

 

[Power King]

I just can't believe people can endorse MORE rule changes.

What a ****ing joke.

Leave the game as it is for **** sakes

 

[glenn_ox]

GREAT! Change another rule.

The sooner the game becomes completely unrecognizable the sooner i can be done with it for ever.

 

[DeZi]

I'm against changes but this is one which actually simplifies things for umpires. theres no downside IMO

Not so sure about the interchange cap - how doe they track it ? on the scoreboard ?

What happens if a team transgresses ? another stupid 50m free ?
it makes things too complex

22 players by 4 quarters is 88 changes - its basically saying one rest per half per player (as well as the 3 main breaks) so each palyer gets 5 rests.

If each player gets one rest per quarter, thats 2 intrchanges. off and on

2 x 22 x 4 = 176 interchanges - put that way its not much they use at the moment

Dont forget that in each interchange a player comes ON for one that comes OFF...Your double dipping on the numbers

 

[BACCS]

What a ****ing joke.

 

[handy point]

So if it brushes the outside of the behind post and goes over, it's one point? But if it hits the behind post with a slightly more accurate kick, and bounces back in, it's nothing or oof?

 

[Brad Roo]

I sure hope the everybody that whinges about this rule never squeals when their side gets dudded by a bad goal umpiring call.

It's a good rule if you can see past the standard "don't mess with the rules" cliches

 

[ballanFYNE]

If they change it, which i do not want i will be personally asking why this rule didnt take place in 2008, Pav would have 5 or so goals in crunch time games

 

[glenn_ox]

I sure hope the everybody that whinges about this rule never squeals when their side gets dudded by a bad goal umpiring call.

It's a good rule if you can see past the standard "don't mess with the rules" cliches

What was the issue with the existing rule? I think that's a good rule.

 

[Scootyb]

I sure hope the everybody that whinges about this rule never squeals when their side gets dudded by a bad goal umpiring call.

It's a good rule if you can see past the standard "don't mess with the rules" cliches

Its shit mate
Why the **** are we changing the rule when we have cameras on every angle of the ground, behind a player when they kick etc?
for ****s sake, use the replay with a third man esque technique or get a second goal umpire, rather than changing one of the rules that makes the game unique.

If the rule changes i will not be happy

 

[dumb]

i think the afl heard hutchy say the fans don't like the poster...

what the hell. the thing that needs the most changing is the way they can't leave the game alone.

 

[Werewolf]

As much as I think Demetriou is a flog, this rule makes sense.

(1) It reduces the possibility of umpiring error and brings AFL into line with other codes.

(2) The ball hitting the post and bouncing back into play would still register as a behind.

Not all rule changes are bad, look at the rushed behind rule, a big success imo.

If they have a top 9 (or 10) finals system, then I will lose my shit

 

[Ron The Bear]

(1) It reduces the possibility of umpiring error and brings AFL into line with other codes.

Not having a go at you for your opinion, but why do some see this as a desirable end?

 

[pacemaker]

boooooooooooooooooooo

Piss off AFL

 

[ballanFYNE]

agree pacemaker, i hate AFL.

 

[Werewolf]

Not having a go at you for your opinion, but why do some see this as a desirable end?

Funny you ask, I don't follow other codes at all . My concern is mainly with umpiring error. Even video replays can be inconclusive. You have to consider changing your mind.

Calling 'play on' if the ball bounces back into play after hitting the post would be stupid, so I'm not disagreeing with that one.

 

[MarcusP2]

So if it brushes the outside of the behind post and goes over, it's one point? But if it hits the behind post with a slightly more accurate kick, and bounces back in, it's nothing or oof?

No... if it bounces off the inside of the post and crosses the goal line, it's a goal/behind. Like soccer or rugby. Anything else is still behind/OOF.