Rule Changes?

[Wedgie]

Have some rule changes occurred that I'm not aware of?
(Or did I see things incorrectly)

1. Have we adopted the AFL rule of not being able to rush behinds and the opposition team being given a free kick at the top of the goal square?

2. Has the interpretation/rule about protecting players heads even when they duck been thrown out and we've reverted back to the old rule/interpretation?

[whufc]

Have some rule changes occurred that I'm not aware of?
(Or did I see things incorrectly)

1. Have we adopted the AFL rule of not being able to rush behinds and the opposition team being given a free kick at the top of the goal square?

2. Has the interpretation/rule about protecting players heads even when they duck been thrown out and we've reverted back to the old rule/interpretation?

Did this actually happen in a game or are players watching to much AFL and didn't realise the rule didn't apply for SANFL.

Im certain it was an AFL only rule, we had that thread on here a couple of months ago polling who thought the rule should be brought in.

[redandblack]

We have adopted the rule change about rushed behinds.

All clubs are well aware of the change.

[Wedgie]

We have adopted the rule change about rushed behinds.

All clubs are well aware of the change.

Thanks mate, first time I saw it was yesterday and hadn't read about it anywhere.
Do the SANFL only tell clubs and think fans will just pick it up without notice?

Any idea about the change in the other regulation/rule I mentioned?

[rod_rooster]

Have some rule changes occurred that I'm not aware of?
(Or did I see things incorrectly)

1. Have we adopted the AFL rule of not being able to rush behinds and the opposition team being given a free kick at the top of the goal square?

2. Has the interpretation/rule about protecting players heads even when they duck been thrown out and we've reverted back to the old rule/interpretation?

The Ivens one in the back pocket i assume? If so it should have been a free kick if going by the "modern" interpretations where the head is protected above all else. Having said that it shouldn't be a free kick in that scenario. Just encourages players to put themselves in more vunerable situations as happened yesterday in order to win a free kick.

[Adam4]

Have some rule changes occurred that I'm not aware of?
(Or did I see things incorrectly)

1. Have we adopted the AFL rule of not being able to rush behinds and the opposition team being given a free kick at the top of the goal square?

2. Has the interpretation/rule about protecting players heads even when they duck been thrown out and we've reverted back to the old rule/interpretation?

Did this actually happen in a game or are players watching to much AFL and didn't realise the rule didn't apply for SANFL.

Im certain it was an AFL only rule, we had that thread on here a couple of months ago polling who thought the rule should be brought in.

I saw it this way too, free for crossing the line, but a supporter noted that 5RPH were talking about an infringement off the ball, probably in eastern pocket.

I did not see it.

[Wedgie]

Have some rule changes occurred that I'm not aware of?
(Or did I see things incorrectly)

1. Have we adopted the AFL rule of not being able to rush behinds and the opposition team being given a free kick at the top of the goal square?

2. Has the interpretation/rule about protecting players heads even when they duck been thrown out and we've reverted back to the old rule/interpretation?

The Ivens one in the back pocket i assume? If so it should have been a free kick if going by the "modern" interpretations where the head is protected above all else. Having said that it shouldn't be a free kick in that scenario. Just encourages players to put themselves in more vunerable situations as happened yesterday in order to win a free kick.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I agree with the decision as he ducked and I think ducking should be discouraged (I was annoyed they changed it in recent times) and this was the rule/interpretation up till about 4 or 5 years ago then changed.
He wasn't even moving and had the 2 players run into his head, Ive seen players get reported and suspended for 2 weeks for standing still and run into their legs and having a player duck or hip and shoulder another players shoulder and get 2 weeks so either the rules has changed or the umpires has NFI as he copped 2 hips into the head, or they're just so confused about what they're getting directed to do they just toss a coin these days and assume the spectators come to see them and not footy.

[Adam4]

Have some rule changes occurred that I'm not aware of?
(Or did I see things incorrectly)

1. Have we adopted the AFL rule of not being able to rush behinds and the opposition team being given a free kick at the top of the goal square?

2. Has the interpretation/rule about protecting players heads even when they duck been thrown out and we've reverted back to the old rule/interpretation?

The Ivens one in the back pocket i assume? If so it should have been a free kick if going by the "modern" interpretations where the head is protected above all else. Having said that it shouldn't be a free kick in that scenario. Just encourages players to put themselves in more vunerable situations as happened yesterday in order to win a free kick.

well said

[rod_rooster]

Have some rule changes occurred that I'm not aware of?
(Or did I see things incorrectly)

1. Have we adopted the AFL rule of not being able to rush behinds and the opposition team being given a free kick at the top of the goal square?

2. Has the interpretation/rule about protecting players heads even when they duck been thrown out and we've reverted back to the old rule/interpretation?

The Ivens one in the back pocket i assume? If so it should have been a free kick if going by the "modern" interpretations where the head is protected above all else. Having said that it shouldn't be a free kick in that scenario. Just encourages players to put themselves in more vunerable situations as happened yesterday in order to win a free kick.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I agree with the decision as he ducked and I think ducking should be discouraged (I was annoyed they changed it in recent times) and this was the rule/interpretation up till about 4 or 5 years ago then changed.
He wasn't even moving and had the 2 players run into his head, Ive seen players get reported and suspended for 2 weeks for standing still and run into their legs and having a player duck or hip and shoulder another players shoulder and get 2 weeks so either the rules has changed or the umpires has NFI as he copped 2 hips into the head, or they're just so confused about what they're getting directed to do they just toss a coin these days and assume the spectators come to see them and not footy.

Completely agree Wedgie.

[Voice]

Have some rule changes occurred that I'm not aware of?
(Or did I see things incorrectly)

1. Have we adopted the AFL rule of not being able to rush behinds and the opposition team being given a free kick at the top of the goal square?

2. Has the interpretation/rule about protecting players heads even when they duck been thrown out and we've reverted back to the old rule/interpretation?

Did this actually happen in a game or are players watching to much AFL and didn't realise the rule didn't apply for SANFL.

Im certain it was an AFL only rule, we had that thread on here a couple of months ago polling who thought the rule should be brought in.

I saw it this way too, free for crossing the line, but a supporter noted that 5RPH were talking about an infringement off the ball, probably in eastern pocket.

I did not see it.

Ther was no other infringement. It was for running over the line when he could have quite easily turned left or right and kicked it away from danger. It happened right in front of us and we could hear the ump explainin to White (?) what it was for and what he could of done.

[Wedgie]

Dont get me started about the deliberate out of bounds they didn't play late in the game.
How can over 3000 people at the ground know its deliberate and not the 3 idiots in white?
Why even bother having this rule?
Or has this changed too?

[FlyingHigh]

Have some rule changes occurred that I'm not aware of?
(Or did I see things incorrectly)

1. Have we adopted the AFL rule of not being able to rush behinds and the opposition team being given a free kick at the top of the goal square?

2. Has the interpretation/rule about protecting players heads even when they duck been thrown out and we've reverted back to the old rule/interpretation?

The Ivens one in the back pocket i assume? If so it should have been a free kick if going by the "modern" interpretations where the head is protected above all else. Having said that it shouldn't be a free kick in that scenario. Just encourages players to put themselves in more vunerable situations as happened yesterday in order to win a free kick.

well said

Lucky you weren't watching Eagles/Port. Eagles player gets tackled around the waist, taken to ground and accidentally hits back on another Eagles player boot, understandably and legitimately flings head back, umpire gives him free.

[FlyingHigh]

We have adopted the rule change about rushed behinds.

All clubs are well aware of the change.

Thanks mate, first time I saw it was yesterday and hadn't read about it anywhere.
Do the SANFL only tell clubs and think fans will just pick it up without notice?

Any idea about the change in the other regulation/rule I mentioned?

There was a very small article in The Advertiser the other week, saying we had undertaken become more in line with the AFL. Crap rule full-stop IMO.