tigerpie wrote:Psyber wrote:I heard the Jenkins interview and I'm fairly sure he said he was concerned it might have hit the post, not that it had.
The review replay didn't show anything definite, which is why it remained "Umpire's call".
Perhaps we can simplify it to avoid controversy and arguments over replays, and the "we wuz robbed" scenario, and say that if it touches the post but goes through the goal side it is still a goal, if it touches the post and goes through the behind side its a behind, and if it bounces off the post into play its still in play.
I agree. In every other code if it hits the post and goes in its still a goal.
Its a no brainer I reckon.
WTF ?
Whilst we are at it lets get rid of the behind posts, put up a net between the goal posts, bring in the off side rule, get rid of the "Mark" cos they dont have that in other codes etc
AFL is what it is, if ya dont like the rules , go watch other shit football codes like Soccer, Rugby and Gridiron which are all garbage.
Suggesting it should be play on if the ball rebounds off the post back into the field of play is the most ridiculous suggestion ever.
Imagination the situation of player lining up for goal in the GF after the Final Siren. Team is 1 point down. Goal wins it and a behind draws it. Kicks it knowing unless it's out on the full, at least his team wont lose. Ball hits GOAL post and bounces back into play. NO SCORE !!! WTF? Yet if he kicks it and ball bounces off the Behind post and deflects over the behind line its a point and a draw? Great rule that, get rewarded for a WORSE kick than a shot for goal that misses by a bees dick
LEAVE THE F^&%$$^&*G RULES ALONE FFS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS Yes, Hinkley is a sook and its embarrassing. Port certainly wont be challenging for any flags whilst he's around or this current playing group with the majority of them not up to standard skills wise.