Staker's 'lineball' kick....

[waterfowl]

It looked to me as though the ball was over the line before it was kicked. Once again we can say near enough is good enough or bring in the video ref.

[Jewels]

Back OT though I don't know how any one can say that the the *whole* ball was wholly over the back edge of the line prior to it hitting his boot. I have a feeling that the goal umps may well have been instructed that the whole ball has to be behind the back edge of the post padding given recent on the line controversies as well.

If you look at the replay, the goal ump is looking skyward not down at the line

[hot potato]

If you look at the replay, the goal ump is looking skyward not down at the line

Then he had no idea, he should have consulted with Staker (or his mummy), if he barracks for the Swans he would have been honest about it.

[Lucky Knickers]

I'm confused by the size of the padding and when that comes into play for a behind versus the line. Is the line actually extended to the edge of the padding on the posts?

[goswannie14]

The way I saw it at the time was that he had literally stopped ... then kicked the ball through. He looked to have been right on the line.
I thought it was a goal at the time and I was spewing!!

We had this discussion on the phone Annie!!! I reckon he was running flat out. There was no way he could have stopped and propped without going over the line. As has been said it is impossible from how he kicked it for it to be a goal. In the end, I don't care because we beat the Illegals...again.

I'm confused by the size of the padding and when that comes into play for a behind versus the line. Is the line actually extended to the edge of the padding on the posts?

No.

[NMWBloods]

The line is the edge of the padding, not the line on the ground.

[goswannie14]

The line is the edge of the padding, not the line on the ground.

Since when?

[Claret]

The line is the edge of the padding, not the line on the ground.

Correct. It was a goal - simple.

It would be a whole lot easier if they made the line as wide as the padding. Expect this to happen.

And there was no way he was running - they showed it several times on OTC last night.

[NMWBloods]

Since when?

Not sure, but that's the rule and it's why there were suggestions on the weekend that the line should be widened back to the rear of the padding.

[goswannie14]

Not sure, but that's the rule and it's why there were suggestions on the weekend that the line should be widened back to the rear of the padding.

Only asked, because when I played it was a goal if it was over he line.

[#73]

Now that we have won and we've all had a day to get over it, would the posters in the 'game thread' who almost sent the swear filter into meltdown like to re-assess the Staker goal.

I was as pissed as anybody when it happened, but I didn't think for a nano-second that the ball had completely crossed the line. The replay of the shot from across the goal-line only confirms it.

It was close and Staker was foolish to try and kick the ball in the style he did, but it was a goal, pure and simple.

It was a point. Pure and simple. He kicked it after the ball had crossed the line.
But then I would expect no different from that diving, cheating dog named Staker

[NMWBloods]

Only asked, because when I played it was a goal if it was over he line.

Same, but it seems to have been that way for a few years at least in the AFL, but I don't know when it became the rule as I can't recall it being an issue prior to recent years.

[Claret]

It was a point. Pure and simple. He kicked it after the ball had crossed the line.

Are you missing the other points being (correctly) made? The padding is part of the field of play.

[Bob Neil]

Between this effort from Staker and his '05 grand final, sometimes I think Staker secretly barracks for the Swans.

Somebody should knock some sense into him.

[liz]

It's a pretty stupid rule really. If the true goal line is an invisible line that extends from the back of the padding, would it not make sense to actually draw a line there? So that the umpie has some chance of deciding when the ball completely crosses the line. I reckon that under this interpretation, a lot of goals that are given when an opponent just touches the ball fractionally behind the line should actually be given as points.