2016 Rule Changes

Some interesting changes for next year.

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/3224/

INTERCHANGE
I agree with reducing the Interchange rotations
Was first introduced in the SANFL in the 1978 season
One of the main reasons would have been to allow injured players a recovery period
However, the interchange has also evolved into a coaching tactic as well, to freshen up players
Limiting the interchange brings one advantage , that is it will allow the better players to be on the ground for longer, thats got to better for the spectators

OUT OF BOUNDS FROM THE LAST KICK OR HANDBALL WITHOUT BEING TOUCHED
Interesting rule change
Im reasonably sure a similar rule to this was in vouge in the SANFL in the 1930s
As a result higher scores were kicked when this rule came in
I like the rule, but not sure if we need it
It means umpires would not need to adjudicate contentious deliberates or not
It would also mean players would prob need to kick closer to the corridor more often

All sports need to evolve
It messes with tradition , but its also called progress

INTERCHANGE CAP: YES
DELIBERATES : ?

I can see the deliberate rule causing confusion and frustration for supporters with umpires making the wrong calls at times. Don't like it personally.

Interchange cap? Yes.

It's interesting that these changes have been brought in to try to reduce stoppages and perhaps defensive football.

At the same time, after years of 'defence first' by most teams, West have won the premiership with a risk-taking, fast flowing brand of footy that produced over 90 points a game.

The game evolves, the rules evolve.

Like the proposed changes.Will definitely speed up play and lead to higher scoring.

Think the cap on rotations will be good. Should open the game up.

Not sure about the free kick for out of bounds.
For example, a guy kicks it 60 metres forward and it goes over the leading player and dribbles out of bounds in the forward pocket after the defender chooses not to pick it up and shepherd the ball over the line untouched. Seems a bit unfair that that would be a free to the defender.

The out of bounds rule is the silliest thing I've read in some time. I simply can't believe they are going to introduce it.

Booney wrote:The out of bounds rule is the silliest thing I've read in some time. I simply can't believe they are going to introduce it.

I agree. I just copied this from the SANFL website and I'm confused already.

QUOTE: "In another rule change for 2016, a free kick will be paid against the team which kicks or handballs the ball out of bounds without it being touched, even if it bounces in front of the boundary line.
A player who spoils the ball, picks up the ball and ushers it over the line or taps the ball over the line will not be penalised provided that the action is not determined to be deliberate out of bounds."

So if you kick it, miss the target and it bounces sideways and goes out you're penalized. But if you paddle it along the ground and it rolls out you're not. Let's assume neither is deliberate, but one is penalized and the other not?? Seems illogical. Perhaps somebody can explain it to me?

The original "deliberate" rule still applies, yet an errant handball or kick will now be *gulp* a turnover.

can we just leave the game ALONE

I like both changes.
Capping the interchange is the best thing that happened in the last 10 years of footy.
Need to make it back into a test of fitness, speed and toughness.
The cream will rise as fatigue sets in.

I feel for the umpires with the out of bounds rule...they have to get their heads around it, then apply it, then cop flak from the players, supporters, media et al...
On the other hand, the interchange cap is common sense.

agree with posters above, the first law seems reasonable, the second seems ludicrous, i may be wrong but i wonder whether we're being guinea pigs to the AFL for the second law change, one law they could bring in & it might help with scoring as well & that is the law they use in the VFL which is if you kick backwards backward of centre (i think) it is play on...............

i think there is a simple way to open up congestion & no it isn't play 16 men & have no wingmen ala VFA in the old days but just make the centre square bigger

CB10 wrote:I like both changes.
Capping the interchange is the best thing that happened in the last 10 years of footy.
Need to make it back into a test of fitness, speed and toughness.
The cream will rise as fatigue sets in.

And people complain about the AFL players fitness advantage.....

The second rule change would also seem to nullify somewhat the influence of your big ruckmen to some degree. With a lot less throw ins, are blokes like Kurtze who have a high tap count are going to be less relevant?

It may speed up the game and reduce some congestion, but do we want to see the big fellas taken out of the contest? Will it bring in a specialist tap ruckman for centre bounces only? Maybe the first rule change would nullify this possibility. Who knows yet?

Sounds ridiculous I know, but the game evolves in strange ways sometimes.

I thought they'd want to trial the rules before implementing them in the regular season.

I can see the out of bounds rule being a farce for reasons mentioned above.

If they want to reduce stoppages, maybe have a stricter interpretation of holding the ball. Somewhere between what we have now and what gets called in the AFL.

I am pretty sure this out of bounds rule was trialled and rejected in the AFL after players simply shepherded the ball out of bounds to win the free kick.. .

Booney wrote:

CB10 wrote:I like both changes.
Capping the interchange is the best thing that happened in the last 10 years of footy.
Need to make it back into a test of fitness, speed and toughness.
The cream will rise as fatigue sets in.

And people complain about the AFL players fitness advantage.....

This rule may get football back to how we remember. More one on one contests, more high marking, ruckman resting in the pocket, less run and spreading.
We'll have to wait and see, just another reason why having two professional AFL teams in a semi professional league is bewildering.

CB10 wrote:

Booney wrote:

CB10 wrote:I like both changes.
Capping the interchange is the best thing that happened in the last 10 years of footy.
Need to make it back into a test of fitness, speed and toughness.
The cream will rise as fatigue sets in.

And people complain about the AFL players fitness advantage.....

This rule may get football back to how we remember. More one on one contests, more high marking, ruckman resting in the pocket, less run and spreading.
We'll have to wait and see, just another reason why having  two professional AFL teams in a semi professional league is bewildering.

just on your bewilderment, i wonder what the two AFL franchises think about it, they play them together & a player will get a free kick & then a week later get a call up & he has to adjust to a completely different situation (rules wise) than he did the previous week, that player will be bewildered for sure

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/local-footy-sa/sanfl/sanfl-to-review-lasttouch-rule-as-trial-games-begin/news-story/c064078dd1306a5032e84501153ba454

Thiele wrote:http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/local-footy-sa/sanfl/sanfl-to-review-lasttouch-rule-as-trial-games-begin/news-story/c064078dd1306a5032e84501153ba454

Well if i was a player & had the ball near the boundary line & had a player bearing down on me i'd either kick or handball the ball into him at quick rate & hope the ricochet would go out of bounds earning a free kick

bayman wrote:

Thiele wrote:http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/local-footy-sa/sanfl/sanfl-to-review-lasttouch-rule-as-trial-games-begin/news-story/c064078dd1306a5032e84501153ba454

Well if i was a player & had the ball near the boundary line & had a player bearing down on me i'd either kick or handball the ball into him at quick rate & hope the ricochet would go out of bounds earning a free kick

Thats all good when you have more than a split second to make that decision, on the field would be markedly different. I think the proposed rule was only for kicks going OOB as opposed to last touch anyway?

granted it is easier from ''the grandstand'' but i'll say that as a player i'd be having my thoughts in the back of my mind, part preparation if you will & if it is just the ''last kick'' then it shouldn't be too bad, will have a look at how it goes on Saturday

I think the coaches should at least wait to see how it goes in the practice games before making up their mind.

I'm all for anything that will reduce the number of ball-ups.

Can't remember the last game I saw that didn't start with a second bounce.

(Well, I can, but you get my drift).

On the holding the ball rule, I'd like to see a free paid where the player not in a pack takes on a tackle and gets caught. The umpires seem to bounce those, as well as players being caught and going through a 360 without getting rid of it.

Lee wrote:I think the coaches should at least wait to see how it goes in the practice games before making up their mind.

I'm all for anything that will reduce the number of ball-ups.

Can't remember the last game I saw that didn't start with a second bounce.

(Well, I can, but you get my drift).

On the holding the ball rule, I'd like to see a free paid where the player not in a pack takes on a tackle and gets caught. The umpires seem to bounce those, as well as players being caught and going through a 360 without getting rid of it.

yes
no, you wouldn't want soft free kicks given just to avoid a ball up
happens a lot, go to the old VFA days & have no wingmen, at least the game isn't changed
alleluia brother, if you take 'em on & get caught, you should be GONE if not disposed of immediately on impact