Are short in goal lengths hindering attacking capability?

[DoubleD]

Should there be minimum in goal lengths?

[Smudger06]

There are, 6m. 

[DoubleD]

24 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

There are, 6m. 

Are there? Genuinely didn’t realise. They do seem in general much shorter than NRL which look a good 10m. Currently in the British game I think most teams think on the law of averages that they won’t get a return set from such a short in goal area in Europe so often just aimlessly kick to the corner. This certainly hinders us internationally as our UK based players aren’t used to having the ability or confidence to just build pressure and want to just score on every play.

I think there should be a mandatory length of say 10m.

[Marty Funkhouser]

46 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

There are, 6m. 

Except at the biggest game of the season (or World Cup Finals!!)...which is a mockery.

[Whippet13]

You'd think having a shallower in-goal area would make players more skilled at precision kicking not less so and that would be an advantage when they play on pitches with deeper in-goal areas.

Personally I prefer tries from passing rather than kicking, which although can be brilliant is sometimes chosen as the easier option. Having said that, some great in-goal kicking from Milford in the Broncos game yesterday!

I don't particularly see shallow in-goals at the OT GF/WCF as a mockery since both ends are the same depth as far as I know. Although do appreciate that players sliding into the advertising hoardings on what is usually a greasy pitch can be a hazard.

On balance, yeah, should be 10m, but nothing can be done about it until teams move from or redevelop older stadiums, which will eventually happen (not having a dig at anyone's team before the paranoia crew leap into action).

[Northern Eel]

37 minutes ago, Whippet13 said:

You'd think having a shallower in-goal area would make players more skilled at precision kicking not less so and that would be an advantage when they play on pitches with deeper in-goal areas.

Personally I prefer tries from passing rather than kicking, which although can be brilliant is sometimes chosen as the easier option. Having said that, some great in-goal kicking from Milford in the Broncos game yesterday!

I don't particularly see shallow in-goals at the OT GF/WCF as a mockery since both ends are the same depth as far as I know. Although do appreciate that players sliding into the advertising hoardings on what is usually a greasy pitch can be a hazard.

On balance, yeah, should be 10m, but nothing can be done about it until teams move from or redevelop older stadiums, which will eventually happen (not having a dig at anyone's team before the paranoia crew leap into action).

I agree with you, but only to the extent that it might end up putting players off attempting them if the in goal is too small. 

[RayCee]

I am under the impression that some grounds are quite small in the UK so not all could have a large in goal area.  If your original question had been "Should the minimum in goal area be increased", then it would depend it it could be accommodated at all grounds. 

[Moove]

It'd be nice if the pitches themselves were full size, never mind the in-goal areas.

[Mr Plow]

33 minutes ago, RayCee said:

I am under the impression that some grounds are quite small in the UK so not all could have a large in goal area.  If your original question had been "Should the minimum in goal area be increased", then it would depend it it could be accommodated at all grounds. 

Land is more expensive and sort after in the UK than Australia, hence why in Oz they can build stadiums where the in goal is 10 m.

Look at traditional football stadiums in UK like Old Trafford and Valley Parade and the in goals are tiny. I remember players complaining after the 2013 WC final about the i goal being too small

[Padge]

In goal depth should be between 6 and 11 metres.

[Allora]

Ask Luke Lewis if some of the in goals are too short and the signage to close to the playing field.

 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Allora said:

Ask Luke Lewis if some of the in goals are too short.

 

That's more of a debate about a minimum amount of space between the in goal and perimeter rather than the in goal being too short.

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, Northern Eel said:

I agree with you, but only to the extent that it might end up putting players off attempting them if the in goal is too small. 

It is not so much lack of skill but the longer odds of being able to be successful.  And a shorter in dead goal depth makes it easier for the defender to run  the ball out into play.

It's all right to have 6m (10 probably is the right depth.... well, 10 yards in old money) .... But as is said we have risible in goal depths in big games like the GF at OT.

On balance though and with a bit of a comprise all round,  I think that 96m is the correct field length. Split into 8m lines with that (not10m) being the off side line.  Why should 100 be a magic figure.  Thus also having 8m as the in goal depth. Overall field length... The same.

96m = 105yds.  That's long enough.

As a further aside... The old 25yd line was called the 22 I think for a while.  The 20m line is quite arbitrary.

[oiseau]

The in-goal areas at the Ernest Argèles in Toulouse are gi-normous, at least ten metres ?

[Lowdesert]

18 minutes ago, oiseau said:

The in-goal areas at the Ernest Argèles in Toulouse are gi-normous, at least ten metres ?

That’s ok.  6 - 11m.

 

[Moove]

57 minutes ago, Allora said:

Ask Luke Lewis if some of the in goals are too short and the signage to close to the playing field.

 

To be fair, with the amount of water on the pitch that night, he'd have still hit the advertising with another 10m run off.

[JonM]

41 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

As a further aside... The old 25yd line was called the 22 I think for a while.  The 20m line is quite arbitrary.

Don't think that's the case. Union had 22 metres (and maybe still does? Haven't watched it for many years). We went direct to 20 metres from 25 yards I thought. Unless someone knows different?

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, Mr Plow said:

Land is more expensive and sort after in the UK than Australia, hence why in Oz they can build stadiums where the in goal is 10 m.

Look at traditional football stadiums in UK like Old Trafford and Valley Parade and the in goals are tiny. I remember players complaining after the 2013 WC final about the i goal being too small

I’m guessing the biggest issue with old grounds in the UK is the were built when the game used yards rather than metres. This is even worse when you are talking about football grounds as they obviously never factored in in goals at all. 

[Manx RL]

59 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

I’m guessing the biggest issue with old grounds in the UK is the were built when the game used yards rather than metres. This is even worse when you are talking about football grounds as they obviously never factored in in goals at all. 

A return to yards is the dream of many

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, JonM said:

Don't think that's the case. Union had 22 metres (and maybe still does? Haven't watched it for many years). We went direct to 20 metres from 25 yards I thought. Unless someone knows different?

You may be right but my feeble memory says 22.  There may be a period... possibly... where there was metrication but not a 10m off side line. (?)  

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, Padge said:

In goal depth should be between 6 and 11 metres.

And the lines should all be same distance apart with numbers as shown in that Plan which forms part of the Laws so that all RL fields of play have a single uniform appearance as happens in all big time sports.

 

24 minutes ago, Manx RL said:

A return to yards is the dream of many

That won't happen when the International Laws of the Game are written using modern measurements.

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, Allora said:

Ask Luke Lewis if some of the in goals are too short and the signage to close to the playing field.

 

And that's at a stadium with more depth behind the goal lines than many English RL venues too.

[Mr Plow]

28 minutes ago, Manx RL said:

A return to yards is the dream of many

Brexit means brexit

[JonM]

44 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

And the lines should all be same distance apart with numbers as shown in that Plan which forms part of the Laws so that all RL fields of play have a single uniform appearance as happens in all big time sports.

Which will almost certainly never happen. Nearly all of the big stadiums in Europe are built for soccer.

I know you''ve had this conversation before, but presumably you don't count baseball (Fenway Park?) as a big time sport. Cricket grounds are not uniform either - and cricket absolutely dwarves rugby in terms of "big time." (M S Dhoni earns > $30 million per year.)

[Big Picture]

2 minutes ago, JonM said:

Which will almost certainly never happen. Nearly all of the big stadiums in Europe are built for soccer.

I know you''ve had this conversation before, but presumably you don't count baseball (Fenway Park?) as a big time sport. Cricket grounds are not uniform either - and cricket absolutely dwarves rugby in terms of "big time." (M S Dhoni earns > $30 million per year.)

On the contrary I count both as big time sports.  Although the field dimensions vary, the markings are always the same in all stadiums.  The distance between the bases and wickets does not vary.