In its small way, this page hopes to help the average player come to grips with what has happened - as far as I've been able to identify it myself! - and to do something about voicing opinion if you wish to. It's also good to note that the "changes to the changes" for 1999 would seem to indicate there is still some people power in the world...
For a blow-by-blow guide to the changes in detail, check out Gordon Dudman's summaries of both sets of changes, the 1998 and 1999 versions. In broad terms, as I understand it, we're now back to the 1991 version except for waitin gfro play - at least for now...
Whilst the concept of taking a penalty "near" the point of the offence (in an attempt to speed up the recommencement of play) might seem reasonable in theory, in practice it was a big pain: how near is "near"? Suggestions as to interpretation included anywhere on a line parallel to the point of the infringement (as currently being done by the Australian national squad - to boos from the crowd when done by the shooter inside the circle, so a first-hand account reports to me) or anywhere behind such a line. It strikes me that the former of these in particular is hardly in keeping with what most people would consider the intention of the change (to speed up and simplify play), and guidelines were subsequently suggested to keep penalties within natural areas of the court.
The changes to the contact rules likewise caused difficulties to many players (and umpires) I spoke to. Quite apart from the fact that many players didn't like the idea that they could no longer block down court (one could even interpret the changes to invalidate blocking entirely), the possibilities of injury through contact increased by this relaxation of the rules. It was suggested to me that this change was in part to reduce the number of contact calls slowing up the game (and I freely admit that, personally, I don't believe incidental contact should be pulled unless there is disadvantage, to keep the game flowing) but surely, if this is supposed to be a non-contact sport, that's how it should be played? Watch any high level game and the majority of contacts are waived away on the advantage rule. A good umpire uses his/her judgment - another point which was said by some to be an issue, in that this led to inconsistency - but surely there will still have to be judgement as to what constitutes "impeding"? As those of you who know me know, I am a big proponent of mixed netball, and this sort of rule change made many female players I know far more wary of playing mixed because they no longer had the protection against contact by the (usualy bigger, faster and thus in their minds more "dangerous") men.
I am all for the widening of the sport's audience but not at the expense of destroying the sport as we know it. The anecdotal evidence I amassed showed virtually no everyday players to be in favour of these changes and a large number against (with, admittedly, an equally large number of apathetics who don't care either way).
Fortunately, IFNA reconsidered some of the changes in the light of feedback and the arguments between (and differences in takeup between) national associations. Most of the changes have now been rescinded, due I think in no small part to the outcry from the ordinary players. Remember, If YOU didn't like the changes, or the interpretations being placed on them, and want to do something positive about it, then continue to write to IFNA (send them an email right now!) and state your views. Write to AENA too (Netball House, 9 Paynes Park, Hitchin, SG5 1EH. Tel: 01462 442344 - sorry no email address), and to your local association. Keep making the effort to do something about maintaining the game you love! If you don't, and you don't like future changes, you only have yourself to blame if they stick...
Andy Dawson - 12/1/98 - last revised 15/2/99