Opinion Bring back the goal square kick ins

Should the old kick in rule from within the square come back?

  • Yes, may as well

    Votes: 28 65.1%
  • No, Steven Hocking is a stable genius

    Votes: 15 34.9%

  • Total voters
    43

Remove this Banner Ad

Pykie

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 17, 2006
18,343
37,467
Lord's
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Leeds United
is it just me or can the player taking the kick out run as far as he likes from the goal square? ive never seen anyone payed a free against running too far and i swear some are nearly 25-30m out when they kick without bouncing
Given the square is 15m and you can run 15m without bouncing the ball, then you are probably correct in seeing players run to 25-30m out without bouncing the ball before kicking.....
 

Handsuper47

Club Legend
Aug 5, 2012
2,707
4,063
AFL Club
Richmond
Nah, one of the few things the AFL has actually got right in recent times. It was pointless and anachronistic. The centre square bounce should be next to go.
Removing the centre bounce hey, while we're at it let's just slowly remove all the things that make our game unique to 'fit in' with the modern times, so we don't recognize the game anymore?
 

WhyAlwaysMe

6x Super Bowl Champion
Oct 4, 2005
17,538
7,545
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
New England Patriots M.C.F.C
A dot on the ground would serve the same purpose.

But as referenced in other posts above, the square serves other purposes too.
How would a dot serve the same purpose? The umpire calls play on when the defender taking the kick out leaves the goal square.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

hcd199

Club Legend
Apr 29, 2009
2,106
1,314
Hobart
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
I always thought this change was more of the same aimless tinkering from the AFL, seemingly working from the same old preposterous logic that opposition teams won't adapt their behaviour to deal with any new risks the rule brings in.

With that said, although I preferred the previous rule, I'd only endorse a rollback if there are clear drawbacks to the change (either clear unintended consequences, like a reduction in forward pressure turnovers leading to scores after kick-ins vs. no real increase in end-to-end goals, or just flaws in the internal logic behind the change): if it's much of a muchness, reverting is just as purposeless as the initial action. My instinct is that it's had a slightly negative impact (in that the ball seems to get to the half-back area more often, which suits nobody in particular), so I'd lean towards wanting it changed back, but there are far more egregious rules in the game at the moment I'd want to get rid of before this one.
 

harrythetiger

Jack Graham That Is 🏆
Sep 13, 2015
14,100
37,981
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
Yep. With the aim of increasing scoring in mind it isn’t even a good rule. There are virtually no scores from kick ins - teams would be lucky to average more than 1 goal per game from that source. The extra 10m or whatever it is only means the turnover, when it happens, is 10m further from goal. Obviously this reduces the chance of scoring from those turnovers. Robbing from the highest scoring source to improve the lowest scoring source isn’t very wise if the aim is to increase scoring.
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Apr 4, 2005
2,738
3,041
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
Given the square is 15m and you can run 15m without bouncing the ball, then you are probably correct in seeing players run to 25-30m out without bouncing the ball before kicking.....
9m, not 15 and most players are running from the centre of the square, not the end of it.

Players run 20-25m without being called for it anyway, so no reason for this to be different.
 

Dazzler10

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 30, 2015
6,576
13,701
Krypton
AFL Club
West Coast
How would a dot serve the same purpose? The umpire calls play on when the defender taking the kick out leaves the goal square.
The kicker would stand on the dot. When he moves off, it's play on.

I'm not advoating for a dot by the way. I'm just highlighting that under the current rule, that's is what you may as well have.

I'd much prefer a return to the old rule. That way any turnover from the kick-in is much more dangerous, plus you get the odd over-step which creates another scoring opportunity.
 

Greenac

All Australian
Apr 12, 2020
691
826
AFL Club
Adelaide
If it hasn't improved the game, then why make the change in the first place?

It's a valid question.

Any rule change should be accompanied by a reason for making the change, and it should be reviewed at a later date to see if there was any improvement.

Otherwise we're tinkering with game for no reason.
Except there is a clear benefit to clear the ball further away. Prior to this teams would keep the ball in the forward half too easily. Just because that hasn't fixed all the game's problems by itsekf doesn't mean there isnt a benefit. You are only telling 10% of the story.
 

BlueandGoldforever

Club Legend
Apr 10, 2008
2,210
1,765
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
Except there is a clear benefit to clear the ball further away. Prior to this teams would keep the ball in the forward half too easily. Just because that hasn't fixed all the game's problems by itsekf doesn't mean there isnt a benefit. You are only telling 10% of the story.
It hasn't improved the game either. In fact, it is just another example of destroying the history and culture of the sport. Can you imagine basketball getting rid of the three-point line? Or in football (soccer) eliminating the goal area? Or in cricket eliminating singles because that was slowing the scoring down?

All we need the umpires to do is apply the rules in the rules book. Until they do that, we don't really know what needs to change, because they ignore the most basic of infringements causing uncertainty in players and chaos in the minds of supporters.
 

Greenac

All Australian
Apr 12, 2020
691
826
AFL Club
Adelaide
It hasn't improved the game either. In fact, it is just another example of destroying the history and culture of the sport. Can you imagine basketball getting rid of the three-point line? Or in football (soccer) eliminating the goal area? Or in cricket eliminating singles because that was slowing the scoring down?

All we need the umpires to do is apply the rules in the rules book. Until they do that, we don't really know what needs to change, because they ignore the most basic of infringements causing uncertainty in players and chaos in the minds of supporters.
Your comparisons are not even close to the same level of impact on the respective sports. By the way 3 pt shot was not originally in basketball, nor was the penalty area the same as it is today in soccer so perhaps before you try to be clever it would be wise to first actually be clever.

It hasn't hurt the game, it has helped to overcome a tactic that was throttling matches and contributing to it being a rolling maul of congestion.

And yet you want to whinge about tradition by comparing it to things that were not even traditions within their original codes. ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE.
 

Sauras

Club Legend
Oct 6, 2014
1,079
1,483
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Your comparisons are not even close to the same level of impact on the respective sports. By the way 3 pt shot was not originally in basketball, nor was the penalty area the same as it is today in soccer so perhaps before you try to be clever it would be wise to first actually be clever.

It hasn't hurt the game, it has helped to overcome a tactic that was throttling matches and contributing to it being a rolling maul of congestion.

And yet you want to whinge about tradition by comparing it to things that were not even traditions within their original codes. ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE.
Seems you've mistaken history and culture for "original codes". Bringing up what was in place 150 years IS laughable. As you've only responded to half the post I am guessing you either agree with the rest or have no idea what hes talking about.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
20,303
25,700
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
No reason to bring it back, it gives players more freedom bringing the ball in and thus gives more options. Less options means easier to defend and so probably more defensive and congested.
 

Greenac

All Australian
Apr 12, 2020
691
826
AFL Club
Adelaide
Seems you've mistaken history and culture for "original codes". Bringing up what was in place 150 years IS laughable. As you've only responded to half the post I am guessing you either agree with the rest or have no idea what hes talking about.
Oh please
 

BlueandGoldforever

Club Legend
Apr 10, 2008
2,210
1,765
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
Your comparisons are not even close to the same level of impact on the respective sports. By the way 3 pt shot was not originally in basketball, nor was the penalty area the same as it is today in soccer so perhaps before you try to be clever it would be wise to first actually be clever.

It hasn't hurt the game, it has helped to overcome a tactic that was throttling matches and contributing to it being a rolling maul of congestion.

And yet you want to whinge about tradition by comparing it to things that were not even traditions within their original codes. ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE.
I didn’t say the penalty area, I said the goal area. Look at a diagram of a soccer pitch and you will see the difference.

And like the game isn’t bottled up now.

By the way, people who write in capitals have low IQ’s.
 

Dazzler10

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 30, 2015
6,576
13,701
Krypton
AFL Club
West Coast
It's the sort of rule change that tinkers around the edges and hasn't contributed to solving the congestion problem. May as well go back to the previous rule which we all know and love and has been part of the game for decades without causing any issues.
 

scottyt2

Senior List
Aug 21, 2006
176
103
melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
666 is the first rule they should get rid of..taking away a defender has meant teams can no longer intercept and transition the ball up the field. Now instead we have a stoppage inside 50. 666 has caused more congestion but i have no faith in the rule makers to admit their mistake and remove it next year.
 

D-N-R

Club Legend
Apr 4, 2005
2,738
3,041
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WCE
Except there is a clear benefit to clear the ball further away. Prior to this teams would keep the ball in the forward half too easily. Just because that hasn't fixed all the game's problems by itsekf doesn't mean there isnt a benefit. You are only telling 10% of the story.
I'm not sure what the reason for doing it was in the first place. If you have some evidence that it was introduced for the reasons you say, I'd like to see it.

A lot of the changes at the time (there were 9 rule changes) were done when the talk was about there being a lack of goals. The 666 rule etc. were talked about along with the lack of goals.

If it was done to counter zone defence, then can you say it has lead to more goals? That's something that can be demonstrated.

Unfortunately, the AFL want us to accept all these changes without them demonstrating that they have even worked.
 

the_big_sav

Premiership Player
May 29, 2003
3,033
772
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
North Melbourne
Given the square is 15m and you can run 15m without bouncing the ball, then you are probably correct in seeing players run to 25-30m out without bouncing the ball before kicking.....
i get ya. still seems like they run a LONG way and probably too far
 

kranky al

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 30, 2009
19,984
25,621
Greenough
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth www.pixelpac.com.au
It hasn't improved the game either. In fact, it is just another example of destroying the history and culture of the sport. Can you imagine basketball getting rid of the three-point line? Or in football (soccer) eliminating the goal area? Or in cricket eliminating singles because that was slowing the scoring down?

All we need the umpires to do is apply the rules in the rules book. Until they do that, we don't really know what needs to change, because they ignore the most basic of infringements causing uncertainty in players and chaos in the minds of supporters.
What do you mean?

i f%%^# love rule of the week being applied randomly for somewhere between 1 and 7 weeks in an inconsistent manner before quietly being forgotten about.

the fury, the passion, the need to skull hard spirits and smash your head into hard objects...... what else gives you ALL that???

I mean aside from the mrp and their contortions....
 

Top Bottom