No Massive Goalsquare in 2019

[Demonland 72,229]

Hallelujah

 

[Bates Mate 4,487]

hate the think the amount of resource wasted for this stupid concept

[Demonland 72,229]

Just now, Bates Mate said:

hate the think the amount of resource wasted for this stupid concept

Not to mention the wasted paint.

[Deeoldfart 8,033]

Common sense prevails (which is an unusual thing to say about the AFL).

[durango 2,008]

The traditional version of the game would be destroyed if the AFL changed the shape to the goal square on a thought bubble of some person who just likes change because they don't like how the game is played.

In 2005/2006 the eagles and sydney grand final was low scoring and no one changed rules to get larger scores.

[layzie 33,851]

Thank goodness for that. Couldn’t believe it was even considered.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

These people need to be removed from office if such rules are introduced. There is such a thing as tradition which gives the game more integrity than any rule change ever will. Soon you could have clubs in different leagues playing different versions of the game. Stop this rubbish in its tracks. Do you see English Premier League changing the way football is played every season? Seriously, get a life.

[deebug 1,754]

Thank goodness for that.

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,704]

It would ruin the synthetics of the game if it was bought it. 

Leigh Matthews the brain child of the idea. 

[Little Goffy 14,579]

See, when I have dumb ideas, I put them aside, let them stew for a couple of days then look at them again. And when I realise how dumb they were, I just quietly pack them away and never mention them to anyone because I prefer not to look like an idiot.

The trouble with the aristocrat class is, they barely even care if their idea is good, they just want to be able to say 'look, I have ideas'. Because being 'an innovative, bold risk taker' is part of the rationale of 'why I deserve so much more than anyone else'. If only we coudl re-attach the old 'and I take the hit if it fails' part.

Useless snob scumbags on seven figure incomes give the right squirts, they do.

I wonder who argued the case for no doing the stoopud?

 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,813]

43 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

See, when I have dumb ideas, I put them aside, let them stew for a couple of days then look at them again. And when I realise how dumb they were, I just quietly pack them away and never mention them to anyone because I prefer not to look like an idiot.

The trouble with the aristocrat class is, they barely even care if their idea is good, they just want to be able to say 'look, I have ideas'. Because being 'an innovative, bold risk taker' is part of the rationale of 'why I deserve so much more than anyone else'. If only we coudl re-attach the old 'and I take the hit if it fails' part.

Useless snob scumbags on seven figure incomes give the right squirts, they do.

I wonder who argued the case for no doing the stoopud?

 

Now that's a novel description, although I have no idea who you are referring to. 

[TRIGON 4,783]

[Little Goffy 14,579]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Now that's a novel description, although I have no idea who you are referring to. 

Eh, well, 'bourgeois' doesn't cut it these days.

Just picture that little layer of people who by 'virtue' of their status and connections manage to be above the full set of law, common sense, executive accountability, and so forth. Our Gil is most certainly in there, on all counts, it seems.

It is a tight club, and very much personal invitation only. And very much able to be inherited. 

It also conforms to De Tocqueville's classic thesis about the privilege of a redundant aristocracy being a key driver of social unrest. Consider the possibilty that the absence of women and migrants in top executive roles (both public and private) is less about the 'women and migrant categories' being excluded and more about 'absolutely everyone' being excluded.

Think I'm kidding or exaggerating? Here's a wikipedia entry that could just as easily be title 'what does inherited super-privelege look like in Australia today'.

McLachlan grew up on his family farm 'Rosebank', located in Mount Pleasant, South Australia. His parents are Angus, a former first class cricketer, and Sylvia.^[1][3] He is the eldest of four brothers: Hamish, Will and Banjo.^[1] His uncle, Ian McLachlan, was an Australian government Minister for Defence, and was long term President (up to 2014) of the South Australian Cricket Association.

After completing secondary school as a boarder at St Peter's College, Adelaide,^[1] he obtained a Bachelor of Commerce at the University of Adelaide in 1995 and a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) at the University of Melbourne in 1996, where he was a resident at Trinity College. He later completed the Senior Executive Program at Stanford University.^[1] He is married to Laura Blythe, who was a fellow resident at Trinity College and is the daughter of former Spotless Chairman, Brian Blythe

[Bitter but optimistic 22,241]

No change to the goalsquare  but the man on the mark has to stand a further 5 metres back and the fullback can play on without kicking to himself.

Will be interesting - a sharp footed kicker in might lob one in the forward line. There will some new set plays developed over the summer

[old55 23,613]

Possibly a red herring.  Suggest some stupid idea as a cover.  Bring in the ideas you want but reject the stupid idea.  What you want is more easily swallowed.

[Nasher 33,616]

But you can now play on in the goal square without a self-kick. Doesn't that amount to abolishing the goal square altogether?

[daisycutter 29,617]

1 minute ago, Nasher said:

But you can now play on in the goal square without a self-kick. Doesn't that amount to abolishing the goal square altogether?

the goal square just determines the play-on line. cross it, play-on

i'm waiting for the first player to immediately play-on, dodge two defenders, bounce the ball 3 times then..............handball the pill somewhere around the centre line

[Ethan Tremblay 30,873]

11 minutes ago, Nasher said:

But you can now play on in the goal square without a self-kick. Doesn't that amount to abolishing the goal square altogether?

When the 15m goal square idea was floated about, I was going to post the exact idea which they’ve implemented. I then thought about it for a minute and came to the conclusion that there would then be no reason to have a goal square, so I didn’t post it as it ended up seeming a bit odd. 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Ethan Tremblay

[Bitter but optimistic 22,241]

44 minutes ago, Nasher said:

But you can now play on in the goal square without a self-kick. Doesn't that amount to abolishing the goal square altogether?

Exactly Gnasher! This was the point I was getting at with my above post.

The have extended the goal square by stealth. 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,778]

Seriously though, I worry that a group of people that thought it was a good idea in the first place being senior people in the administration of our game

It shouldn't have made it further than the "no such thing as a bad idea" ideation session facilitated by high priced external consultants

Edited October 11, 2018 by Graeme Yeats' Mullet

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,813]

Having thought about this further, I can understand they wanted to get rid of the "kick-to-self" because it looks (and is) pointless. But I think the better option would be to ban it by requiring the designated kicker to kick the ball from within the goal square a minimum of 15 metres. A failure to do so would be a free kick to the opposition.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

15 hours ago, Win4theAges said:

It would ruin the synthetics of the game if it was bought it. 

Leigh Matthews the brain child of the idea. 

Really? That would be right......

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

12 hours ago, Nasher said:

But you can now play on in the goal square without a self-kick. Doesn't that amount to abolishing the goal square altogether?

They probably kept it as to not confuse the umps any further. They would find it too hard to know whether they should line up a player directly in front or not after a mark close to the goals. 

[Red and Bluebeard 2,084]

On 10/11/2018 at 4:42 PM, Nasher said:

But you can now play on in the goal square without a self-kick. Doesn't that amount to abolishing the goal square altogether?

Sorry to be a pedant, but it is not a square in the first place, so you couldn't abolish it ?"Goal rectangle" is presumably too much of a mouthful (let alone geometry) for Bwuce & co ... Personally I am sorry to see the kick to oneself go.

[Brownie 5,981]

On 10/11/2018 at 3:37 PM, Bitter but optimistic said:

No change to the goalsquare  but the man on the mark has to stand a further 5 metres back and the fullback can play on without kicking to himself.

Will be interesting - a sharp footed kicker in might lob one in the forward line. There will some new set plays developed over the summer

Exactly. Frosty will be bombing in more tops for sure I reckon