PLAYING ON IN GOALSQUARE

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,777]

Riewoldt's clanger in Q1 emphasised the folly of EVER playing on after marking in the goalsquare. There is no upside to playing on, but quite a possibility of a morale-depleting loss of a goal if an unseen player tackles from behind.

Some years ago, it was arguable to play on in such circumstances, since ,if the mark was near the goal-line, the ump might put the player on an acute angle. But that anomaly has been eradicated now. A mark in the goalsquare results in a kick from directly in front. It's excessively rare to miss from there.(even for Cloke!).

There should be a blanket rule at our club........NEVER PLAY ON IF YOU MARK THE BALL IN THE GOALSQUARE!!!

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

Riewoldt's clanger in Q1 emphasised the folly of EVER playing on after marking in the goalsquare. There is no upside to playing on, but quite a possibility of a morale-depleting loss of a goal if an unseen player tackles from behind.

There was an upside to that one - Robbo's FUBAR doesn't look quite as bad now.

[daisycutter 29,600]

Riewoldt's clanger in Q1 emphasised the folly of EVER playing on after marking in the goalsquare. There is no upside to playing on, but quite a possibility of a morale-depleting loss of a goal if an unseen player tackles from behind.

Some years ago, it was arguable to play on in such circumstances, since ,if the mark was near the goal-line, the ump might put the player on an acute angle. But that anomaly has been eradicated now. A mark in the goalsquare results in a kick from directly in front. It's excessively rare to miss from there.(even for Cloke!).

There should be a blanket rule at our club........NEVER PLAY ON IF YOU MARK THE BALL IN THE GOALSQUARE!!!

Its just a "rush of blood" thing, obviously not too logical

[Gorgoroth 12,918]

Don't agree, you should play on, but only after you have turned around and made shaw ( could not resist ) there is no one near you!

[Harrisonrules 273]

All the lounge room experts, including journalists always know the best thing to do in an intuitive game. Give Roo a break, it was just one of those things that can go wrong in our oval ball game.

[Nasher 33,607]

Give Roo a break, it was just one of those things that can go wrong in our oval ball game.

I'm having a hard time making the connection between playing on in the goal square and the shape of the ball.

[darkhorse72 1,901]

normally it would have been a moral lifting action...but Shaw changed that, it was a grand final act in a team determined to win, thats all.

and he should have looked...

[agent_orange 0]

normally it would have been a moral lifting action...but Shaw changed that, it was a grand final act in a team determined to win, thats all.

and he should have looked...

Robbo was the king of playing on and making a mess. I thought Roo was going to turn on the water works.

I quite enjoyed seeing saints perish. Some of their supporters I know are arrogant tools only too happy to heap [censored] on my dees. Well suck another loss dudes. Still 12-1

[John Crow Batty 8,860]

As far as air shots go it was quite impressive. I'd give Roo 10 out of 10 style points for his kicking action. Powerful straight legged follow through, perfect balance with great elevation high enough to chop Aaron Sandilands on the chin. His hammy must be good again now. Pity the ball was on the ground by then. A quick drop and dribble might have avoided the smother.

[No16 1]

Not so much the fault of the attacker but more the sheer determination of the defender. I am sure that Roo would have seen that Shaw was about 20m away just before he got the ball but took his time to kick the ball...

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,777]

Not so much the fault of the attacker but more the sheer determination of the defender. I am sure that Roo would have seen that Shaw was about 20m away just before he got the ball but took his time to kick the ball...

[_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________/

Why take the risk?????

[Juicebox 628]

I quite enjoyed seeing saints perish. Some of their supporters I know are arrogant tools only too happy to heap [censored] on my dees. Well suck another loss dudes. Still 12-1

St Kilda supporters are the worst!So unbelievably blinded by their own success, it's as if they've forgotten how crap they have been in the past.

[No16 1]

Not so much the fault of the attacker but more the sheer determination of the defender. I am sure that Roo would have seen that Shaw was about 20m away just before he got the ball but took his time to kick the ball...

[_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________/

Why take the risk?????

On most occasions the defender will go for the tackle or give up. If Shaw does either of these, Roo kicks the goal either with a bumped kick or a torp into the top of the stands. Shaw's play was timed and thought out to perfection.

[daisycutter 29,600]

We are over analysing this

A. If you mark in the square there is NO good reason to play on now EVER

B. What happened with Riewoldt was just one of those things you see in a blue-moon

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

St Kilda supporters are the worst!So unbelievably blinded by their own success, it's as if they've forgotten how crap they have been in the past.

Success? Not a word that springs to mind when I think of the Saints.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,777]

"We are over analysing this"

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Just a minute.....there's no over-analysis here. I'm just proposing a very simple blanket rule that could possibly save a goal or two per year( hence, possibly, a win or two).

Remember Robbo's clanger?.....[probably cost him a year of his career).

Remember Jeff Farmer surprising Gary Lyon with that unnecessary handball in the square? Nearly cost us a goal and a game.

Remember Brad Green against Essendon at the Docklands about 6 years ago? Probably cost us a game and a top 4 spot.

There is an argument that Reiwoldt's brainfade caused such a morale drop, when an inspiring goal was there for the taking, that it was significant in the final result.

Not too many "blue-moons" since those incidents....and they're only the ones that spring easily to mind.

I want someone to give me one good reason why any player should EVER play on when he marks in the goalsquare. And with the new rule about the player deciding whether to take the advantage after a free, rather than the umpire offering it, this blanket rule of mine should apply to goalsquare frees also in the future.

Please tell me why I'm wrong.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Edited October 6, 2010 by JUMPING JACK CLENNETT

[daisycutter 29,600]

"We are over analysing this"

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Just a minute.....there's no over-analysis here. I'm just proposing a very simple blanket rule that could possibly save a goal or two per year( hence, possibly, a win or two).

Remember Robbo's clanger?.....[probably cost him a year of his career).

Remember Jeff Farmer surprising Gary Lyon with that unnecessary handball in the square? Nearly cost us a goal and a game.

Remember Brad Green against Essendon at the Docklands about 6 years ago? Probably cost us a game and a top 4 spot.

There is an argument that Reiwoldt's brainfade caused such a morale drop, when an inspiring goal was there for the taking, that it was significant in the final result.

Not too many "blue-moons" since those incidents....and they're only the ones that spring easily to mind.

I want someone to give me one good reason why any player should EVER play on when he marks in the goalsquare. And with the new rule about the player deciding whether to take the advantage after a free, rather than the umpire offering it, this blanket rule of mine should apply to goalsquare frees also in the future.

Please tell me why I'm wrong.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wasn't referring to you Jack.

Like I said "If you mark in the square there is NO good reason to play on now EVER"

No excuse for Riewoldt, he just had a brain fade. Why he did is irrelevant (the over analysing bit)

[45HG 1,539]

Remember Brad Green against Essendon at the Docklands about 6 years ago? Probably cost us a game and a top 4 spot.

No...

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

it's as much as a lesson about 'making sure of the goal' as it is about never, ever conceding defeat no matter how much your opponent looks like scoring, because if you keep going full tilt, one time in 50 you'll get a hand on it

[Carlos Danger 380]

Epic fail. That's all it was.

Funny or tragic, depending on which side of the fence your standing.

[Jaded No More 68,855]

Playing on in the goal square is equivalent to using the withdrawal method as a form of contraception. Seems like a good idea in the moment, but often leads to epic life failures.

[monoccular 17,411]

Playing on in the goal square is equivalent to using the withdrawal method as a form of contraception. Seems like a good idea in the moment, but often leads to epic life failures.

LOL.

[Summer Blease 0]

Playing on in the goal square is equivalent to using the withdrawal method as a form of contraception. Seems like a good idea in the moment, but often leads to epic life failures.

When your athletic Full Forward is infront of an open, unprotected goal with no defenders present, sometimes the temptation is too great- the only thing one feels they should do is ram that thing through at post hight.

There's no reason to "play on in the goal square" but anything can happen in the "heat of the moment"

[The Jacks 0]

It could have happened another way...

1. Say Shaw was an extra 10-15 metres further away from goal and he wasn't really sprinting and was just half-heartedly jogging after Reiwoldt, thinking a goal was a given.

2. Reiwoldt has a quick look around after taking the mark, sees Shaw, and decides "this is the granny, I'm not taking any risks, we really need this goal".

3. Reiwoldt composes him self, and slowly walks back to have his set shot from the goal square. Pies fans laugh and try to put him off, the Saints fans think "why the hell didn't he just kick it... ah, no worries even he won't miss it from here anyway"

4. You guessed it, Reiwoldt hits the post...

To quote Queens of the Stoneage ... "quick and to the pointless"

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,777]

It could have happened another way...

1. Say Shaw was an extra 10-15 metres further away from goal and he wasn't really sprinting and was just half-heartedly jogging after Reiwoldt, thinking a goal was a given.

2. Reiwoldt has a quick look around after taking the mark, sees Shaw, and decides "this is the granny, I'm not taking any risks, we really need this goal".

3. Reiwoldt composes him self, and slowly walks back to have his set shot from the goal square. Pies fans laugh and try to put him off, the Saints fans think "why the hell didn't he just kick it... ah, no worries even he won't miss it from here anyway"

4. You guessed it, Reiwoldt hits the post...

To quote Queens of the Stoneage ... "quick and to the pointless"

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

How did I know that someone would try to come up with some completely puerile suggestion to defend Riewoldt's catastrophic clanger?

Some people just like to disagree for no logical reason other than the jollies they get from disagreeing.

Can anyone with a half-logical mind tell me why it's a good idea to play on after marking in the goalsquare?