Opinion Bring back the goal square kick ins

[Pykie]

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]

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]

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.

 

[hcd199]

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.

 

[HTT]

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]

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.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Just the AFL dumbing down the rules of the game

 

[Dazzler9]

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.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

Bring back deop kicks out of the square.

 

[Greenac]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[juss]

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]

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

 

[hawkman]

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

Josh Jenkins might as well retire if that came in

 

[BlueandGoldforever]

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.

 

[Dazzler9]

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.

 

[Greenac]

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.

YOU JUST WROTE IQ IN CAPITALS. GOTCHA

 

[Dazzler9]

Let's shove the childish retaliations to one side and focus on the question at hand please. Thank you.

 

[scottyt2]

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]

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]

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]

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

Unterzuper in mein opinionen

 

[kranky al]

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....