Rule changes to improve the game

the games are too long! afl needs to lose 20 minutes to half an hour of playing time to have it wrapped up in a neat 2 hour package

when the game was designed from scratch, bouncing the ball wasn't a part of it. it was introduced in the late 1800's to - wait for it - ease congestion; it was never supposed to be a fair contest. granted, this isn't a factor for centre bounces, where associated rule changes have made it more and more obsolete. but perhaps a quickly implemented field bounce, without concerns over accuracy, could be introduced to address modern congestion problems. i personally would be more curious to see how zoning players at stoppages would work. this automatically takes players away from congested areas while still permitting traditional full ground access

1. I just cant bring myself to dispense with the bounce altogether. It's part of the game and I think makes the ruck what it is. The ball usually goes higher from a bounce (at least in the centre) than a throw, and means the rucks need to work for it. Although having said that, it is usually not until the second quarter that I even realise that they are throwing the ball up in the centre when it's wet. 2.I agree with no third man up. In the centre, there are two ruckmen only so why not around the ground. If the ruckman isn't nearby around the ground, the ump can easily ask who's going up. If another player touches the ball on the full, its a ruck infringement/illegal shepherd. If neither 'nominated' ruckmen get to the ball, it can be picked up once it touches the ground. 3. I don't mind the video, but they need much better camera work. If channel 7 can show super slomo high def vision of players' jowls wobbling on their "mega wall", then they can train one of those cameras on the bloody goals for clear vision. This is one thing the NRL does so much better than the AFL. The review should only be allowed to change the decision if it is clear and obvious. 4. I'm not 100% sure of what you mean by advantage from marks, but I agree completely that the mark should be paid instead of the free. The whole advantage rule needs changing. Either scrap it completely, or pay it only when the result is an actual real advantage - ie only for goal kicking. Too often the awarded player, and one other player (usually the recipient of a quick handball from off the ground) are the only ones to react, everyone else stopping for the whistle. This is obviously a very major advantage (especially in front of goals) but is not consistent or fairly awarded. I'm liking the sound of the on-your-feet rules, I would say you can only take posession when you are on your feet. That would also stop someone lying on the ground being pinged for holding the ball when they have it shoved under them. The player shoving the ball under should be considered to be in possession. I also agree with the suggestion that if you are in posession of the ball, but standing outside the boundary, the ball is out. Too often, it looks out depending on angle and the boundary umpires are on the wrong angle or even behind the player and have no way of knowing if they carry the ball above the floating line. The same with play on from a free or mark outside the boundary. Tighten it up, you can only change direction from the mark once you cross the line. If you play on from outside the boundary, then it's a throw in, If you move off the line, or change direction, its play on every time for every player. No more natural arcs or side on snaps. If you turn your body away from a direct line, it's play on. Get rid of deliberate out of bounds entirely. Out on the full is always a free, otherwise it's always a boundary throw in. Especially get rid of the stupid deliberate rushed behind rule, that is basically defunct now anyway. Rushing a behind has been allowed for 100 years and should never have been taken away. Deliberate is usually paid when it's clearly an accident. Finally, remove all the 'interpretations' of holding the ball. You must legally and correctly dispose of the ball BEFORE you are tackled. Not during, halfway through or after. If you are still holding the ball when the tackle is laid, you are gone. If the ball spills free, you are gone, if you jump on top of the ball, you are gone. If you attempt a kick and miss, you are gone. Textbook perfect tackles are nowadays going unrewarded, because the player drops the ball in the contest or is allowed fifteen minutes to get a handball away. The only exception, I would continue prior opportunity, but it would be a maximum of 2 seconds. This would quickly remove congestion as there would be more kicks, less ball ups and players wouldn't risk tying the ball up.

They should have 5 tackles, a rectangular field and be penalized for losing the ball. Too many knock-ons.

This could only play out if it purely applied to a kick/handball and not to deflections/contested. I wouldn't like it - as - it actually allows the team creating the 'defensive wall' to further congest the corridor zone while leaving the wing vacant knowing that if a ball is kicked out there even by accident that if it dribbles over the line (as per wonky bounces and curved boundary arcs) that they gain a free kick. It gives them two 'virtual' players extra on the field!!! That doesn't solve anything really.

I would love to see the goals and behinds given if the ball hits the post but still goes through. If you were designing the game from scratch today there no way you would call those 'posters'.

Some decent ideas here Cam. The Ump bouncing the ball is an absolute given, how that still exists is beyond me. The 3rd man up in the ruck is another that I struggle to see the benefit from, not sure what effect it as on the speed of the game though. I don't have a huge problem with the video review, like the DRS it can add something. Agree 100% with the advantage from a mark.

Totally. I hate the deliberate out of bounds rule. Worst is the case where a defender clears the ball 50 metres down the line and it ends up going over the boundary and is penalised. Why? Surely that's just a great defensive kick? Paying the deliberate OOBs in these scenarios isn't going to solve congestion in any event. Moreover the ball comes back to the congested zone while the players get some rest given they don't have to run up the ground (where the ball's gone out). Stupid.

I like Aussie Rules (Go Blues!), but I'm mainly a football fan (Go Victory!). To me, the AFL should look at some rule changes to make the game more popular both here and potentially overseas, where rugby and football are more popular. There's no reason why you couldn't have a semi-professional Aussie Rules competition in say a country like the U.K. To do so however, I think the AFL would need to make some rule changes to make the game 'flow' more and be a bit 'tougher' to make it marketable to countries where football and rugby are the most popular. (eg. something like ball kicked backward can't be marked and it's play on so ball is 'live' more often, allow players to tackle like in football by kicking at the ball to clear it out when it's in a scrum/pack or otherwise in dispute rather than just having to grab/hold the opposition player, make it an offence for a player to grab the ball unless they are on their feet like in rugby). Those few changes could vastly reduce the amount of packs/scrums forming around the ball and reward courageous players willing to bend down to pick the ball up (but stay on their feet), whilst simultaneously reduce the risk of injury by players sliding in on the ground to grab the ball.

I'd also add - trespassing seagulls receive a lifetime ban !

This was needs to happen to 'restore' our once great game: 1. substitute bench to replace the unlimited interchange madness we currently get. Rather than this 'ice hockey lines' style of changes we are getting now, the game forces coaches to keep their players out there. Resting them on the forward or back lines because a substitution means that player can no longer play. The number of subs allowed can be 6 for a match. It used to be only 1 for a century or so. So 6 is more than generous. 2. 20 metres minimum distance the ball must carry to constitute a legitimate mark 3. Removal of the 50 metres arcs. This has created a false boundary and brings in more uncertainty of distances and positional locations. 4. Shorten quarters to 15 minutes plus time on. Games roll on too long at the moment, causing too many thrashings which is no good for the game. 5. Fighting allowed, but no gutless stuff, like king hits. This allows players to police their own games and stops the likes of the Sam Mitchells, Nat Fyfes and Adam Goodes getting away with their sly acts without repercussion. What I am proposing is a reversal to what worked for over a century. It is the Australian football restoration project, like restoring the great works in the Sistine Chapel in Rome. What we have witnessed the past decade and more has been a desecration.

No No NO ! Get rid of ALL deliberates. Is the umpire supposed read the players mind to know if they did it deliberately ? And how many boundary thow ins & marking spoils are there where the ball is deliberately punched out of bounds yet noone seems to worry about those ? I do remember once a TV commentator bringing this up during play, and you really got the feeling that the other commentators were there standing about with there hands in their pockets, staring at the ceiling and whistling. . . "I see NUTTING !" ! It is a real elephant in the room !

Definitely Milo. Also I forgot to include the return of full strength beer!

I think you're spot on there Cam ! - also there have been otherwise totally competent senior umpires who had to give it away because they just couldn't master the . . . subtle art of the bounce ! (Ken Fraser's son?) - What a waste

I'd add getting rid of the ridiculous and subjective 'prior opportunity' clause. If you are in possession, tackled and brought to the ground, free kick against you even if the ball is held into you by the tackler, thus not allowing a legal disposal ! - i.e. reward the perfect tackle. Another ridiculous and subjective rule that should be done away with is the 'DELIBERATE' out of bounds

Sounds like you'd be just as satisfied watching replays of the Winners and old Kevin Bluddy Wilson video tapes.

Tradition is not something to throw away for convenience - it is a link back to the beginnings of a time and represents the spirit of a thing. sime traditions must be retained and those that are unique to our own game should be celebrated. sure the umps should perhaps only use it to start a game or quarter, given they seem to have lost the ability to bounce the darn ball, but to remove it completely? We lose the spectacle, the thrill of that tradition. In the same way, umpires unique goal signal and flag wave is now totally unnecessary, but will remain an identifier of the game, Third man up - seems to be successful in removing congestion, and why stop a player attempting to challenge for a ball. As for video reviews - umps are far too conservative in applying this, so instead allow a team one challenge a game, Challenge correct, they still keep one. Imagine a GF possibly being decided by an umpire error - oops, it's already happened, hence the rule. Play on advantage - if you take a mark you can already play on immediately - not sure what the argument is, unless you mean when the ball spills and a team gathers - if so, then i agree. I also agree a mark should take precedent over a free when calling. A rule change I would like is that a player on the ground cannot attempt to take possession of the ball. He may only punch it. on the ground could be defined as one or both knees touching the ground. If you fall to the ground with the ball you must release the ball. Finally if a player deliberately punches a ball out of bounds in a marking contest it should be a free.