SA Footy

Obviously we all love Aussie Rules Football, but could it be made a better spectacle with some
small or even big changes in the rules or way that it’s played ?

Conservatives need not get upset, it’s only a theoretical discussion.

I certainly detest changes just for the sake of change, but I can’t help wondering if others have
seen tweaks, embellishments or wholesale changes that would make our great game even greater.
Perhaps even a hybrid game that draws crowds back from the AFL product that many say is too sanitised.

If you were writing a new rule book, where would you start ?

SABRE wrote:Obviously we all love Aussie Rules Football, but could it be made a better spectacle with some
small or even big changes in the rules or way that it’s played ?

Conservatives need not get upset, it’s only a theoretical discussion.

I certainly detest changes just for the sake of change, but I can’t help wondering if others have
seen tweaks, embellishments or wholesale changes that would make our great game even greater.
Perhaps even a hybrid game that draws crowds back from the AFL product that many say is too sanitised.

If you were writing a new rule book, where would you start ?

Balls* striking posts.
Goal and point posts same - if the ball hits and goes back into play, play on. No behind if the ball strikes and goes behind the post, pay the score whichever side of the post the ball goes thru on.

The goalposts are so padded at the base noawdays it's ridiculous that a ball grazing that padding is penalised like no other spot on the post.

ST...

Common misconception. Australian Football doesn't have a "Rule Book" so you'd have to start from the beginning.

However an annual publication on the Laws of Australian Football is freely available....

Always makes me laugh when you hear someone say "Read teh rule book (insert unfavourable Australian adjective in here) to teh umpire.... idiot we don't have a rule book so how can he read it....

Ahh we ex-umpires are whacky funsters aren't we...

I loathe rule changes, I really do, but it pains me to say that I think the SANFL need to consider the "Rushed Behind" rule that the AFL has adopted.

Firstly can I say, I don't like the rule in the AFL ... BUT, all kids should be given the opportunity to aspire to the highest level of football, and I think it's a tough ask on them to spend all their formative years playing by a certain rule that is MARKEDLY different, should they ever reach their dream of entering the AFL system.

Overall though, I wouldn't want to see the game any further away from it's origins ... I appreciate people's thoughts and comments that athleticism, speed, professionalism and some aspects of player safety may have changed, but I'm still of the opinion that the game wasn't broken to begin with (in my time at least).

am Bays wrote:Common misconception. Australian Football doesn't have a "Rule Book" so you'd have to start from the beginning.

However an annual publication on the Laws of Australian Football is freely available....

Always makes me laugh when you hear someone say "Read teh rule book (insert unfavourable Australian adjective in here) to teh umpire.... idiot we don't have a rule book so how can he read it....

Ahh we ex-umpires are whacky funsters aren't we...

Thats a favourite saying of one our soccer refs where i work.

He is always telling me soccer has referees not umpires.

And in soccer we don't have rules we have laws

Sounds great in his thick scouser accent.

Constance_Perm wrote:I loathe rule changes, I really do, but it pains me to say that I think the SANFL need to consider the "Rushed Behind" rule that the AFL has adopted.

Firstly can I say, I don't like the rule in the AFL ...

Why not CP? Everytime I see the defenders have to turn around and actually work the ball out of defence I have a small cheer to myself. I hated the rushed behinds rule as it was. It's actually very interesting to see how many times they do find a way to get the ball out and keep the game moving, whereas last year they just would have taken the easier road.

hondo71 wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:I loathe rule changes, I really do, but it pains me to say that I think the SANFL need to consider the "Rushed Behind" rule that the AFL has adopted.

Firstly can I say, I don't like the rule in the AFL ...

Why not CP? Everytime I see the defenders have to turn around and actually work the ball out of defence I have a small cheer to myself. I hated the rushed behinds rule as it was. It's actually very interesting to see how many times they do find a way to get the ball out and keep the game moving, whereas last year they just would have taken the easier road.

To give them their dues, this rule has been umpired very well in the AFL from what I have seen.

However, I think the SANFL's interpretations of holding the ball and deliberate out of bounds are far better for the game of football than those of the AFL, so I wouldn't touch these two at all.

The pre 1996 rule for the length of the quarter - 25 minutes, plus time on but only between the flags being waved after the score and either the kick in or ball up.
I know this won't happen, but I'd like to see only 16 players on the field, plus four interchange players.

spell_check wrote:The pre 1996 rule for the length of the quarter - 25 minutes, plus time on but only between the flags being waved after the score and either the kick in or ball up.
.

Yep, agree Spelly. Have posted this before, but I believe this rule was the start of the chipping bakwards, keep possession game that so dominates the AFL today.

leave rule changes to the afl

am Bays wrote:Common misconception. Australian Football doesn't have a "Rule Book" so you'd have to start from the beginning.

However an annual publication on the Laws of Australian Football is freely available....

Always makes me laugh when you hear someone say "Read teh rule book (insert unfavourable Australian adjective in here) to teh umpire.... idiot we don't have a rule book so how can he read it....

Ahh we ex-umpires are whacky funsters aren't we...

True, but the AFL have their bloody infamous DVD ... so watch the **** DVD is entirely appropriate

spell_check wrote:The pre 1996 rule for the length of the quarter - 25 minutes, plus time on but only between the flags being waved after the score and either the kick in or ball up.
I know this won't happen, but I'd like to see only 16 players on the field, plus four interchange players.

I think the 20 minutes plus time on is better because they stop the clock when the ball goes out of bounds. They didn't use to when it was 25 minutes. Stops a lot of time wasting.

I don't mind the idea of 16 players plus 4 interchange. Might open the game up a little bit. They did this in the VFA up until reasonable recently didn't they?

As for the rushed behind rule in the AFL, I think it's one of the best rule changes they've made. Would like to see it adopted in the SANFL.

Aerie wrote:

spell_check wrote:The pre 1996 rule for the length of the quarter - 25 minutes, plus time on but only between the flags being waved after the score and either the kick in or ball up.
I know this won't happen, but I'd like to see only 16 players on the field, plus four interchange players.

I think the 20 minutes plus time on is better because they stop the clock when the ball goes out of bounds. They didn't use to when it was 25 minutes. Stops a lot of time wasting.

I don't mind the idea of 16 players plus 4 interchange. Might open the game up a little bit. They did this in the VFA up until reasonable recently didn't they?

As for the rushed behind rule in the AFL, I think it's one of the best rule changes they've made. Would like to see it adopted in the SANFL.

The umpires still had discretion to signal time off if too much time was going to be lost.

Why is it for the ball to out of bounds the ball has to go all outside of it, yet when someone kicks in from a point being scored they can't step on the line?
When a mark is taken in the preseason comp inside the 50 metre line and the player kicks from out side the 50m line it is only a 6 pointer. It appears to me when a player takes a mark in field play goes back 15 metres from the man on the mark and kicks 5 metres to either side of the player on the mark the umpire will call it a mark.
Should the distance be determined from where the mark is?
Hope this makes sense.

I beg your indulgence as I take this subject to an extreme level.
Has anyone ever wondered what an amalgam of all football codes would be like ?

I’ve often wondered why tripping is seen as negative in footy when it’s skilful application is aspired
too and applauded in both Rugby codes and Gridiron. Ankle taps and full leg tackles very
rarely cause any injury. Although I’d hate to see any code replaced, is there room for another
code loosely based on Aussie Rules, but a ‘toughened up’ version, with some of the best attributes
from Union, League, Gridiron and even Soccer ?

Just for fun, imagine our football, without any pushing or tripping penalties.
A game where only kicking, king hitting and spear tackling opponents are not allowed, and head high
stuff is banned unless two blokes want to square up to each other. Then they can until the umpire
warns them to stop, with personal or team penalties for the transgressor failing to comply.

Any means of moving the ball forward is OK by hand or foot, but goals must be kicked.
Bouncing the ball isn’t necessary and whichever team last touched the ball before it goes out of
bounds gives the opposition a free possession from where it happened.

I’m sure many people out there would be disgusted by the thought of the above becoming a sport,
but I’d be prepared to pay a sh*tload to see a game !

Bring back the biff !
Weapons optional ?

SABRE, must be really good hooch you're smoking my friend ...

spell_check wrote:The pre 1996 rule for the length of the quarter - 25 minutes, plus time on but only between the flags being waved after the score and either the kick in or ball up.
I know this won't happen, but I'd like to see only 16 players on the field, plus four interchange players.

this is one of the changes that amazes me it was brought in for the longevity of the players lifespan (as a player) & then they bring in a 'rule' that you can play on immediately when a behind is scored & thus giving the players no chance of a breather

the best 'rule' that ever came into vogue was the 'out of bounds on the full' rule

spelly i know your too young to remember but the vfa (as it was) use to play with 16 on the field (no wingmen)

bayman wrote:

spell_check wrote:The pre 1996 rule for the length of the quarter - 25 minutes, plus time on but only between the flags being waved after the score and either the kick in or ball up.
I know this won't happen, but I'd like to see only 16 players on the field, plus four interchange players.

this is one of the changes that amazes me it was brought in for the longevity of the players lifespan (as a player) & then they bring in a 'rule' that you can play on immediately when a behind is scored & thus giving the players no chance of a breather

the best 'rule' that ever came into vogue was the 'out of bounds on the full' rule

spelly i know your too young to remember but the vfa (as it was) use to play with 16 on the field (no wingmen)

But the irony is that the quarters are no shorter than they were previously. In fact they can go far longer - remember one game with 3 goals kicked and one (routine) stretcher case that had 14 minutes of time-on

Agree about out-on-the-full rule, even though I have only seen the old rule on old highlights

If it ain't busted, don't fix it.

... and it ain't busted.

dedja wrote:SABRE, must be really good hooch you're smoking my friend ...

S...smokes
A...amazingly
B...big
R...reefers
E...everyday