SA Footy

If sides can't run as far due to the new interchange rules, then isn't thee just as good a chance that we get loose men in defence just staying there (I.e. Flooding) rather than pushing up hand joining in attack too? If we make sides choose between attack or defence there is no guarantee that they choose attack. Game could be less open, with less 1 v 1 as a result.

New skill in the game is now to make sure your kick/handball is partly smothered as it goes out, or even better if you can tap the ball or hand pass it on to an opponents leg and then pick up the free kick.

I love the out of bounds rule, but i would take it a step further and make it last touched like almost every other game.

There are so many instances of just kicking it up the line, punching it out of bounds and setting up again (though admittedly more in the AFL than SANFL) Reminds me of rubgy union.

Surely the most exciting play is when sides attack the corridor and go from defence to attack as quickly as possible.

Flirting with the wings and flanks will be a risk,as such the corridor will be congested and players will chip it around unable to go wide or direct.

I really dislike that rule.

Booney wrote:Is it April 1st? One rule is designed to slow the game down by limiting fresh players coming on and off the ground and the other rule is designed to keep the ball in play more and moving faster.

Will the interchange rule not further assist the better fitness levels of AFL listed players, or will it be the opposite, with AFL listed players usually looking for a rest every 83 seconds?

How can anyone see the implementation of both rules at the same time as a good thing?

As for changing rules to limit the "unfairness" to a side who loses a player early in the game through injury is just bollocks. Just bollocks.

The out of bounds rule the most ridiculous thing I've seen for a while. Perhaps some cones out on the ground to help players know their position, or someones Dad in the forward pocket telling them where to run.

But then what would the runners do??!

SANFLnut wrote:New skill in the game is now to make sure your kick/handball is partly smothered as it goes out, or even better if you can tap the ball or hand pass it on to an opponents leg and then pick up the free kick.

'Free kick against the last touch... provided it was a real, proper last touch' does very little to improve the game, and encourages the semi-deliberate fumbler who just can't get a handle on the thing near the boundary line, i.e. the status quo.

Think about it, guys. There are broadly 3 possibilities when your team has the ball and is going forward:
a) If you've got the ball in the clear and free options running everywhere, you'll go down the middle.
b) If things are more marginal and all you have is a free man on the boundary, and you mis-kick it slightly, either it goes OOBOTF (already a free kick) or it lands slightly in front/to the side of them, and they either take possession and play on, or touch it but don't take possession (because pressure is bearing down on them) before paddling it out (still not a free kick).
c) If you have no options and just have to roost it long to a contest down the line, then spoiled/off-hands out of bounds will still not be a free kick.

So: no improvement.

Problem with the game being too congested and too many stoppages? Don't allow players with the ball to accept the tackle; in any case except one where they're jumped on within microseconds of getting it and make a legitimate attempt, pay holding the ball against them. While SANFL people are justifiably sceptical about AFL-related stuff, and there is a legitimate issue about 'don't punish the guy who's going for the ball', the fact is that a brutal interpretation of the HTB rule worked a treat at minimising repeat stoppages in the AFL. This is silly fiddling around the edges.

Good post Simon.

I think if you want to reduce congestion make it that a player not standing on his/her feet doesn't have to handball.

Ie - If you go in low and leave your feet you can throw it, they nearly do now anyway! You can't tell me the umpires pick up actual handballs in packs. just make it once you are on the ground, move it anyway you can.

You forgot about the fourth and probably most important point Simon.
That player who deliberately sends the ball out of bounds via hand or foot and does not get penalized for deliberate.
Changes a grey area when the umps had to guess a players intention into a black and white rule.
It'll make the game more old fashioned with contests up and down the corridors with more speedy play on the outside.
Can't wait!

So if 2 players are in a one-on-one marking contest and the defender manages to punch the ball away from his opponent and over the boundary (like everyone was taught as a youngster), its a free kick? Where is the motovation to even contest it???

No, only if the last touch was a kick or handball.

Phew, thats ok then. Thats all im good at. Im assuming now then that all country and metro leagues will adopt these new rules too eventually.

Of course they could get the umpires to better umpire the deliberate rule but at least this makes it easier for them. Same result in the end but will knock out a huge pet hate I've had in the game.

I know some of you dont like me trying to compare Aussie rules to other games, but can anyone think of another game where knocking it out of bounds ends up in a neutral ball again? I cant off the top of my head.

The closest analogy we may have is probably a Rubgy Union lineout but even that is done by the players.

Im not giving that as a reason why we should get rid of boundary throwins, but i always find it interesting how a rule change like that has flow-on effects.

So a player under pressure, getting tackled, whatever, disposes of the ball legally by foot but because of the pressure applied mis-kicks and the ball bounces out of bounds. Even though he did the right thing by winning the ball, not being caught with it, his team is penalised?

Yeah, seems fair. Fair amount of bullshit.

Booney wrote:So a player under pressure, getting tackled, whatever, disposes of the ball legally by foot but because of the pressure applied mis-kicks and the ball bounces out of bounds. Even though he did the right thing by winning the ball, not being caught with it, his team is penalised?

Yeah, seems fair. Fair amount of bullshit.

as mentioned above, it doesnt seem to negatively affect other similar games

bennymacca wrote:

Booney wrote:So a player under pressure, getting tackled, whatever, disposes of the ball legally by foot but because of the pressure applied mis-kicks and the ball bounces out of bounds. Even though he did the right thing by winning the ball, not being caught with it, his team is penalised?

Yeah, seems fair. Fair amount of bullshit.

as mentioned above, it doesnt seem to negatively affect other similar games

Similar games?

Booney wrote:Surely the most exciting play is when sides attack the corridor and go from defence to attack as quickly as possible.

Flirting with the wings and flanks will be a risk,as such the corridor will be congested and players will chip it around unable to go wide or direct.

I really dislike that rule.

Agree, it could have the reverse consequence of more congestion as teams will be able to set up their "wall" over a smaller area. Or potentially be able to guard the long kick and short kick options effectively at the same time.

Booney wrote:

bennymacca wrote:

Booney wrote:So a player under pressure, getting tackled, whatever, disposes of the ball legally by foot but because of the pressure applied mis-kicks and the ball bounces out of bounds. Even though he did the right thing by winning the ball, not being caught with it, his team is penalised?

Yeah, seems fair. Fair amount of bullshit.

as mentioned above, it doesnt seem to negatively affect other similar games

Similar games?

Soccer, Gaelic football, to name a couple. Although obviously different in a lot of ways, Basketball to name 3.

Imagine having a jump ball every time the ball goes out in basketball. It would be ludicris. Yet thats what happens in Aussie Rules.

And having this rule in soccer certainly doesnt affect the wide play, as you are worried about.

Once again, I dont think just because other games do it differently that is sufficient justification for Aussie rules to follow suit, but we can look to those games to see what sort of effects a rule change such as this would have, and I dont see it being a negative one at all.

So games played with a round ball where players don't get tackled?

jeez booney you are starting to sound like the rest of the frothing masses out there.

Of course every game is different, Aussie rules is one of the more unique games out there, but that doesnt mean you cant compare specific mechanics to other sports and discuss how those mechanics change the way the game is played.

In my opinion this rule change has merit and is worth exploring. Some agree some disagree.

You can compare it to other sports, but comparing it to any sports that use a round ball with predictable bounce is folly, as is comparing it to any sport that doesn't have the physical pressure therefore myriad of outcomes resulting in disposal of a Kangaroo leather air conveyance.

It's a ridiculous rule.