14D.3.3 MarkingsThis discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.
Comments about this discussion:
Rule 14D.3.3 states that "The corner marks are on the extension of the goal lines, 1.0 m in from each side line.“ and rule 14D.3.1 Dimensions states that "The corners [of the playing field] are rounded or beveled.“
If the corners are rounded or beveled some space is lost. If the corner marks are then 1m from each side line their almost outside the playing field or very close to the barriers.
I suggest the marks have to be also 2.5m from the side line so the distance to both walls of the playing field is the same. As the field has a breadth of 20-25m moving the corner marks 2 meters closer to the goal has no influence on the game. The player executing the corner has with a rule change surely enough space to play the ball.
I agree with Nicolai. In Switzerland we only have good experiences with these distances (2.5m)
Indeed, a corner mark that is 1 m away from the side line can be much
too close to the beveled corner.
I like simple rules. Instead of defining yet another distance in the
rulebook, I would simply say:
"1.0 m in from the boundaries"
"1.0 m in from each side line."
When the corner mark is 1 m away from the beveled corner, there is
enough space for the player executing the corner shot.
""The corner marks are on the extension of the goal lines and 1.0 m from the border of the related side line.“
Yes, there are other possibilities. However, I think Nicolai's proposal is very easy. The goal line is 2.5m away from the end of playing field. So if we define the corner point 2.5 m from the side-line as well, then we have 2.5 m distance to both corresponding out-lines of the playing field. And the resulting distance to the benches in the corners (beveled corners) are enough for the players to execute the corner ball.
2.5 m is in my point of view to close to the goal and this would be similar to a penalty corner from field hockey. If we speak about a normal corner free shot the corner mark should be as far away as possible from the goal but the distance to the boundary should be good enough to play the ball. Therefore I like to come back to my suggestion.
In a small playing field 2.5m in from the side line is only 17% closer to the goal than 1m from the side line (which maybe is much too close to the wall/barriers). I think this is not too close to the goal and should not substantially change the game. The distance to the goal is still at least 7.5m.
We speak about a small difference between 1m from the bench and 2.5 from the wall, when we use standard benches in the corner. See the following sketch:
Actually, it doesn't matter whether 1m from the bench or 2.5m from the side. But to measure twice 2.5m instead of 2.5m, 1m and a right angle is easier.
On Saturday, we had the B-finals of the German hockey league. I took the
opportunity to think about the discussions here while watching and
playing real games :-)
I agree that it is easier to measure 2.5 m from the side compared to
finding the location on the goal line that is 1 m away from a diagonal
bench. Also, it is correct that the difference between 1 m from the
bench and 2.5 m from the wall is usually very small. However, on
Saturday we had a big gym and 2 benches in each corner. This created big
triangles in the corners, and using the new 2.5 m rule, the corner marks
would have been outside of the playing field! Therefore, I still think
that "1 m away from the boundary" is the best definition.
I never thought about a larger triangle than a bench of 4m. Therefore your suggestion is the best.
I never thought that someone uses two benches in a corner. But therefore it is clear that using the extended goal line (2.5m) and the distance of 1m from the beveled corner (bench) for defining the corner point is the best solution because it works in all situations.
Current: "The corner marks are on the extension of the goal lines, 1.0 m in from each side line."
Suggestion: "The corner marks are on the extension of the goal lines and 1.0 m in from the boundaries." (as Rolf has suggested 10 days ago)
... we stick to the 1m. This discussion should be closed.