Opinion Bring back the goal square kick ins

[Dazzler9]

So after a season and a bit with effectively no goalsquare, I can't see that it's done much to improve the 'state of the game'. Time to bring it back?

If not, then why even have the square (rectangle) painted on? Just put a dot where the kicker starts from.

 

[BlueandGoldforever]

So after a season and a bit with effectively no goalsquare, I can't see that it's done much to improve the 'state of the game'. Time to bring it back?

If not, then why even have the square (rectangle) painted on? Just put a dot where the kicker starts from.

I agree. It is another stupid new rule.

 

[sobrave]

if you kick a goal from the square it should be a mini zooper and only count for 3 points.

 

[Dazzler9]

So after a season and a bit with effectively no goalsquare, I can't see that it's done much to improve the 'state of the game'. Time to bring it back?

If not, then why even have the square (rectangle) painted on? Just put a dot where the kicker starts from.

Probably for when a forward marks anywhere within the goalsquare and is allowed to line up directly infront, come to think of it.

 

[OniAu]

The other night i was only thinking its probably one of the better rules bought in. Clears congestion. Opens up the play a bit

 

[The King!]

So after a season and a bit with effectively no goalsquare, I can't see that it's done much to improve the 'state of the game'. Time to bring it back?

If not, then why even have the square (rectangle) painted on? Just put a dot where the kicker starts from.

100% common sense

So probably won’t happen

 

[Supercoach Bargain]

Only pay a mark if the kick in crosses the 50. Bring back the big kickout.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Always thought should have to kick to self if want to leave the square unless umpire calls play on then you can just run out

 

[Righteo]

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.

 

[Dazzler9]

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.

Don't mind the bouncedown. Adds an extra dimension to ruckwork.

 

[wing it]

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.

Kicking out from the goalsquare is pointless and anachronistic? I wouldn't have thought so.

 

[D-N-R]

Probably for when a forward marks anywhere within the goalsquare and is allowed to line up directly infront, come to think of it.

That's a rule that need to be dumped. Players' skill in this area has improved remarkably.

 

[D-N-R]

They won't remove the goalsquare, even though it doesn't really serve the purpose it once did. It's only real purpose is to provide a small zone which the player can wander around just before they play on and run out of it. And the marking thing.

They introduced a new rule where the mark is when the ball goes out of bounds near the point post - the defender has to be level with the top of the goalsquare.

But rather than continuing the line from the top of the goalsquare to the boundary, thus making it clear where the defender must stand, they insist on the umpire having to tell defenders to come back on the mark. (And the defenders all pretend they can't hear or don't know where the mark is).

They'd be better off replacing it with a larger zone - perhaps a 'D' - which serves the purpose of being the area where kick ins are taken from and also dilineates where the attackers can and can't be.

The AFL love the aesthetic of the square as an iconic part of the game, but have made it almost redundant with regards to the current rules.

 

[Furn2]

I think its actually reduced goals.

The number of extra end to end goals seems to be less than the goals from turnovers lost.

Its not being used aggressively but rather just use it to clear it to safety at 70m out on the boundary or go short.

 

[Sentinel]

So after a season and a bit with effectively no goalsquare, I can't see that it's done much to improve the 'state of the game'. Time to bring it back?

If not, then why even have the square (rectangle) painted on? Just put a dot where the kicker starts from.

It's also used for the 6-6-6 rule.

I think the new kick out rule results in more congestion towards the centre of the ground rather than being closer to one end. Which then impacts scoring.

 

[Dazzler9]

I think its actually reduced goals.

The number of extra end to end goals seems to be less than the goals from turnovers lost.

Its not being used aggressively but rather just use it to clear it to safety at 70m out on the boundary or go short.

Exactly. The kicker is discouraged from running straight down the guts too, since that is where the full forward stands. And so the kicker just runs at a 45* angle and hoofs it towards the boundary.

 

[DaTBird187]

The kick in after a point should be from the centre square. That way teams like Sydney might get a forward 50 entry.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

Opposition player on the mark can't run at the player kicking in until they run out the goal square and it's "play on" so it does still serve a purpose.

 

[Dazzler9]

Opposition player on the mark can't run at the player kicking in until they run out the goal square and it's "play on" so it does still serve a purpose.

A dot on the ground would serve the same purpose.

But as referenced in other posts above, the square serves other purposes too.

 

[Greenac]

It serves other purposes and rather than just frame the question as to whether it improved the game, it should instead be asked whether it has hurt the game. It hasn't so why whinge?

 

[D-N-R]

It serves other purposes and rather than just frame the question as to whether it improved the game, it should instead be asked whether it has hurt the game. It hasn't so why whinge?

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.

 

[Dazzler9]

It serves other purposes and rather than just frame the question as to whether it improved the game, it should instead be asked whether it has hurt the game. It hasn't so why whinge?

Nobody's having a whinge bro. Just a discussion.

 

[master bate]

Put the man on the mark back on the 50, that would open games up and keep them interesting. Kick a point, the other team can have the guy doing the kick ins hoof it 70m to their forward line.

The thing is everyone is so risk adverse you wouldn't take shots on goal from anywhere that a point is more likely than a goal. Unintended consequences and so forth...

I think the change has been good and eventually a team will have enough good kicks to work the angles and go 30-40m pass X 2 and end up in the corridor with great scoring chances. It only takes one perfectly timed lead and a nicely weighted kick, to get 40m out from goal and then repeat the process. It can't be far away.

 

[Denny Crane]

Modern coaches are basically brilliant and thinking all the time. The idea when bringing the rule in that enabled you to run straight out from the square was seemingly to quicken the game and reduce the amount of players in the 50 as you would need a defensive line in case a quick point happened. Coaches figured that out and created a plan, as they do and will for all rules people invent to 'quicken' the game or 'reduce congestion'. Coaches are smarter than the rules committee.

 

[the_big_sav]

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