Goals from stoppages

[Bomber_Fan]

FFS I'm sick of teams scoring easy goals from stoppages in our defensive half (ie Cotchin and Martin) while we have to work so hard for ours. So it's about time we improved our setup with these stoppages - it's been almost half a season. This and the complete lack of crumbers in our team when the ball hits the deck in our forward half are two of the biggest sources of frustration for me.

[Royza]

Correct. We're not the greatest at protecting goal side at stoppages, or the quick snap from a pack. When it's near our goal, our rucks are more likely to score from stoppages.

Also, our zone press or whatever the set up is sucks at the G. Apart from Crameri running almost the length of the field to get into space i50, we fell down again.
Last qtr we had more forwards stay at home and caused damage (although the ruck domination was the biggest factor there).

[Jazz_84]

YES!

i couldn't take this crap, im sitting behind the richmond end goals with my richmond supporting partner and everytime there would be a stoppage down there i would say, this goal is about to break our back... barely finishing her sentence of "we might not score" martin gets space and snaps a beauty

Richmond played horribly last night to lose given they had more players around the ball most of the time

[j-mac31]

When my dad played "for Victoria" (don't ******* ask) in the 60s the coach had two rules, the first of which was: always leave the back pocket in the goalsquare.

[paddyl90]

I remember in our Round 3 game against the Aints we kicked like 4 or 5 ourselves from the stoppages in our forward 50 so we are capable, and those goals weren't cause of shit defense, well a few weren't but we certainly need to refine that aspect of our game. The Anzac Day game sticks out to me as prime example which cost us the game.

[Windy_Hill]

When my dad played "for Victoria" (don't ******* ask) in the 60s the coach had two rules, the first of which was: always leave the back pocket in the goalsquare.

may I ask what the 2nd rules was?

[rockhole]

Don't kiss on the first date!

[Rossoneri]

When my dad played "for Victoria" (don't ******* ask) in the 60s the coach had two rules, the first of which was: always leave the back pocket in the goalsquare.

may I ask what the 2nd rules was?

"There was no second rule, there is only one rule to remember and you forgot it" (that's what the coach would say)

[j-mac31]

When my dad played "for Victoria" (don't ******* ask) in the 60s the coach had two rules, the first of which was: always leave the back pocket in the goalsquare.

may I ask what the 2nd rules was?

Don't kick across goal in the backline. Which happens every 5 seconds these days.

[Rossoneri]

When my dad played "for Victoria" (don't ******* ask) in the 60s the coach had two rules, the first of which was: always leave the back pocket in the goalsquare.

And he was coach of Victoria?

Wouldn't that leave one extra opponent at the stoppage? And in the case of the goal kicked by Martin on Saturday night, what would having a guy in the goal square have done? The ball flew post height.

[Gimps]

When my dad played "for Victoria" (don't ******* ask) in the 60s the coach had two rules, the first of which was: always leave the back pocket in the goalsquare.

And he was coach of Victoria?

Wouldn't that leave one extra opponent at the stoppage? And in the case of the goal kicked by Martin on Saturday night, what would having a guy in the goal square have done? The ball flew post height.

I'm 29. Even in my junior days, this rule would apply. Nobody knew what a stoppage was back then. And yeah, you would rely on your defence/midfielders to cover the extra man and get the ball out. Reckon there would only have been a handful of times that the extra man kicked a goal or created one.

[j-mac31]

When my dad played "for Victoria" (don't ******* ask) in the 60s the coach had two rules, the first of which was: always leave the back pocket in the goalsquare.

And he was coach of Victoria?

Wouldn't that leave one extra opponent at the stoppage? And in the case of the goal kicked by Martin on Saturday night, what would having a guy in the goal square have done? The ball flew post height.

I said don't ask. While my dad will tell you he played for Victoria, when asked for details he'd have to admit that it was an inner Northern suburbs catholic primary school Vic team.

As for doing it in the AFL though, given the way the game is played these days, when there's a stoppage in the other team's forward line, chances are no one is in our forward half. It may be worthwhile sticking a guy in the goalsquare and leave one of their guys by himself 80 metres out, where he can't do much damage. And given the numbers around stoppages and tackling ferocity, one extra man isn't necessarily going to guarantee a clearance.
I agree there's nothing you can do about the Martin one.

[Rossoneri]

When my dad played "for Victoria" (don't ******* ask) in the 60s the coach had two rules, the first of which was: always leave the back pocket in the goalsquare.

And he was coach of Victoria?

Wouldn't that leave one extra opponent at the stoppage? And in the case of the goal kicked by Martin on Saturday night, what would having a guy in the goal square have done? The ball flew post height.

I'm 29. Even in my junior days, this rule would apply. Nobody knew what a stoppage was back then. And yeah, you would rely on your defence/midfielders to cover the extra man and get the ball out. Reckon there would only have been a handful of times that the extra man kicked a goal or created one.

I'm the same age and I still think you need numbers at the ball. If the BP was in the goal square, then I would hope that not only was one midfielder covering his man, there was also another just outside the pack for the quick kick. You need someone on the defensive side of the pack, but someone in the goal square is not needed (unless I have taken this topic too literally)