SA Footy

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.

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...

bet it is the two AFL clubs pushing for the change.....

It's not going to save the SANFL by any means, but I'm hoping this new rule in conjunction with the reduced stoppages rule (which I think is the reform which should promote better footy) might result in more direct and attacking standard of play. That said, I tend to agree with Booney that in and of itself this type of rule is a bit alien to the idiosyncrasies of our game.

One thing i find humorous about the new rules is this.
the SANFL believe that less rotations & stoppages will create a more open game.

Surely if you look at it logically it will be the opposite?

The new rules are, I assume designed to create more fatigue?
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?

I would love to see coaches make a gentleman's agreement to play "80's/90's" style Football, but i think you will find the win at any cost nature of the industry will see a just as slow, potentially more error ridden match!

As for the out of bounds rule..... Boundary throw-ins are part of the unique nature of the great game that is Australian rules football! leave it alone!

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?

Good point, I guess it's a question of how coaches manage their bench to ensure that players aren't absolutely spent halfway through the last quarter. Also, the fatigue thing will only raise it's head in close games. No-one will care about stoppages in a match that's over at three-quarter time.

They don't make it up, they have data that more fatigue creates a more open game.

That's because players get to less contests, so there is on average less players around the ball at any given time.

I personally like the rule. It seems silly that you can pump it up the line and reset, Malthouse era Collingwood style.

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.

Great post Vale Park, lots of excellent made points.

The SANFL can not let the coaches decide whether this rule is canned already, it is their fault it has been brought in in the first place!

There are several reasons it has been brought in:

1. Scoring in the SANFL has been in decline for years, with the last few years being the lowest in comps history.
2. Crowds have dropped significantly, one major reason being the standard of footy, and the negative tactics of coaches.
3. Stoppages are at record levels, making for boring and unattractive footy to watch.

The change in rule will make teams play thru the corridor more often, resulting in higher scores, less throw ins and stoppages, and more exciting footy to watch. Stats show after a boundary throw in, there are then often three ball ups which follow, so this will eliminate these also.

If there is any doubt who last touched it, the ball will just be thrown in, no drama.

With interchange rotations reduced to 50 also, should make for higher scoring games and hopefully bigger crowds. SANFL had to try something as otherwise the comp will be dead in a few years time.

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.

am Bays wrote:bet it is the two AFL clubs pushing for the change.....

"Three experienced league coaches" are strongly opposed. Doesn't sound like Chad meets that criteria.

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.

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?

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...

Great post totally agree

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.

No, the game changes BECAUSE of new rules.

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?

Agreed not sure it's in our best interest to watch games of fatigued footballers.

Would the less contests they get to be elimanted by the drop of skill level from the fatigued footballers

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...

I'm more sick of coaches & players manipulating the rules making a mockery of the game. Would you like to go back to when if you were getting tackled you simply bounced the ball & it would then be holding the man or when players just laid on the ball & made no attempt to get it moving. No thanks

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.

The umpires could regulate the five in the front half/50 metre thing quite easily, but I agree the other restrictions would be a nightmare to referee.

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.

That was trialled at last years U18 carnival & from reports was very successful. At stoppages players would spread to traditional positions rather than gather around the ball causing the rolling maul we see nowadays

IMHO interchange numbers wil have little affect on games.
Ruckman will stay on the ground longer,coaches will just bank changes for the last 2 quarters.
My main point is the kick out rule and the need for more goals.
Interesting one of the top teams last year Norwood leading goal scorer was 17 goals the lowest since 1914.
Bottom team North Adelaide was 17 goals lowest since who knows.
Hands up those who love watching gun high goal kicking forwards live!
Most teams had one.
Not in the SANFL game anymore,
Do nothing,nothing will change.
Attendances will continue to fall.
Rome burns!

VALE PARK wrote:Interesting one of the top teams last year Norwood leading goal scorer was 17 goals the lowest since 1914.

Part of that was due to injury/fitness to Newton and Phillips, but the vast part of it was due to a God awful style of football. Norwood's plan became more dour around 2012, but last year reached an appallingly low level that I pray never gets repeated.

Like others I hate the thought of tampering with the rules, but I'm happy to remain open-minded on this one and see if they bring about any improvements in the general standard (or entertainment factor) of footy.