Rule Changes for 2016

All discussions to do with the SANFL
User avatar
Dutchy
Site Admin
Posts: 47486
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:24 am
Team: Glenelg
Team: North Melbourne
Location: Location, Location
Has thanked: 2936 times
Been thanked: 4838 times
Contact:

Re: Rule Changes for 2016

Post by Dutchy »

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 84d15624bd

The best bit "The SANFL hopes to encourage players to take the game on through the corridor and lift scoring, with the AFL vowing to monitor the new rule."

Im guessing this is what we suspected, its AFL driven.
Bounce of the ball
Reserves
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:10 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 65 times
Contact:

Re: Rule Changes for 2016

Post by Bounce of the ball »

Unlike Laird to complain.
User avatar
Magellan
Coach
Posts: 5981
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 12:04 pm
Team: North Adelaide
Location: Four Seasons Total Landscaping
Has thanked: 756 times
Been thanked: 1516 times
Contact:

Re: Rule Changes for 2016

Post by Magellan »

Dutchy wrote:http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/local-footy-sa/sanfl/central-district-coach-roy-laird-rubbishes-new-sanfl-outofbounds-rule/news-story/6c667770e9b9af83bfb78884d15624bd

The best bit "The SANFL hopes to encourage players to take the game on through the corridor and lift scoring, with the AFL vowing to monitor the new rule."

Im guessing this is what we suspected, its AFL driven.

Pity the AFL's not taking a vow of silence.
"Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there...and finding it." - Oscar Wilde
Dogwatcher
Coach
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Team: Central District
Team: Collingwood
Team: Elizabeth
Location: The Bronx
Has thanked: 1425 times
Been thanked: 1153 times
Contact:

Re: Rule Changes for 2016

Post by Dogwatcher »

Wedgie wrote:Roy's opinion might have been applicable last decade but he can't even coach the Dogs to a win over North in finals this decade.
Perhaps he could me more proactive and paint new lines at Elizabeth so there weren't so many straight line boundaries, when he's done that he can start on Woodville, Norwood, Glenelg, etc too.


Sorry, can you explain how any of this is relevant to the comments about rules.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
Posts: 51723
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:00 am
Team: North Adelaide
Team: Geelong
Team: Noarlunga
Has thanked: 2153 times
Been thanked: 4093 times
Contact:

Re: Rule Changes for 2016

Post by Wedgie »

Dogwatcher wrote:
Wedgie wrote:Roy's opinion might have been applicable last decade but he can't even coach the Dogs to a win over North in finals this decade.
Perhaps he could me more proactive and paint new lines at Elizabeth so there weren't so many straight line boundaries, when he's done that he can start on Woodville, Norwood, Glenelg, etc too.


Sorry, can you explain how any of this is relevant to the comments about rules.

Exactly!
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
Dogwatcher
Coach
Posts: 29318
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am
Team: Central District
Team: Collingwood
Team: Elizabeth
Location: The Bronx
Has thanked: 1425 times
Been thanked: 1153 times
Contact:

Re: Rule Changes for 2016

Post by Dogwatcher »

Now I understand.
You're my only friend, and you don't even like me.
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
Posts: 51723
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:00 am
Team: North Adelaide
Team: Geelong
Team: Noarlunga
Has thanked: 2153 times
Been thanked: 4093 times
Contact:

Re: Rule Changes for 2016

Post by Wedgie »

Actually now that I think about it, I wonder what difference in impact (if any) the new rule will make if grounds are true ovals with no straight lines as opposed to the grounds which have varying amount of straight lines marking boundaries.
I have no idea but might keep an eye out for it.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
human_torpedo
League Bench Warmer
Posts: 1210
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:47 am
Team: Eagles
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 371 times
Contact:

Re: Rule Changes for 2016

Post by human_torpedo »

Funnily enough, I have heard good feedback from a few players about the rule, that it actually takes out the grey area of umpire interpretation for deliberate out of bounds. And generally the only time you will be punished is by a skill execution error, with the odd bit of bad luck.. So far they haven't had an issue with it
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 323 guests