SA Footy

whufc wrote:Is there any other sport in the world that continually changes both major on-field and administrative (salary cap, free agency etc) rules as often as Aussies Rules does with the AFL and state leagues being the main culprits

Geez for a sport that aussies will tell you to your blue in the face is the greatest game in the world needs a lot of ******* changes apparently.

No wonder fans and players are slowly heading back to their amatuer clubs where the game still resembles what was once the great spectacle of an aussie rules game

It seems to be taking an awfully long time to get it right considering it's one of the oldest codes in sport.

Personally, if they are telling you the change will only affect about 4 occurrences in a match then they're clearly trying to sell a rule change that has no point.
It they want to open the game up, reduce the congestion around the ball and increase the scoring, all of which would increase the excitement and the spectacle of the game, then force teams to keep a minimum number of players in each half of the oval and a minimum number of players inside the forward 50.
That would encourage the one on one contests and the traditional Full Forward position. Never mind f%#king about with pointless OOB rule changes.

I like the limit to the number of interchanges. I always thought it was a bit unfair that losing a player early in the match probably meant you'd lose the game.

johntheclaret wrote:I like the limit to the number of interchanges. I always thought it was a bit unfair that losing a player early in the match probably meant you'd lose the game.

But that simply boils down to luck, they've implemented a new rule on the basis of one team perhaps having some bad luck. If so, bad luck.

Booney wrote:

johntheclaret wrote:I like the limit to the number of interchanges. I always thought it was a bit unfair that losing a player early in the match probably meant you'd lose the game.

But that simply boils down to luck, they've implemented a new rule on the basis of one team perhaps having some bad luck. If so, bad luck.

But that's not the only reason for the rule. Nor is it a case of "perhaps". Every season there are multiple instances of teams going one or more players down due to "luck", meanwhile the other team has the legs to crowd the stoppages, flood the backlines etc.
I won't be sold on the idea until I see it providing a benefit to the game, until then my mind will stay open. The issues they've identified seem valid though.

SimonH wrote:

Wedgie wrote: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!

They still won't get penalised for deliberate, or anything else... as long as they don't take clean possession and so don't handball or kick.

How long do you reckon it will take coaches and players to twig to the 'if you're under any kind of heat within 10 metres of the boundary line, tap the footy along or grubber it parallel to the line towards the next contest, but under no circumstances take clean possession' policy that this rule encourages? As this kind of free will be especially murderous in defence, the SANFL is cultivating a whole competition of defenders who just can't manage to pick up the footy when anywhere near the boundary. This will, of course, make the game more attractive to watch. I can't wait!

We might see players stop before taking possession of a ball near the boundary in defence, and wait for their opponents to pick it up so they can tackle them. Could we then have a situation of a ball near the boundary and everyone just standing around, waiting for someone to take possession and risk putting it oob?

CENTURION wrote:the out of bounds rule is bloody stupid.
the interchange rule is a step in the right direction, the game is too fast and scrambly, therefore ugly, nothing wrong with slowing it down slightly, might keep players in their positions more, more one on one footy, the way it used to be, not a mad free for all like it is now, it's like watching the Under 10's play sometimes!
might reduce injuries too.

Agree o Roman. Instead of out of bounds ball up it will be stacks on the mill ball up. Coaches and teams will evolve and create new ways to create stoppages.

regards,

REB

Just makes interpretation for the umpire much easier doesnt it? the 30m kick along the ground on the boundary line will now be penalized everytime rather than when the umpire deems it deliberate. Good rule change. Wont do what they are trying to achieve but nonetheless its still good

daysofourlives wrote:Just makes interpretation for the umpire much easier doesnt it? the 30m kick along the ground on the boundary line will now be penalized everytime rather than when the umpire deems it deliberate. Good rule change. Wont do what they are trying to achieve but nonetheless its still good

How often a game does that happen, how often a game does a ball end up out of play through a skill error, or pressure, or both?

Booney wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Just makes interpretation for the umpire much easier doesnt it? the 30m kick along the ground on the boundary line will now be penalized everytime rather than when the umpire deems it deliberate. Good rule change. Wont do what they are trying to achieve but nonetheless its still good

How often a game does that happen, how often a game does a ball end up out of play through a skill error, or pressure, or both?

As i said wont achieve what they are trying to do but its still good. It will be bugger all times in a game that its enforced.\
Some ridiculous statements that it will force teams into the corridor. Even if the ball is kicked along the boundary and a skill error results in it going out without anyone touching it, its still defendable on the way back. Skill error in the corridor is a near certain goal.

Seems to me both sides of the argument are arguing about nothing, did someone say the review of previous games would result in 4 extra deliberate OOF per game, hardly a game changer

daysofourlives wrote:

Booney wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Just makes interpretation for the umpire much easier doesnt it? the 30m kick along the ground on the boundary line will now be penalized everytime rather than when the umpire deems it deliberate. Good rule change. Wont do what they are trying to achieve but nonetheless its still good

How often a game does that happen, how often a game does a ball end up out of play through a skill error, or pressure, or both?

As i said wont achieve what they are trying to do but its still good. It will be bugger all times in a game that its enforced.\
Some ridiculous statements that it will force teams into the corridor. Even if the ball is kicked along the boundary and a skill error results in it going out without anyone touching it, its still defendable on the way back. Skill error in the corridor is a near certain goal.

Seems to me both sides of the argument are arguing about nothing, did someone say the review of previous games would result in 4 extra deliberate OOF per game, hardly a game changer

Then why change it

Modern day society continues it infatuation with change for the sake of change.

Change it because its one less interpretation for the umpires to make, removes all doubt.
Inconsistent umpire calls are what gets up supporters the most, this is one area where there will be no whinging now

daysofourlives wrote:Change it because its one less interpretation for the umpires to make, removes all doubt.
Inconsistent umpire calls are what gets up supporters the most, this is one area where there will be no whinging now

There will still be doubt and wrong calls.

Especially when its a little grubber handball or kick along the line and whether an opponent touched it first or the his teammate got a nail to it before it went out of bounds.

I think they could improve the game by using the existing rules and adjusting the interpretations. Don't need to mess with it much.

Want to reduce stoppages? Call holding the ball quicker, and reward tackles like they do in the Eastern league.
Want to stop deliberate out of bounds? Call more of them like you did this year, only even more - it will soon stop.

As for allowing throwing as suggested on here, ridiculous. But I'd like to see umpires looking for it in packs and penalising it more. I reckon West had more throws than handballs in the first quarter of the GF. That would slow the game down a little too, that seems to be an aim of all this.

And if the umpires stop circling SO FAR WIDE of the play they may be in a position to call all of these.

Doddy wrote:I think they could improve the game by using the existing rules and adjusting the interpretations. Don't need to mess with it much.

Want to reduce stoppages? Call holding the ball quicker, and reward tackles like they do in the Eastern league.
Want to stop deliberate out of bounds? Call more of them like you did this year, only even more - it will soon stop.

As for allowing throwing as suggested on here, ridiculous. But I'd like to see umpires looking for it in packs and penalising it more. I reckon West had more throws than handballs in the first quarter of the GF. That would slow the game down a little too, that seems to be an aim of all this.

And if the umpires stop circling SO FAR WIDE of the play they may be in a position to call all of these.

100% agree!!!

Can't we just have one set of rules for our great game.

Someone has to justify their position and the rules change.

Just like work.

If it works fine, Let me **** it up.

I will get a pay rise.

Hahaha, sounds like our education system...

An Islamic praying room for AFL....

I am turning away from this game.

you had me agreeing with you until you started getting all racist towards the end.

bennymacca wrote:you had me agreeing with you until you started getting all racist towards the end.

Trust me mate, if you ever find yourself agreeing with Dogger you either know you're wrong or know its time for the looney bin.

Disgraceful rule changes! Literally makes no sense

Rotation cap = fatigue

Fatigue = turnovers

Turnovers = shit footy

Q. wrote:Rotation cap = fatigue

Fatigue = turnovers

Turnovers = shit footy

Using that theory the SANFL must be so much more of a spectacle now than it was 30 years ago.

Q. wrote:Rotation cap = fatigue

Fatigue = turnovers

Turnovers = shit footy

I've always thought that turnovers lead to a fast, flowing game, provided that they're not totally unforced. Certainly the game involved more turnovers twenty or thirty years ago.