Grand Final umpires announced

[MadCanuck]

It is actually a bit of a stupid rule. Why don't they draw a line on the ground to indicate where the back of the padding ends? Surely that would make things a lot easier to judge?

I agree and I don't think it's a rule at all. The padding only comes into it if the ball actually contacts the padding on the post. The goal line determines if the ball is a goal otherwise. Another one of those AFL rules 'on the fly', I think.

[MadCanuck]

This definition of a goal from "the rule book":12.1.1 Scoring a Goal
Subject to Law 12.2, a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked
completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the attacking Team
without being touched by any other Player, even if the football
first touches the ground.

[Meg]

I think what they are saying is that the "goal line" is defined as being the back of the padding, not the boundary line painted on the grass.

[Triple B]

Yep, ridiculous.

Imagine a scenario similar to the 'did it cross the line' scenario in Pies v Weagles SF. So the ball is rolling across the goal-line and clears the goal-line by 6 inches, clear for all to see. A defender picks the ball up and kicks it back into play. So it's 'play-on' because the whole of the ball didn't cross the imaginary line from back of padding to back of padding??? They'd rightly tear the joint down.

Agree with MadCanuck, making it up on the fly to suit the circumstances.