2016 Rule Changes

Most of todays trial this rule had little if any impact although players were appealing for it every now and then, during the last term a Glenelg hurried kick forward went heading towards the forward pocket with 3 Sturt players near the ball & not one Glenelg player within 40 metres of them & you could hear the voices yelling out to ''let it go'' they did & got the free kick, in this instance they would have been better off picking it up & running it up the ground, but what i saw is why this rule should not go ahead, 3 players from one team happy to watch it trickle out, sorry but not a good look for the game

Unfortunately i think they will bring it in leave the game alone

i've seen enough, this last touch free kick has to go, tonight Willie Rioli had a snap very deep in the forward pocket (about 2 metres from the boundary line) & the snap went bouncing across the face of goal & eventually went over the boundary line in the other forward pocket, this player got penalised for attempting to score for his team, surely we don't want players kicking over their heads backwards to avoid this free & indeed stop them from having a crack at the goals & lets face it goals like that are brilliant to witness no matter which team he plays for

Putting it technically this test rule is crap and fot that reason alone the gurus at bullsh*t castle will probably want to keep it.

It should be dropped or at minimun amended so that if in the umpires opinion a team shepherds or does not try then no free kick!

We trust the umpires with many judgement calls so why cannot they be trusted to make this call.

Finaly for clarity this rule is crap

The rule was introduced to increase scoring and the scores so far in the trials seems to point towards it achieving what was designed to.

I just don't get why the boffins always feel they need to make the game something else.

Let the coaches and players do that.

What about a petition - "Stop messing with the rules - leave it be!"

i'll sign it

I dont see much wrong with it to be honest. I see the point about snap at goals but that is really it. No big issue. The grey area is where is is kicked accidentally off a leg out of bounds. Umpires generally can't see that so maybe make it quite clear it has to be ' usual" kick not a knock off the leg. Lot of talk over nothing . They try to improve te game and people still whinge . Lots the SANFL do wrong but they be knocked for at least trying to something. No blame on the clubs that made the game boring a few years back , that is who should be blamed.

Will this be one of the rules that a big fuss is made when it is introduced, but as the season goes on we will hardly notice it or it will not be payed, example of such a rule not being paid is the deliberately rushed behind

Rotations go up to 60 now.

The out of bounds rule will stay, i was informed that most SANFL coaches wanted it scrapped after the trial games but the SANFL will continue with the rule for the main season.

firstblood wrote:The out of bounds rule will stay, i was informed that most SANFL coaches wanted it scrapped after the trial games but the SANFL will continue with the rule for the main season.

i'll take it we're the guinea pigs for the AFL....''they can trial it & if successful we'll announce it for next year''

It's really not so radical. It's an extension of the out-on-the-full rule, and is part and parcel of other sports like soccer, basketball, hockey.....sports that coaches have been happily borrowing defensive tactics from.

i just wish they'd leave the game ALONE

They probably would if the AFL coaches did.

it was pointed out to me from someone more knowledgeable than me is that they didn't need to bring in another rule but enforce the deliberate out of bounds like the AFL has...................made sense to me

If they would just enforced them the way they were written, it would all be fine.
Why can't the game evolve as the coaches and players dictate.

But even in the AFL coaches keep baying for amendments, so the vicious cycle continues.

Just a point of view

If a product or business is diminishing
Doing something rather than nothing is a logical thought process

You have to give some respect to the SANFL administration for trying

The WAFL and the VFL have had a BIG fall in recent times
Maybe the SANFL by being innovative and proactive could save the day

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/local-footy-sa/sanfl/central-district-coach-roy-laird-rubbishes-new-sanfl-outofbounds-rule/news-story/6c667770e9b9af83bfb78884d15624bd

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:
Why can't the game evolve as the coaches and players dictate.

It has Chambo, into a festival of tackling and ball-ups, 36 players on the ball at the one time and an over-emphasis on defence etc. These changes are an attempt to undo some of the ugly damage that coaches have done to the game in recent times.

Having watched Sturt and North recently, both with ex-AFL coaches, I agree with Flag10 and scrappy.

Ok I saw most of the Eagles Norwood trial and all the trial against north
What I noticed holding the ball was paid a hell of a lot .
Deliberately out of bounds that's confusing most were paid some weren't.
I think the powers that be need to look at kicking for goal . A few times last week running in kicking for goal missed the goal bounces to the point missed the point goes bouncing for out of bounds paid as deliberate out of bounds . That is the confusing part not on the full but bouncing across the goal face and out is deliberate .
That's the part they need to look at for me .

If you shoot for goal and score a point , a team concedes a kick off to the opposition
If you shoot for goal and kick out on the full , you concede a free kick to the opposition
If you shoot for goal and it bounces out of bounds , should the same logic apply ?

Scrappy wrote:
If you shoot for goal and score a point , a team concedes a kick off to the opposition
If you shoot for goal and kick out on the full , you concede a free kick to the opposition
If you shoot for goal and it bounces out of bounds , should the same logic apply ?

What I'm saying is it a deliberate out of bounds the ball is going for a score but bounces across and rolls out . Is that deliberate try to go out ?

And if it is a yes then there were a few that were not paid that should have been . and not the same one more like stepping out side the line handballing etc etc if the shot for goal is a deliberate then stepping across the line is also a free .

Holding the ball I dont have an issue with as both sides are forced to adapt which is a good thing IMHO,

"The SANFL hopes to encourage players to take the game on through the corridor and lift scoring, with the AFL vowing to monitor the new rule."

This is the bit I object to mostly.
Why is it the sanfl to decide that they want the game played through the corridor?
If they introduce rules to do that, I just think it is wrong.

Instead of minor tweaks, supported by the coaches, some of the rules (or interpretations) that get introduced can have quite large and immediate impact and not always for the better.

Maybe some of them assist in making the game look pretty. But most are either applied;
- inconsistently
- for a short time and forgotten
- with varying instructions from the umpires panel during a season.

It leaves everyone confused and does it ultimately improve the game? Maybe, maybe not.

If Clubs employ ex-AFL coaches with defensive mindsets, is it the rules that should change, or perhaps Clubs'collective thinking on the game?

To be honest, Clubs will look to whatever gets them a leg up in the short term and ex-AFL coaches are certainly in vogue at present. I am not criticising that as such.

But there doesn't seem to be much sanfl strategy on how it wants the whole competition (and not just rules / game style) to evolve. I just get the impression it is now more about reacting to what the afl wants to provide that evolution.