The death of the 'poster'?

[Copernicus]

So, we have issues with umpire errors, so we need to make a big change to a very long-running rule? Why not just address the problem of the errors? Either have a review system, or accept that errors are inevitable occasionally and leave it at that. We don't need a ****ing rule change every time something occurs that is annoying.

 

[ChrisFooty]

Rubbish rule. Rubbish.

 

[hcd199]

So, we have issues with umpire errors, so we need to make a big change to a very long-running rule? Why not just address the problem of the errors?

This. It's a case of treating the symptom and not the cause. The cause of the issue is the umpiring faults, so fix the umpiring faults and the problems go away. You treat this symptom of error and the umpires'll still stuff up other ones - Shannon Byrnes' goal last week is a perfect example of an error this rule change would not solve.

 

[Blommy]

There is one major consideration that they haven't considered... Smart players are going to adapt to the new rule, here is how.

They are going to AIM FOR THE POST!

If you have a shot on a tight angle, what are you going to try to do? You are going to maximise your potential of the ball going through the goal by erring on the far side of goals where the post is, so that the ball will bounce through by hitting the post.

Getting the ball through the sticks untouched is a skill - and that is untouched by player or post!

What happens if the ball hits the post and bounces back out? Is that play on? That surely is more dangerous to have a player charging at the football because it has bounced back into play. Though I would be willing to forgive this rule if the ball bounces back into play and denies Collingwood winning or drawing a grand final!

This also begs the question of standard goal post sizes across all games. I would have more room to go in off at the MCG as far as height is concerned than I would at most other grounds. The SCG used to have THE FAT BIT!!! Also, if the ball hits the top of the goal post and bounces inwards is that a goal?

The rule as is is far more BLACK AND WHITE on the issue. Leave this particular rule alone. With the ruling being the the whole of the ball must cross the whole of the line, you can get ball off post, onto defender then completely across the line. Very difficult for goalies!

 

[dumb]

There is one major consideration that they haven't considered... Smart players are going to adapt to the new rule, here is how.

They are going to AIM FOR THE POST!

If you have a shot on a tight angle, what are you going to try to do? You are going to maximise your potential of the ball going through the goal by erring on the far side of goals where the post is, so that the ball will bounce through by hitting the post.

yes, but that will be counteracted by a simple free kick against you if you deliberately aim for the post.

 

[Werewolf]

They are going to AIM FOR THE POST!

Good luck trying to do that

What happens if the ball hits the post and bounces back out? Is that play on?

No, thankfully it would still register as a behind under the proposed changes

yes, but that will be counteracted by a simple free kick against you if you deliberately aim for the post.

Surely you're taking the piss?

 

[estibador]

Getting the ball through the sticks untouched is a skill - and that is untouched by player or post!

Agree with this. It will take one of the great skills out of the game - and for what? The odd umpiring mistake that happens a few times a year and that could easily fixed by other means?

Is it really going to be as satisfying to watch an attempted banana slam into the post and ricochet through for a behind by default? (If it's your own team yes, but not for neutrals)

Do we really want the game to have to fundamentally change to accomodate the umpires? Wouldn't it be better to change the umpiring system to accomodate the game? Nothing against umpires, who are obviously an integral ingredient to the game, but it seems like a no brainer to me.

Surely you're taking the piss?

I'm sure he is but he makes a good point.

The AFL are like the little lady that swallowed the fly. They make kneejerk rule changes with seemingly little thought to the consequences, only to have to make up new rules to try counteract the unforseen consequences of their previous rules.

 

[DermottsFacelift]

I'm staggered that some people actually think this is a good proposal.

 

[Power King]

Upon reviewing the proposed rule change, it's not a bad idea, however there is one extremely major issue with it.

What if the ball goes above the posts and was going to hit the post? The goal umpire would have no idea so as to judge it a point or goal, as he/she wouldn't know which way it would have rebounded.

If you can't judge it above the goals, why should you be able to judge it when the ball is kicked at the height of the posts or below?

You could easily say, just exclude the rule then if the ball is kicked higher than the posts, but this then ruins the integrity of a kick if it is kicked that high. Why should higher kicks be deemed differently from ones at or below the height of the posts?

 

[dumb]

Quarter of fans back post rule - afl site

THE AFL says its proposal to award a goal when the ball hits the inside of the goalpost has been better received than press coverage would suggest.

Football operations manager Adrian Anderson said roughly a quarter of fans responding to a survey on AFL.com.au were in favour of the move. After going live on Wednesday the survey received over 6000 responses in two days.

"On the website, about 25 per cent of people actually support it and I would say 99 per cent of people in the media oppose it," Anderson told BigPond Sport on the weekend.

better received... by a whopping 25% of fans.