Andy, I must take you to task for your article "ALL CHANGE!" which is wildly inaccurate.
You suggest that that "the powers that be" have not been consulting on decisions made 6 months ago and there is player concern over implementing the new rules.
Yes the decision to amend the rules was taken by IFNA in July. However the new rules then had to be confirmed by each of the regional associations. In europe (Federation of European Netabll Associations), the four UK Associations along with Belgium all approved the changes relatively quickly. It took some time however for Malta and Cyprus to confirm. As you can appreciate it is not easy for one national association (like All England) to blame another member country. Whilst I cannot comment on what goes on in individual clubs and leagues; where they are affliliated to AENA they have had progress reported in the AENA monthly newsletter. In sussex the county umpiring secretary has provided additional backup materials. Discemination was not helped by the fact that the biennual umpires forum (open to all "B" Class Umpires) was planned for the weekend of 6/7 September. Because of the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, this was postponed for a week; attendance was well down because of this. I do accept that there has been a delay in implementing the rules; 1 January was proposed by All England back in September. However All England have ruled that the new rules should be implemented as from Easter Sunday 12 April. Confusion has been created by many local leagues who took decisions back in September/October to ignor All England and not to change rules during the current season.
The recent test series between England and New Zealand was played under the new rules at the express wish of the New Zealanders. If you managed to watch any of the games (I'm told that whilst the last test was on BBC the first two were on Sky) you would have seen just how easily the new rules worked.
Your summary of the rules changes is correct. But coaching from the sideline is only allowed from the team base (ie where the players dump their kit). Once coaching from this position the coach cannot change position (ie she can't keep swopping to her goal end or running up and down the sideline).
I also think your comments about the change to the contact rule are also unfair. During the 1992 World Championships (in Birmingham) there were widespread complaints about the way that British umpires interpreted the contact rule. As a result of this All England issued a technical intrepretation (as well as being circulated via county associations it was publised in the Netball Magazine) suggesting that (a) there should be greater use of the advantage rule and that (b) contact "off the ball" should not be penalised unless it was deliberate and or dangerous. The new rule is designed to reflect this change; unfortunately some umpires didn't agree with this change and continued to pull up all cases of contact. In fact, I recently watched a match where one of the umpires stopped the game and brought the ball back from the other end of the court because of a very minor contact between two players. There should be no impact on the "blocking" of players. If a "blocked" player forces her way past her opponent, that would be deliberate interference - as demonstarted in the England v New Zealand tests. Again the new rules do not allow dangerous play so there should be no more injuries than there is now. You see netball in not a "non-contact" sport as you suggest, it is a sport where "contact" is not part of playing the ball. (Try as you might you will find no reference to netball being a non-contact sport anywhere in the current rules). As a regular umpire of mixed matches I personally have no difficulty in pulling up players for contact when they barge across the court at 90mph or obstruct at a distance of 2 feet. The new rules will not prevent me from continuing to do that.
I also take issue with your view of how near is "near". I watched four inter-counties matches today (Sussex v South Yorkshire) there were many many occasions when the umpire stopped play and demanded that that the ball be returned to the exact spot where the infringement occurred. This just appeared to me to waste time; it added nothing to the game. What was noticable in the tests was that the umpires called for "Time" if the ball went along way off court.
I think there has been widespread consultation on the changes; there was a time last spring when you couldn't pick up the Daily Mail or Daily Express on a Saturday without there being yet another article about the new netball changes. What they were reporting of course were the submissions being made to IFNA by its member associations. One of the most contentious was the so called "knicker debate". Should the rules covering playing kit be changed (as requested by the Australians) to allow players to wear leotards/vest and pants as althletes do. In the event this change was not agreed.
IFNAs constitution does not allow any rights to individual players so suggesting that we all e-mail it are a complete waist of time. Decisions can only be made by the council whose members are drawn from the national associations. To make any changes (or re-consider them) would require another council meeting. And you're right, AENA are still only on snail mail. But All England cannot make any changes to the rules anyway so I'm not too sure what writing to them will do. In the past, All England have only ever dealt with rules queries and questions from currently affiliated members. Another querk of affiliation is that members can only play by the All England rules!
The new rules books are due out at the end of March and will cost £5. AENA members get a £1.50 discount. The reason for the delay is that the whole of the rule book is being re-written to make it more "user-friendly" (but the only actual changes will still only be those agreed by IFNA)
I hope this helps but keep up the good work!
Gordon
;-)