Jump to content

No Massive Goalsquare in 2019

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

On 10/11/2018 at 10:24 AM, Deeoldfart said:

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

Maybe it was an ambit throw away claim. Somehow showing the AFL listen.  Weird in the 1st place. 

Out of step in my view.

And now a backward somersault, with Pike... geniuses.

  • Quote
    •  

    OK...so what does the square actually do now?

    On kick ins the kicker can run over the line and effectively play on.  Unless the ump immediately calls that the defender at the 20m mark cant move forward otherwise I presume thats a free kick ?

    So what use is the square at all now...im unsure

  • Quote
    On 10/11/2018 at 4:47 PM, daisycutter said:

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

    This makes perfect sense, it's not play-on until the kicker steps out of the square so he can't be tackled while in there.  He can still size up his options before he makes his move.  Presumably the umpire can call play-on if he takes too long.

    The other point of the goal square is for forward marks taken in the square, the man on the mark is directly in front of goal, not on an angle.  This was brought in a few years ago.

  • Quote
    •  
    12 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

    This makes perfect sense, it's not play-on until the kicker steps out of the square so he can't be tackled while in there.  He can still size up his options before he makes his move.  Presumably the umpire can call play-on if he takes too long.

    The other point of the goal square is for forward marks taken in the square, the man on the mark is directly in front of goal, not on an angle.  This was brought in a few years ago.

    but surely  a play on must be called ?  if a kicker was tackled before that..would it not be a free ?  I just kinda see a murky area here

  • Quote
    2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

    but surely  a play on must be called ?  if a kicker was tackled before that..would it not be a free ?  I just kinda see a murky area here

    It's not that complicated.  Can't tackle them if they haven't stepped outside the square or until the umpire calls play-on because they've taken too long.

  • Quote

    1 minute ago, Fifty-5 said:

    It's not that complicated.  Can't tackle them if they haven't stepped outside the square or until the umpire calls play-on because they've taken too long.

    is it implicit that they CAN tackle the sec they over step ? Im not aware 

  • Quote
    1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

    is it implicit that they CAN tackle the sec they over step ? Im not aware 

    Look I'm not saying this is the published rule but as @daisycutter suggested this would make complete sense.

  • Quote
    2 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

    Look I'm not saying this is the published rule but as @daisycutter suggested this would make complete sense.

    ah ...see this is where I tread with caution..... Complete Sense....and the AFL ...are not exactly bedfellows !!

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     
    1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

    is it implicit that they CAN tackle the sec they over step ? Im not aware 

    I suspect so, but defenders would have to be able to move at the speed of light because they will be some way back from the end of the goal square (as happens now). So, unless the umpire has called play on, the defender won't be able to get near the kicker. Pretty much what happens now with the dinky little "kick-to-self".

  • Quote
    34 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    I suspect so, but defenders would have to be able to move at the speed of light because they will be some way back from the end of the goal square (as happens now). So, unless the umpire has called play on, the defender won't be able to get near the kicker. Pretty much what happens now with the dinky little "kick-to-self".

    we know the opp player must be 10m back from the top of the square

    but no mention is made of the protected area to the sides i.e. is it 10m clearance on all sides of the square or is there a virtual 10m straight line from boundary to boundary (like in nrl)?.....................this aspect was not made clear

    the other aspect is how long are the opp players given to clear this no-go zone, esp as the full back can play-on as soon as the goal ump acknowledges a point?  also what if an opp player stays with his opponent player who stays in the no-go zone?

    would hate to see more confusing (and unfair) 50m penalties applied

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    I reckon this rule change could produce some interesting plays.

    Once the fullback leaves the goal square, I presume it is a normal play on situation. Does he then have to kick or can he handball? I just picture a play where another defender is positioned to sprint in to take a handball while the defender guarding the square is wrong footed. Possible?

  • Quote
    3 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

    I reckon this rule change could produce some interesting plays.

    Once the fullback leaves the goal square, I presume it is a normal play on situation. Does he then have to kick or can he handball? I just picture a play where another defender is positioned to sprint in to take a handball while the defender guarding the square is wrong footed. Possible?

    yes handball allowed. normal play-on rules apply once he crosses the line

    not sure if he can handball if he hasn't crossed the line and ump hasn't called play-on due to time taken, but i'm guessing yes 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    11 hours ago, daisycutter said:

    we know the opp player must be 10m back from the top of the square

    but no mention is made of the protected area to the sides i.e. is it 10m clearance on all sides of the square or is there a virtual 10m straight line from boundary to boundary (like in nrl)?.....................this aspect was not made clear

    the other aspect is how long are the opp players given to clear this no-go zone, esp as the full back can play-on as soon as the goal ump acknowledges a point?  also what if an opp player stays with his opponent player who stays in the no-go zone?

    would hate to see more confusing (and unfair) 50m penalties applied

    It should be an arc at 20m. I know this is not exactly 10m from the side of the goal square but it's better than a straight line.

    As you say there's bound to be times when opposition players are within this area when the kicker takes a quick kick in.  Great potential for confusion.

    Who'd be an AFL umpire?

  • Quote

    I can see it now... another arc....centred between the goal posts, on the goal line, taking in both point posts.

    Why do they have to eff around with the game ?? Meh

    So are we any clearer ? Does play on need to be called before defender on the mark 10 back can move on the kicker ?

  • Quote
    On 10/12/2018 at 1:53 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

    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.

    I wanted it to go further - NO marks paid to the defensive team after a kick in from the goal rectangle (pedantic me can't callout a square because it isn't and never has been)  until the ball clears the defensive 50.  

    This would stop these dinky little time wasting chips and back and forth across the ground.

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • PREVIEW: Carlton

      Good evening, Demon fans and welcome back to the Demonland Podcast ... it’s time to discuss this week’s game against the Blues. Will the Demons celebrate Clayton Oliver’s 200th game with a victory? We have a number of callers waiting on line … Leopold Bloom: Carlton and Melbourne are both out of finals contention with six wins and eleven losses, and are undoubtedly the two most underwhelming and disappointing teams of 2025. Both had high expectations at the start of participating and advancing deep into the finals, but instead, they have consistently underperformed and disappointed themselves and their supporters throughout the year. However, I am inclined to give the Demons the benefit of the doubt, as they have made some progress in addressing their issues after a disastrous start. In contrast, the Blues are struggling across the board and do not appear to be making any notable improvements. They are regressing, and a significant loss is looming on Saturday night. Max Gawn in the ruck will be huge and the Demon midfield have a point to prove after lowering their colours in so many close calls.

        • Clap
        • Like
      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: North Melbourne

      I suppose that I should apologise for the title of this piece, but the temptation to go with it was far too great. The memory of how North Melbourne tore Melbourne apart at the seams earlier in the season and the way in which it set the scene for the club’s demise so early in the piece has been weighing heavily upon all of us. This game was a must-win from the club’s perspective, and the team’s response was overwhelming. The 36 point win over Alastair Clarkson’s Kangaroos at the MCG on Sunday was indeed — roovenge of the highest order!

        • Love
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Werribee

      The Casey Demons remain in contention for a VFL finals berth following a comprehensive 76-point victory over the Werribee Tigers at Whitten Oval last night. The caveat to the performance is that the once mighty Tigers have been raided of many key players and are now a shadow of the premiership-winning team from last season. The team suffered a blow before the game when veteran Tom McDonald was withdrawn for senior duty to cover for Steven May who is ill.  However, after conceding the first goal of the game, Casey was dominant from ten minutes in until the very end and despite some early errors and inaccuracy, they managed to warm to the task of dismantling the Tigers with precision, particularly after half time when the nominally home side provided them with minimal resistance.

        • Thanks
      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Carlton

      The Demons return to the MCG as the the visiting team on Saturday night to take on the Blues who are under siege after 4 straight losses. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 208 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: North Melbourne

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 14th July @ 8:00pm. Join Binman & I as we dissect the Dees glorious win over the Kangaroos at the MCG.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 29 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: North Melbourne

      The Demons are finally back at the MCG and finally back on the winners list as they continually chipped away at a spirited Kangaroos side eventually breaking their backs and opening the floodgates to run out winners by 6 goals.

        • Haha
        • Love
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 253 replies
      Demonland
    View All