by VALE PARK » Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:50 am
by Booney » Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:57 am
by am Bays » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:03 am
by Magellan » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:12 am
by teaoby » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:27 am
by Magellan » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:33 am
teaoby wrote:Doesn't it therefore make sense that with more fatigue will come more errors and opportunity to create a stoppage? Doesn't it also lend itself to coaches playing a more possession driven game once players are fatigued, which inevitably will slow the game down as guys are again, fatigued?
by bennymacca » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:34 am
by Eagles2014 » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:39 am
VALE PARK wrote:The new rule for a free kick penalty for last kick over the boundary looks a winner.
Having looked at some trial games already,
players are reluctant to force the ball out in a defensive strategy and are moving the ball more directly towards goals though the central corridoor.
Most supporters think it is great rule change which will increase the numbers of goals scored and reduce boring strategies.
I know of a number of footy followers Have STOPPED going to league games vowing not to return because of the coaches
defensive tactics and low goal scores.
Please take us back to the 70/80s with 15-20 goal games regularly.
Please.
SANFL is in serious decline,
many things have to change to save the competition excluding financial woes of some clubs.
We need tons more though the gate,ask Glenelg etc etc.
IMHO the SANFL would be weak weak weak to give in to a few grumbling coaches as reported in the Advertiser this morning.
Please please please tell me the SANFL will not renig on this positive rule change.
Surely the survival of the league is paramount.
by VALE PARK » Wed Feb 24, 2016 10:57 am
by Hazydog » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:10 am
am Bays wrote:bet it is the two AFL clubs pushing for the change.....
by Hazydog » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:18 am
by Booney » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:23 am
by whufc » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:24 am
Booney wrote:What impact will it have on the players ability to run out games? If there's 4-5 boundary throw ins per quarter ( at a guess ) that's 4-5 lots of 15-20 seconds to suck in some big ones.
Me, I think it's a ridiculous rule that belongs to round ball games like soccer and basketball, the unpredictable nature of the bouncing footy will make for some stinking "turnovers".
What happens if the umpire isn't sure who touched it last, do we have a ball up? ( **** me, let's call it a jump ball )
Simply sick of rules being introduced to counter the games tactics, the game evolves constantly and the style used to win games 5 years ago would be useless today. Looking at AFL level, the way West Coast played in '06 would get smashed by the way West Coast played in '15.
Rubbish rule, you think it will help save the SANFL? Oh dear...
by Booney » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:24 am
VALE PARK wrote:Just to make it clear,
It is a penalty against the last KICK out not touch.
Only happened 3 or 4 times approx in the trial I saw.
A high scoring trial already, teams are switched on to the new rule.
The game is constantly changing we do need new rule changes.
We desperately NEED new young and old followers to SANFL games kids most importantly.
YAWNING spectators go home and do not return.
Clubs go broke without followers on and off the field.
Port Magpies and the Crows have smaller SANFL match followers than most Ammo clubs.
How is your SANFL club going?
Membership?
Attendance?
New sponsorship?
New income sources?
IMHO it is all about the game the club and match day enjoyment.
by whufc » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:27 am
Booney wrote:So fatigue creates less stoppages? I'd agree with that, numbers seem to back that up. So less rotations, less breaks in play, players become more fatigued.
Can't wait to watch the last half of matches where players are instructed to play keepies-off because they're rooted* and can't run to space. That'll bring people through the gates. If you're 4 goals down with 20 minutes to go in the last quarter, might be hard to mount a comeback if your players are flat footed.
@am bays, what sort of injuries are aligned with fatigue? Hammys? Groins?
by cracka » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:28 am
Booney wrote:What impact will it have on the players ability to run out games? If there's 4-5 boundary throw ins per quarter ( at a guess ) that's 4-5 lots of 15-20 seconds to suck in some big ones.
Me, I think it's a ridiculous rule that belongs to round ball games like soccer and basketball, the unpredictable nature of the bouncing footy will make for some stinking "turnovers".
What happens if the umpire isn't sure who touched it last, do we have a ball up? ( **** me, let's call it a jump ball )
Simply sick of rules being introduced to counter the games tactics, the game evolves constantly and the style used to win games 5 years ago would be useless today. Looking at AFL level, the way West Coast played in '06 would get smashed by the way West Coast played in '15.
Rubbish rule, you think it will help save the SANFL? Oh dear...
by Magellan » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:31 am
Hazydog wrote:I'm not one to generally support rule changes either - although I welcome capping interchanges with open arms. Willing to have a look at how the out of bonds rule goes.
I'm more staggered at the directive to U-18 coaches. "It comes as the league issues a directive to under-18 coaches to play with new parameters this season including keeping five forwards in the front half of the ground at stoppages, two in the forward 50m, banning tagging or run-with roles as well as the rolling zone and the press."
Good luck adjudicating on some of those facets!! Lunatics running the asylum with those changes.
by cracka » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:37 am
Hazydog wrote:I'm not one to generally support rule changes either - although I welcome capping interchanges with open arms. Willing to have a look at how the out of bonds rule goes.
I'm more staggered at the directive to U-18 coaches. "It comes as the league issues a directive to under-18 coaches to play with new parameters this season including keeping five forwards in the front half of the ground at stoppages, two in the forward 50m, banning tagging or run-with roles as well as the rolling zone and the press."
Good luck adjudicating on some of those facets!! Lunatics running the asylum with those changes.
by VALE PARK » Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:58 am
by JK » Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:38 pm
VALE PARK wrote:Interesting one of the top teams last year Norwood leading goal scorer was 17 goals the lowest since 1914.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |