Curious as to what your objection is with that change?
Presumably the longer square is meant to give the players more space to kick the ball out to?
It should force more players out of the forward 50 at kick-ins and spread them out.
Does it also mean more opportunity to have a shot directly in front when marked in the bigger goal square?
You have that now anyway. Any mark in the goal square means you are lined up directly in front.
If the goal “square” becomes a rectangle, marks taken inside the lines pointing towards the centre are on a much better angle than marks taken inside the old 7m square (is it a square or is it 7m x 10m?), so it won’t make much difference.
Of course, and the rules governing the smaller square rectangle will operate on the larger square rectangle.
What about if the goal square was simply the Toyota logo, with the smaller oval being the existing goal square and the larger oval being the larger goal square?
When players kick out from the small oval the commentators would have to say “oh what a feeling!”, whereas when they kicked from the larger circle it would be mandatory for the commentator to plug the end of financial year deals on ex-demo model Camrys
$$$$$
10 Likes
They should just introduce a 20m arc and scrap the goal square all together
4 Likes
If a team kicks a behind, then one of their players has to leave the field and stay off until their team kicks a goal.
5 Likes
So many people seem to be geometrically-challenged on this one. It makes very little difference when you mark 10 metres out, let alone 17.
Don’t have much of an issue with this one.
The other suggestion is irrelevant most of the time (how often do teams start with >8 defenders?) but is very likely just there to make the slippery slope onwards to more horrid rules less of a PR challenge.
The starting possie rules will make the final few minutes of a tight game interesting, you’d have a maximum of 8 players in or near the backline at a centre bounce then a wave of players rushing back after the bounce
Or almost trigonometrically-challenged, ‘cos the sines are all there.
6 Likes
I’ve said it before, . but the lengthening of the square is unnecessary. All they need to do is put a spot on the field, whatever distance out from goal they want, for the opposition to stand the mark, … as if a mark had just been taken by the defender, 18 metres(?)out directly in front of goal. Simple.
3 Likes
Theoretically this rule change should help us seeing as we’re currently terrible at kickouts
Now we’ll be terrible, but further.
3 Likes
So that is a good thing, right? It means the F50 pressure thing is relieved with a decent hoof to somewhere near the centre. How many of our disasters were caused by not being able to clear out of the D50, we not allowed that pressure, we invited it with all those dinky little passes to the back pocket. Way too predictable.
You just know that in round four the AFL will introduce the “no mark for backwards kicks” rule, after a handful of short kicks to the back pockets.
2 Likes
That would be too simple too implement, wouldn’t it?
1 Like
Yes, but any marks taken in the bits that are in the new “square” (but not the old one) are in a pretty good spot anyway.
Will the 20m square come in the year we draft Fletcher jnr?