SA Footy

sAnFL*

SANFL will introduce rule changes for the 2026 Hostplus SANFL League season after they were approved by the South Australian Football Commission.

The adjustments will be implemented across all grades of SANFL’s Men’s and Women’s competitions to align with the majority of the AFL’s rule changes for next season.

SANFL will retain its successful Last Possession Out of Bounds Rule, introduced in 2016, across the entire field while the removal of the substitute is not applicable.

SANFL will continue to have four players on its interchange bench for the Men’s competition and five for the Women’s competition.

”We expect the changes to have a positive influence as they are designed to increase ball-in-play time, reduce match duration, and enhance the viewing experience for fans,” SANFL Executive General Manager Football Matt Duldig said.

”The simplified rules and interpretations will assist umpires and reduce confusion for players and coaches. It’s important to adopt the majority of AFL changes to ensure consistency with the elite level, supporting player development and transition.”

See below for SANFL’s rule changes in 2026.

Centre Bounce removed
The centre bounce will be replaced by a ball-up. Rucks will not be permitted to cross the centre circle line before engaging to win the hit out.

Rationale: Simplifies the restart process, reduces umpire workload and improves consistency in ruck contests.

Ruck nominations
If a nominated ruck is not in the vicinity of the stoppage, the field umpire will still throw the ball up i.e. will not wait for both rucks to be ready.

Rationale: Reduces time where the field umpire is waiting for the ruck(s) to get into position, aligns with successful trial during AFLW season.

Goal Square starting position removed
A player no longer has to start in the goal square at centre ball-ups.

Rationale: Streamlines player positioning, saves time, and removes unnecessary stoppages.

Kick-in time reduced
After a behind, a player will now have their decision-making time reduced from 12 to eight seconds.

Rationale: Accelerates ball movement, increases ball-in-play time. Aligns with what the players must adhere to after a mark or free kick in general play.

Protected area enforcement
Players who are within five metres, or move within five metres of where a mark or free kick is paid, must stand still.

Rationale: Clarifies the ‘stand’ rule, reduces confusion, and improves umpiring consistency.

Shrugging in a tackle
A shrug – often including the raising of an arm which contributes to the tackle becoming high – will now count as prior opportunity when an umpire makes a decision on holding-the-ball.

Rationale: Discourages players attempting to draw high-contact free kicks, promotes fair tackling and simplifies adjudication.

Any idea when the fixture will be released I’m guessing in the new year?

pmackk wrote:Any idea when the fixture will be released I’m guessing in the new year?

Last year it was released about a week before Christmas.

I like the ruck rules, but I have a feeling big Harry might not be as dominant as his Magarey year

My query on the protected zone.

You can enter it but you have to stand. When? Immediately. ? When the umpire calls stand?

DOC wrote:My query on the protected zone.

You can enter it but you have to stand. When? Immediately. ? When the umpire calls stand?

The king daddy of rule stupidness.

DOC wrote:My query on the protected zone.

You can enter it but you have to stand. When? Immediately. ? When the umpire calls stand?

I like how they've introduced another ruling that does nothing to ease the adjudication of the initial ruling.

The AFL by changing rules, can hardly expect all other comps to keep up
Are the above 2026 rules and other rules changed in Amateur leagues and Junior Football as well ?

Not good!!

West Adelaide

“A council’s grand vision for a $30 million sports facility upgrade has collapsed after it couldn’t secure government funding.”

UK Fan wrote:Not good!!

West Adelaide

“A council’s grand vision for a $30 million sports facility upgrade has collapsed after it couldn’t secure government funding.”

Very annoyed with this. So close to getting the upgrade we desperately we need.

Thiele wrote:

UK Fan wrote:Not good!!

West Adelaide

“A council’s grand vision for a $30 million sports facility upgrade has collapsed after it couldn’t secure government funding.”

Very annoyed with this. So close to getting the upgrade we desperately we need.

Disappointing, but at least new changerooms are being constructed next to the grandstand. There is always the chance that a future upgrade will occur.
A function venue overlooking the oval must be built at some stage

With respect to Thiele and the good people at West Adelaide there was no way $30m was ever getting sent to Milner Road.

Still no CEO?

A $30m redevelopment of Richmond Oval is set to be significantly scaled back – at least for now – after a local council was unable to secure government funding for the project.

Plans for the West Adelaide Football Club home ground and community space included a new grandstand, umpire and gym facilities, netball courts, a community plaza and expanded parking.

But West Torrens Council said, at this stage, it had been unable to secure the $23m in state or federal government funding to carry out the full redevelopment, estimated to exceed $30m.

“For the past few years, council has submitted multiple applications for state and federal grant programs to secure funding for the remaining elements of the master plan, however, to date, has not been successful in obtaining the funding needed,” a council spokesman said.

They said funding for the first stage of the redevelopment was secured through the Federal Government’s Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program and commenced in 2022.

In November, council decided to pursue a “more achievable project scope” and use the already-approved $7m from its own budget to upgrade the B.K. Faehse Grandstand, which is in “poor condition”, and develop new changeroom facilities because current ones “no longer meet contemporary accessibility and inclusion standards, particularly for female athletes”.

The concept includes four interchangeable changerooms with umpire amenities, first aid and doctor’s rooms and team massage areas.

“Subject to available funds following completion of compliance works, the existing under-grandstand changerooms may also be refurbished to create an improved gym and warm-up area, public toilets, and coaches’ rooms,” council documents state.

“To maintain affordability, some elements of the original WAFC brief and AFL Category 4 guidelines will be scaled back or deferred.”

Staff said this approach to oval upgrades would allow it to pursue future expansion if external funding became available “in line with the long-term masterplan vision”.

Under the initial plan, council planned to acquire the West Adelaide-owned clubroom but under the revised plan the club said it understood there was currently no requirement for council to proceed with the purchase.

In a letter to council, president Alison Surjan said the club remained open to discussions on the matter “should the need arise sometime in the future”.

She said the club was in “full support” of council proceeding with works required to ensure the venue remained safe and compliant and saw the works as a “critical step” in pursuing all available avenues to attract further investment in the future.

West Adelaide Football Club did not respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, council has applied for $750,000 through the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing for the development of the changerooms.

Council is planning to start the works next year.

Booney wrote:With respect to Thiele and the good people at West Adelaide there was no way $30m was ever getting sent to Milner Road.

Still no CEO?

$30m was always a dream, but every other SANFL club has had reno's of some sort in recent years, 2 ovals are now AFL standard, the SANFL need to be in there advocating hard for some action at Richmond Oval, I know there is something happening but it needs a refresh and there is enough space there to make it a valuable community asset that suits modern expectations, not the 80's.

Dutchy wrote:

Booney wrote:With respect to Thiele and the good people at West Adelaide there was no way $30m was ever getting sent to Milner Road.

Still no CEO?

$30m was always a dream, but every other SANFL club has had reno's of some sort in recent years, 2 ovals are now AFL standard, the SANFL need to be in there advocating hard for some action at Richmond Oval, I know there is something happening but it needs a refresh and there is enough space there to make it a valuable community asset that suits modern expectations, not the 80's.

Surely the SANFL's plan for Westies is becoming clearer for all to see mate?

Nine team comp doesn't make sense, neither does a seven team one once the Pear and Cows reserves move

SANFL can’t afford West to fall over with the looming departure of Port and Adelaide.

A 7 team competition would not work.

I’m a die hard but even I’m a little disheartened and disillusioned.

EDIT, as WB said

Both of you are correct, ignore the conspiracy theorist.

Perhaps the SANFL could do more to help West once Port pay back the $17M that nearly sent them broke.

Brodlach wrote:SANFL can’t afford West to fall over with the looming departure of Port and Adelaide.

A 7 team competition would not work.

I’m a die hard but even I’m a little disheartened and disillusioned.

EDIT, as WB said

The AFLW is losing $50m a year and Tasmania are on the horizon, an AFL reserves comp is a long, long way off.

Port and Adelaide have no intentions of leaving.

Afelaide are lobbying to play games against South and Centrals at Alberton citing logistical clashes with their league side. Port are on board with this having offered the venue. As an example they are asking to play their Good Friday game as one of these at Alberton at an earlier than normal time slot as their League side is at home on the same day at 6.45pm.


This will be a precursor to them playing the year after at Thebarton.

But wait. Are they not in the league on the understanding that they don’t get home games ( despite having played a number of home games at.AO over the last few seasons)?

Can Darren Chandler explain how this is in the constituent clubs best interests?

We will be shafted yet again I feel.