No Massive Goalsquare in 2019

[DV8 2,271]

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.

[beelzebub 23,390]

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

[old55 23,848]

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.

[beelzebub 23,390]

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

[old55 23,848]

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.

[beelzebub 23,390]

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 

[old55 23,848]

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.

[beelzebub 23,390]

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 !!

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,072]

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".

[daisycutter 29,917]

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

[Bitter but optimistic 22,289]

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?

[daisycutter 29,917]

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 

[old55 23,848]

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?

[beelzebub 23,390]

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 ?

[monoccular 17,699]

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.