#AFL Round 6, Swans vs Cats, 1:45pm 28/04 Kardinia Park #AFLCatsSwans

[Nico]

However Hayward?s foot was also over the line and I?ve read someone claiming that the foot has to be completely behind the line for it to be a goal. I don?t know if that is correct - anyone else?

I would say that all of the ball had not passed the back on the flag holder, the same as in the Richmond /Collingwood game. We get mesmorised by the line but it is the back of the padding or the flag holder that counts as "the line". Looks a correct decision to me.

[Meg]

I would say that all of the ball had not passed the back on the flag holder, the same as in the Richmond /Collingwood game. We get mesmorised by the line but it is the back of the padding or the flag holder that counts as "the line". Looks a correct decision to me.

I agree (by the slimmest of margins) - but Hayward?s foot is not completely behind the line. That?s my query - according to one person I read commenting on this, the foot has to be behind the line even if the ball hasn?t completely crossed the line. I don?t know if that is correct.

[Meg]

That?s my query - according to one person I read commenting on this, the foot has to be behind the line even if the ball hasn?t completely crossed the line. I don?t know if that is correct.

Talking to myself which might be a signal of impending gloom - but as one who likes to know what is correct, I?ve looked at the Laws and can?t find any reference that says the foot must be behind the line.

And thinking about it, if a player runs along outside the boundary line holding the ball inside the boundary, that is considered to be in play - which might be an analogous situation to Hayward?s foot not being totally behind the line but the ball is still in play (because it is not totally over the line).

Also, if a player takes a running jump from behind the goals and punches the ball before the ball crosses the line, but the player himself is not totally inside the boundary, is that a goal or a point?

Who would be an umpire!!

[barry]

AFL has always used the ball is the measurement of in or out as opposed to rugby which uses the player as well.

[Bill Posters]

Yes so I would imagine that if the player is mostly over the line, and the ball is mostly over the line but the player kicks the part of the ball that is still within the line then it's a goal.

But if they kick the part of the ball that is over the line then it's not a goal.

But using the thickness of the pad as the measure instead of the line? Really?? Now that's really tricky to judge.

[stevoswan]

I agree (by the slimmest of margins) - but Hayward?s foot is not completely behind the line. That?s my query - according to one person I read commenting on this, the foot has to be behind the line even if the ball hasn?t completely crossed the line. I don?t know if that is correct.

I have always believed this to be correct.......meaning we were on the right side of a crap review for a change. Refreshing.....

[Mel_C]

But using the thickness of the pad as the measure instead of the line? Really?? Now that's really tricky to judge.

And the thickness of the goal post padding is different at each ground so the "line" is inconsistent.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk