You're making the rules for the SANFL

If you could make any rule to overcome the defensive style being played now, what would you do?

eg: Restrict interchanges, compulsory numbers in certain parts of the ground, etc.

What would your changes achieve?

4 points for a win
1 bonus point if you kick 15 goals

The teams play defensive footy becuase at the moment its gets them wins and premiership points.

If it cost them points then things would change.

I should add this is just the game evolving, AFL went through somthing similar about 3-4 years back.

The SANFL will become a more attacking game again at some point, I just worry about the damage in the mean time

As a Norwood supporter I have been worried about the damage done to the game having Centrals and Eagles dominating for so many years. From my perspective the other clubs have to come up with a game plan to combat the style rather than changing or introducing new rules. Personally I dont mind the hard slog where every goal is worth its weight in gold compared to a shoot out where 40 goals are scored.

It will take a courageous coach to change it. Instruct your forwards not to go forward and that may make the backmen more accountable.I tell you one turnover and the ball pumped back to loose forwards for a easy goal will change the mindset.

From a personal point of view, and my love of forward structure, I'd probably like to see three forwards and three defenders who are not allowed outside the 50. I'm tired of seeing turnovers, then the game has to slow whilst players run like hell to create a forward presence.

PhilH wrote:4 points for a win
1 bonus point if you kick 15 goals

If all games were played at 2.10pm on a Saturday (like the good old days), I'd give this some more thought. However, if you introduce a rule such as this, then teams playing on a cold raining Friday night would be at a distinct disadvantage to those playing on a dry Saturday afternoon.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:From a personal point of view, and my love of forward structure, I'd probably like to see three forwards and three defenders who are not allowed outside the 50. I'm tired of seeing turnovers, then the game has to slow whilst players run like hell to create a forward presence.

Agreed. Keep only a certain number allowed in the forward 50m arc.

I can remember we had som similar rules in touch footy a few year back.

16 a side, 4 interchange players, 60 interchanges maximum a match

Leave the rules alone.

BloodnTars wrote:Leave the rules alone.

Good idea. Trouble is, coaches won't leave the game alone, so rule changes are inevitable.

Restricting the interchange to (say) only 5 or 10 a quarter would help.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

BloodnTars wrote:Leave the rules alone.

Good idea. Trouble is, coaches won't leave the game alone, so rule changes are inevitable.

Unfortunately you are correct.

redandblack wrote:Restricting the interchange to (say) only 5 or 10 a quarter would help.

Maybe bring in the sub. Seems to have helped the AFL as much as I didn't and probably still don't like it.

The Interchange was designed to cover injuries sustained during the course of the game
But most clubs are using it as a tactic to rotate players

Im with Redandblack on this one
Limit the Interchange to a total of 25 per game
The only exception is the Blood Rule, which should not count

Having players run off the field for a rest is not right


Another problem is even the best are rotated
This is bad for the game
Imagine Barrie Robran playing 100 minutes out of a possible 115- 120
We are seeing less of the better players than we used to

PhilH wrote:4 points for a win
1 bonus point if you kick 15 goals

The teams play defensive footy becuase at the moment its gets them wins and premiership points.

If it cost them points then things would change.

I think what would happen if that was introduced is that a team that was too far behind to win would, at some stage (whether it's three quarter time or half way through the last quarter) just throw everyone into defence to stop the opposition getting the extra point, so you're back where you started.

if North happen to steam roll West & then Norwood over the next fortnight, these tactics may change very quickly

One thing we could try is looking at changing the way we calculate percentage. At the moment it's Points For divided by Points For + Points Against. This means that if you beat a team 4 goals 0 to 2 goals 0, you end up with the same percentage that you'd get if you beat them 20 goals 0 to 10 goals 0. Apart from not rewarding high scoring, this is ludicrous really because in the first example, the team with a score of 2 goals is still theoretically a chance to win the game late in the piece, being only two goals down, whereas in the second example the trailing team is well and truly out of contention.

Another mid-range example is that a 4-goal win when you kick 10 goals (i.e. 10 goals to 6) gives you a better percentage than a 5-goal win when you kick 15 goals (i.e. 15 goals to 10.)

So what about this. Instead of 'percentages', which are about the relativity of scores, you could reward high scoring by instead replacing 'percentage' with a simple equation of Points For Plus/Minus the Winning/Losing Margin. So in the 4 goals to 2 goals game, the winning team gets a tally (you'd have to come up with a name for this) of 24 + 12 = 36, and the losing team gets 12 - 12 = 0. And in the 20 goals to 10 goals game, the winner gets 120 + 60 = 180, and the loser gets 60- 60 = 0. So instead of the winners ending up with same percentage, the high scoring has been rewarded.

BloodnTars wrote:Leave the rules alone.

Yes I tend to agree. I hate messing with the rules.
Sooner or later someone will put a countermeasure together that beats it.

Just like all the other defensive strategies that have been thrown up in the last 15 years.

Have to agree on the Interchange rule, the bench was created historically as an Injury bench, not a Rotation bench. Origianlly there was no reserve player at all, then one, then two and now the three. Whilst players have to have the capacity to be taken off for a rest I think its gone way to far and been abused and should be wound back. Its my personal view that I endorse the Sub rule in the AFL and think it makes the game a better spectacle for the spectator, I am not opposed to a commitee looking at the negatives / benefits of having it in the SANFL.

Not a rule change, but I would like to see the SANFL have the same sized Goal Posts as the AFL, we have them for Finals at Football Park, its not unreasonable to have our players do the same during the home and away season. The only thing I would say though is that I think the Point Posts should remain Red!

Ben W wrote:I would like to see the SANFL have the same sized Goal Posts as the AFL

But ..... Richo thinks the reason players miss so many shots at goal is because the posts are too high. It wins my prize for the most idiotic comment of the year

Richo has a point and many people inside and outside of football circles have proven it, myself included.

howthewestwaswon wrote:Richo has a point and many people inside and outside of football circles have proven it, myself included.

Proven it? How can you prove something that is ridiculous? If you kick the ball straight, it goes through the middle, irrespective of how high the posts are.

Personally, when I played, the higher the posts the better I like it.

I've posted somewhere before, but my phys ed class at university brought up the same argument so we tested football goals against witches hats. More people kicked the ball accurately through the witches hat because they believed that the 6.4m gap was wider at the witches hat end compared to the normal footy goals.

It's a visual thing - the higher or further something goes away from your eye, it looks like, something that is in reality dead straight, that the posts are gradually getting closer together. If you told people that the distance between the sticks at Footy Park was 6.4m, I bet you many people on first glance without measuring will say 'really?'.

My classmates, lecturer and myself wouldn't have gone through this process if we didn't believe it to have some sort of justification.

But I wouldn't expect blind people to tell the difference nor the ignorant and those others who haven't actually tested the theory. If you'd like me to physically come over, round up some forum members and actually do a test with you and the others, I'd be more than happy too. But if you'd rather not embarrass yourself...

That's all to do with the psychological aspect of kicking for goal, which is important.

What Richo is saying then, is that those kicking for goal are affected psychologically. The physical dimensions remain unchanged, of course.

It's not because the posts are too high, it's because the players are not mentally strong enough if that affects them.