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

    • NON-MFC: Round 13

      Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

        • Thanks
      • 133 replies
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: Collingwood

      Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

        • Thanks
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 385 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      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
      • 47 replies
      Demonland
    View All