Per the above ACTUAL rule, the clear reading is that a kick breaks the possession of the football, and hence the 15m limit.
But the Laws of the Game is full of loopholes, so I have no idea if that is deliberate or just the usual AFL mediocrity.
It would help if they published the Interpretations of the Game, instead of just providing a few video anecdotes.
But wouldn’t a rule change effect the kick in after a point? If you are no longer able to do it in play, in theory, you then couldn’t kick it to yourself in that process and run out of the goal square?
Nice.
LOL.
Sharp intellect there
Imagine the reaction of the crowd when the ump pays it. That should indicate if it’s a good rule, or not.
It’s not completely implausible, either. You get twenty metres up + five metres down the ground kicks under pressure, and they may have already run ten metres.
Most umps would mentally reset after the kick, though, just like they do when a player baulks or otherwise does something to break their run. The ol’ forget-what-you’re-doing-when-you-walk-through-the-door survival instinct kicking in.
Why would they change it? I reckon the AFL would be loving McKenna doing solos
this bodes well for my supercoach team 
Apparently it’s only ok to do a solo behind your body off your heel while making it look accidental…
That article said:
While McKenna’s chip kick to himself counted towards his 15m with the ball before he had to bounce, if the kick had been 15m or more (i.e., of markable distance) and McKenna was able to get there and grab it before anyone else, umpires would call play on.
so it should be called play on.
But 100% correct. You only have to lay a finger on a player when they’re bouncing the ball for it to constitute a holding the ball decision.
I thought that was saying you can’t mark your own kick.
My question was about retaining possession.
you said catch it, which I took to mean marking it.
What do you mean by retaining possession? If you’ve caught it you have possession.
Yes, I said catch it, because I’ve never thought you can mark your own kick.
But ignore that, it’s not what I’m talking about.
I’ll give you three scenarios.
Conor runs 13 metres, kicks it to himself for a metre, then runs two more.
Didn’t bounce the ball, ran too far. Free kick.
Conor kicks the ball ten metres from a standing start in congestion, catches the ball himself, runs six metres. Didn’t bounce the ball? Free kick?
Conor runs five metres and kicks the ball eleven metres, catches his own kick. Didn’t bounce the ball? Free kick?
The first scenario implies the next two, even though the last two seem to be nonsense and against the spirit of the game.
From the article they should all be paid as free kicks. But good luck to the umpire to work out the distances.
It’ll be interesting to see if Conor does it again, and for that matter other players.
Yes, they should.
As should catching a 15-20 metre kick yourself when you haven’t run with the ball at all.
I’m sure they’ll just ignore those interpretations, though.
When was a Bomber allowed to mark his own kick? I wanna see that.
My next question is,
If a player skies a kick ten metres in the air and sits under it, clearly intending to catch it themselves, can you bury them in the turf before it gets there?
Yes. If it is a fark carlton player. Everybody knows that rule!
That’s where the rule is flawed. If you get caught while bouncing you’re gone but if you kicked/handballed over someone’s head and your intention was to get it again and we’re tackled they’d most likely pay holding the man. If the ball hit the ground does it reset?
Didn’t that happen to Ambrose last year? Marked the ball off his own boot and was awarded the mark and then some commentators whinged?