Ensuring that theres enough space behind the goal, to actually be able to go behind them

Comments about this discussion:

Started 18 Mar 06:51

So the current rules read:

14D.3.2 Goals
The posts are 2.50 m in from the ends of the playing field (ground lines), ensuring that
the players can go behind them.

In practice i noticed 2 things that lead to very different amounts of space behind the goal:

The goal gets placed on some preexisting lines on the field so that the line represents the goal-line.
Due to different depths of the goals themselves the actual space behind the goals differs by quite a bit.

In general Im in favor of 1). It makes it easier for the referee to tell, whether the ball actually got past the goal line. But yes, you could achieve the same thing with tape. And it also leads to the goal post not being exactly 2,50 away from the wall of course.

Regarding 2) i see this as a big problem, as the difference is quite big in some instances. When players are used to be able to go behind the goal side by side but cant do that then, it may lead to crashes and injuries, as in general the space behind the goal is a kind of dangerous zone because of the little space, the wall and the goal in the way.

My suggestion:

We dont measure the space between the goal-line and the wall, but instead between the rearmost part of the goal and the wall. Furthermore we could have a range specified, this space could be, to ensure the preexisting lines could still be utilised as the goal line.

It may sound weird to have different amounts of space then, but again: In practice even when the 2,50 is measured precisely, the amount of space varies because of the depth of the goal and since we allow for different field sizes in general it might even be beneficial to be able to adjust the space behind the goal a bit in the same manner, allowing for more space on already big fields an less space on smaller fields.

Comment 19 Mar 06:51

I agree with Fin. In smaller gyms the set-up is often more near to 2 m that 2.5 m. The likelihood of injuries due to chrashes behind the goal increase.

To prefent this small changes in wording could change it:

"The posts are 2.50 to 3.00 m in front the ends of the playing field (ground lines), ensuring that the players can go behind them."

Add: "The goal line between the goal posts has to be marked."

Comment 19 Mar 15:47

If 1) is the major reason for not having enough space behind the goal, I wouldn't change the rules. If you feel 2) is more often the problem, I'm fine with adapting the rules. Although the depth of the goals can vary, this difference is probably not more than 30 cm.

I would slightly prefer keeping the rules specific (not a range) and for the leagues / tournaments to decide to take this rule less strict and also allow a distance of e.g. 2.6m.

I think adding a sentence about the goal line would be a good idea.

Comment 20 Mar 05:12

I like the additional sentence about marking the goal lines.

For the distance i would even argue, it just makes more sense to measure from the rearmost part, as we measure that distance to have the space behind the goal, not to have the goal line placed at a specific distance from the wall. So it would need a little bit of testing, but i would suggest a wording like "The rearmost part of the goal is to be placed 2 to 2.50 m in from the ends of the playing field (ground lines), ensuring that the players can go behind the goal."

I don't know if "rearmost part" ist a nice wording here, maybe a native speaker can jump in. And I don't have a feeling right now, whether 2 to 2,50 would be the right choice, I'm going to test that this weekend :D

I hear the concerns about keeping the rules specific, but i am very much in favor of a range like or similar to my suggestion and i do think that the game benefits of using existing lines as goal lines as it makes the preparation slightly easier and also the refereeing as you'll benefit from the fact that it goes on wider than the goal line, which makes the goal line easier to see and in that to see whether the ball was actually over it and it also marks the corner point (as the line still goes on there). Small thing for sure, but very noticeable for me as a ref.

What do the others think?

Comment 21 Mar 08:33

I am not concerned either way with this rule. I feel it is a minor change to be honest and I see the logic in measuring from the back of the goals instead of the front. I think 2.5m from the back of the goal seems very large so would think 1.5 or 2 m would make more sense

I agree if anything is put in place it should be a set amount and I agree that the goal line being marked is a good addition.

Comment 24 Mar 10:03

Yes, i agree with that too.

2m space behiṇd the goal + marked goal line.

Comment 28 Mar 14:08

Marked goal line is a good idea.

I don't think its a good idea to measure between the groundline and the back of the goal because of the different depht if the goals. If we measuer like this wi have a variable goal line so we also have variable corner points.

I don' think its necessary to chang the current rule but if we do my suggestion is to incrase the distance of the goalline to 3m. So we have enough space behind the goal and always the same distances for the corners.

Comment 28 Mar 16:16

A official ice hockey goal has a depth of 1.12m. So that currently 1.38m left behind the goal (2.5m between groundline and goal line). If the posts would be 3.00m (in ice hockey the distance is 4.00m) in front the ends of the playing field (ground lines) this would ensure that the players can go behind goal more easier (min. 1.88m space left).

Comment 28 Mar 20:39

So we have three options

Option 1

Measure from the front of goals and increase the distance slightly to ensure more room

Positive: Set distance for court diagrams, set corner mark distances, provides increased space than what we have currently.

Negative: the space behind goal will be dependent on goal size.

Option 2
Measure from the back of the goals and set a distance for that.

Positive: Space behind is always set

Negative: Court markings on diagram would be altered for every tournament.

Option 3

Change nothing

Can we get a consensus on which of these three options we could vote on successfully?

Comment 05 May 04:22

Can we get people to give an opinion on which of the above three they prefer?

I think I prefer Option 1 for ease of implementation

Comment 05 May 05:43

I would tend to favor option 1, as the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in my opinion. But I could also live with option 2.

Comment 05 May 06:13

In my opinion, the current rule should remain unchanged – meaning that the goal line is marked 2.50 m from the end line and this distance is used as the reference.

Reasoning:

Even though the goals are not fully standardized, they differ only minimally in depth. This difference is so small that it has hardly any impact on gameplay or safety in practice.
At tournaments, the goal line is already required and must be clearly marked. This provides a clear and verifiable reference point – in contrast to the "rearmost point of the goal," which can be imprecise or difficult to measure depending on the setup.
Changing the measurement approach would introduce additional complexity without real benefit. On the contrary, it could lead to more uncertainty when preparing the field or during gameplay.
Organizers, referees, and players benefit from clear, consistent, and easy-to-implement rules. The current wording meets these needs very well.

If needed, the maximum permissible depth of the goals could be defined more precisely in the equipment specifications. However, the field measurement should continue to be based on the marked goal line.

Comment 05 May 08:52

But is this line 2.5 m from the end of the field really a permanent floor marking in the majority of venues? If not, it would be no problem to simply place this line 3 m from the end of the field in the future... So nothing would change with option 1, except that the distance between the line and the end of the field would be slightly increased. All the points you mentioned are arguments against option 2, but if a line has to be marked anyway with option 1, it doesn't matter whether it is marked at 2.5 m or 3 m.
Or do I miss something?

Comment 07 May 14:45

I personally do not see the need to increase the distance behind the goal (at least in the tournaments I played).

Furhter up, I asked the question whether the problem of the varying space behind the goal is rather that (i) the goal is not placed at 2.5m or (ii) the goals have different depths. For me, the answer to this question somewhat matters to how and if the rules should be changed.

Currently, the order for me is first Option 3 (change nothing), Option 1 (e.g. increase to 3m) and finally rather against Option 2.