Official Game Day thread - 2nd Elimination final Vs Kangaroos

[bodgie]

According the the Giesch, the rule is that the WHOLE of the ball has to have passed the WHOLE of the PADDING.....not the line....so if there was a sliover of ball not passed the back of the padding when harvey kicked it it can be called a goal.

Hope that clarifies things....also explains Kirk's non-goal in the other match against North.

So an umpire now has to bear in mind if a ball is higher than the padding or not if it is touched when it crosses the width of posts or padding. Is padding always the same height? Poor bastards.

[chammond]

According the the Giesch, the rule is that the WHOLE of the ball has to have passed the WHOLE of the PADDING.....not the line....so if there was a sliover of ball not passed the back of the padding when harvey kicked it it can be called a goal.

Hope that clarifies things....also explains Kirk's non-goal in the other match against North.

Doesn't clarify anything really. The rule (12.1.1) simply says "a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team". There is no mention of the padding in relation to a goal, only in relation to scoring a behind.

Sounds like Gieschen is making-up rules on the run again.

[BSA5]

Why can't it just be:

If it crosses the white line on the ground, it's a goal. If it hits the post or padding, it's a point.

Done, easy.

[chammond]

Why can't it just be:

If it crosses the white line on the ground, it's a goal. If it hits the post or padding, it's a point.

Done, easy.

That's pretty much what the rules actually say. All the other BS only exists in the minds of footy commentators (and Gieschen, apparently).