Law Changes to SANFL for 2006

[Wedgie]

Is everyone aware that 4 of the rule changes in the SANFL this year? ( I was aware of the changes in the AFL especially the kick ins )
I know I wasn't until I read this:

Laws Change in 2006

SANFL trial matches have commenced at the junior levels and Round 1 of the season is not too far away. Of course, with any new season comes new laws and law changes, and 2006 is no exception.

This season will see the introduction of four major changes to the current laws.

1. Stopping Time
The timekeepers shall stop the clock which is used for the timing of the match when the Field Umpire crosses his or her arms to indicate that he or she is going to bounce or throw the ball up.

2. Kicking the football into play after a behind has been scored
A player of the defending team may kick the football into play when the goal umpire has signaled that a behind has been scored.

3. Marking the Football
Where a field umpire is of the opinion that he or she has incorrectly blown the whistle to award a mark that was not subsequently completed, he or she may cancel the decision and call play on.

4. Kicking for Goal
Where a player is kicking for a goal after being awarded a mark or free kick in the goal square, the kick shall be taken from directly in front of the goals from a spot horizontally across from where the mark or free kick was awarded.

These changes will take effect from the weekend of Saturday 25 February 2006 to include introduction in the trial match period.

I wonder if the new kicking the footy in directly after the signalling of a point will advantage/disadvantage a few teams?
Less acute angles for marks near the goal might help North with the tall timber they'll have up there.

[Tee]

I think rule 1 is a good idea. Alot of time can be wasted by ballups.
But will time commence again when the ball is bounced or does the umpire have to blow his whistle & put his hand up to signal time back on?

Rules 2-4 I would of just left as they where.

[Grand Central]

Hooray for rule 3. I hate it when an umpire predicts a mark.

[Jimmy]

3. Marking the Football
Where a field umpire is of the opinion that he or she has incorrectly blown the whistle to award a mark that was not subsequently completed, he or she may cancel the decision and call play on.

this rule needs more thought...when the ump blows the whistly, 9 times out of 10 the players stop, so i suggest instead of play on being called, the ump should ball it up so no one is confused and play can begin on an even keel...i doubt umps can keep control when players lose their cool and the crowd will just be confused.

[Punk Rooster]

3. Marking the Football
Where a field umpire is of the opinion that he or she has incorrectly blown the whistle to award a mark that was not subsequently completed, he or she may cancel the decision and call play on.

this rule needs more thought...when the ump blows the whistly, 9 times out of 10 the players stop, so i suggest instead of play on being called, the ump should ball it up so no one is confused and play can begin on an even keel...i doubt umps can keep control when players lose their cool and the crowd will just be confused.

Maybe the umpires shouldn't just blow their load, & wait for players to complete the mark? Do the umpires really think we're imoressed with split second decision making?

[duncs7]

all good rule changes. ive always wanted to see all of these.

[Gilly]

"3. Marking the Football
Where a field umpire is of the opinion that he or she has incorrectly blown the whistle to award a mark that was not subsequently completed, he or she may cancel the decision and call play on."


This is a deplorable rule change. Instead of creating a rule to compensate for the umpires' mistakes, why not instruct the umpires to only award a mark once it has been completed and to stop making assumptions.

[duncs7]

"3. Marking the Football
Where a field umpire is of the opinion that he or she has incorrectly blown the whistle to award a mark that was not subsequently completed, he or she may cancel the decision and call play on."


This is a deplorable rule change. Instead of creating a rule to compensate for the umpires' mistakes, why not instruct the umpires to only award a mark once it has been completed and to stop making assumptions.

agreed, but when they do stuff up it should be play on.

[doggies4eva]

Don't like Rule 4. There should be a reward to the backman who forces a forward to go wide - even if it is close to goal.

[JK]

Agree with most comments, like Rule 1 but the others should have stayed as they were imho ... I applaud the SANFL as a rule for their innovation and not being as drastic with changes as the AFL, but I think perhaps they might have erred on this occasion .. Still, it's the same rules for all teams I guess ...