Hitting crossbar should be a point?

ArmaniJeanss

Before dismissing it out of hand please read my case.
*******
The scoring zone is between 2 uprights. Anywhere from ground level up to as high as a ball can theoretically go counts as a score, either a goal or a point.
Except for the couple of inches of metal bar where the crossbar is.

Purely in order to differentiate between a goal and a point the crossbar is used. Its illogical that as a byproduct of its main function that it also serves as a zero score area - if the original people who came up with the rules had declared hitting the cross bar worth a point then you would laugh at anyone who made the case for it to be worth zero, the current situation.

I'd compare it to rugby where touching the post is considered the same as tounching the line, and a try is given.

So suggestion is a rule change that if the ball hits the crossbar and comes back into play that a point be awarded.

double GG

This would cause so much controversy. What would happen if the ball hit the crossbar and bounced back out to the hands of a full forward with an open goal?

You also compared it to rugby, but if Johnny Sexton kicked a conversion or a penalty and it hit the crossbar and bounced back out, it's not counted so.....

Don't like it to be honest.

jdooley28

Well i'v read ur case but dismissed it.

ShamoBuc

No.

mikemac

Dismissed

Sorry OP but I see little merit in it

User Friendly

Shirley you cant be serious:eek: im watching Dougal and Ted now,but thinking of you:(

TopOfTheRight

Wow OP you must be the first person to have had this idea, like ever

ArmaniJeanss

double GG wrote: »

This would cause so much controversy. What would happen if the ball hit the crossbar and bounced back out to the hands of a full forward with an open goal?

You also compared it to rugby, but if Johnny Sexton kicked a conversion or a penalty and it hit the crossbar and bounced back out, it's not counted so.....

Don't like it to be honest.

Your rugby penalty/conversion comparison is wrong because the penalty/conversion has to be kicked above a certain height marked by the crossbar - there is no score for getting it under the crossbar like there is GAA.

If there was say two points in rugby for getting a penalty under the crossbar and three points for getting a penalty over the crossbar then yes I would expect the 2 points to also apply to hitting the crossbar and coming back.
The kicker would have fulfilled the core objective of getting it between the two uprights.
(I do accept your controversy point though.)

******
Thanks for all the replies, didn't truthfully expect much of a positive response so not disappointed. I shall remain a visionary alone.

Still thinks its bizarre that you get a score for hitting the ball/sliotar anywhere between the uprights, 100 metres above them if needbe, except for a six/seven cm section 2.5 metres above the ground.

KevIRL

Interesting idea AJ. But it will never happen as its too bedded in now, a good comparison is Aussie Rules where you must kick between the middle posts to get a six point goal, if you hit the middle posts a behind is scored for 1 point

Speak Now

Ah sure lets split the difference and give 2 pts

flahavaj

I think you should get extra if you hit it from beyond 45 metres tbh, any aul player can kick it over the bar, it takes real skill to hit it. Maybe 4?

craggles

That's the chance you take by going for goal.

eagle eye

I don't know if any of you ever heard the story about McGillicuddy from the reeks of Kerry. He played for his local team for 25 years or something like that. The man was 6'6" and played at full forward in his later years. He used to play full back and midfield before then.

Anyways in the the Junior final of 1948 I believe it was he was brought on with only 2 minutes left. The other team went down the field and scored a point to make it a 3 point lead. With hardly any time left on the field they managed to launch a ball from midfield which McGillicuddy fielded from an awful height just outside the large parallelogram and turned and fired a fierce shot which hit the crossbar. The leather ripped off the ball he hit it so hard and the leather dropped under the crossbar while the tube went over the bar. Everybody was confused as to what the referee should do. In the end he gave 4 points and McGillicuddy to this day is the only man ever to win a match with one kick of a ball when 3 points behind. Whats the rule on that now can anybody tell me?

Kojak

But then what would happen if you hit the post? Nothing? What would happen in, the rare event, that you hit BOTH crossbar and post at the same time? Would you get 2 points, 1 point or nothing?

I know in Aussie rules they penalise you if you go for goal and hit the post. So instead of getting 6 points, you only get one. So from that point of view, I couldn't see how you could reward someone for hitting the crossbar.

Maybe if you wanted to find a new/different way to score a point, you could bring back the 2 points for a sideline.

flahavaj

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't know if any of you ever heard the story about McGillicuddy from the reeks of Kerry. He played for his local team for 25 years or something like that. The man was 6'6" and played at full forward in his later years. He used to play full back and midfield before then.

Anyways in the the Junior final of 1948 I believe it was he was brought on with only 2 minutes left. The other team went down the field and scored a point to make it a 3 point lead. With hardly any time left on the field they managed to launch a ball from midfield which McGillicuddy fielded from an awful height just outside the large parallelogram and turned and fired a fierce shot which hit the crossbar. The leather ripped off the ball he hit it so hard and the leather dropped under the crossbar while the tube went over the bar. Everybody was confused as to what the referee should do. In the end he gave 4 points and McGillicuddy to this day is the only man ever to win a match with one kick of a ball when 3 points behind. Whats the rule on that now can anybody tell me?

McGillicuddy Reeks of bullsh*t.:pac:

ArmaniJeanss

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Ah sure lets split the difference and give 2 pts

I kinda like this as it takes the earlier 'what if the ball goes straight to a forward with an open goal?' argument out of the equation to an extent, you've already got two points for the crossbar. Maybe if the forward chooses to shoot then his team loses the points but gets 3 if he scores a goal. He can 'take a mark' to get the two points (or one point, whichever we think is fairer).

flahavaj wrote: »

I think you should get extra if you hit it from beyond 45 metres tbh, any aul player can kick it over the bar, it takes real skill to hit it. Maybe 4?

Not sure I like this as much - would hate to see Soccer Saturday stunts like deliberately going for a crossbar brought into the game.

***********
How would I go about getting this idea brought to Congress, I'm not affiliated with any club? PM if necessary.

johnmcdnl

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't know if any of you ever heard the story about McGillicuddy from the reeks of Kerry. He played for his local team for 25 years or something like that. The man was 6'6" and played at full forward in his later years. He used to play full back and midfield before then.

Anyways in the the Junior final of 1948 I believe it was he was brought on with only 2 minutes left. The other team went down the field and scored a point to make it a 3 point lead. With hardly any time left on the field they managed to launch a ball from midfield which McGillicuddy fielded from an awful height just outside the large parallelogram and turned and fired a fierce shot which hit the crossbar. The leather ripped off the ball he hit it so hard and the leather dropped under the crossbar while the tube went over the bar. Everybody was confused as to what the referee should do. In the end he gave 4 points and McGillicuddy to this day is the only man ever to win a match with one kick of a ball when 3 points behind. Whats the rule on that now can anybody tell me?

what the official rule is I dunno - but it'd be interesting to see

but didn't mythbusters try this with a baseball and they found out you'd have to hit a ball at something ridiculous like 400mph to knock the leather of the baseball... as good as this lad was i'm sure the numbers would be something similar..

it'd be a serious laugh to see if it happened though

s3129

Shur the ball often comes back into play when it hits the crossbar.

Stupid idea.

UpTheSlashers

Umpires arent even capable of enforcing the rules as they are at the moment, theres no point bringing in more rules for the poor souls to have to remember.

InigoMontoya

No way, it's good craic when a ball comes back into play off a crossbar.

In fact, I think we should have a board about a foot wide as the crossbar. :pac:

keysersoze0330

Silliness

Podge_irl

The rugby comparison isn't to do with kicking a penalty/conversion. If, while trying to score a try the ball is touched down at the bottom of the post then it's deemed a try despite the ball not actually touching/going over the try line as the post is in the way.

jwcurtin

flahavaj wrote: »

McGillicuddy Reeks of bullsh*t.:pac:

You can't make stuff like that up!