AFL rules should only be changed to improve the game

Agree 100% about incorrect disposal as too many time I see the umps deem the ball was lost in the tackle instead of paying dropping the ball. BTW there was a clanger a few weeks a go when a player was bouncing the ball in front of him ready to regather it and a player behind grabbed his shorts from behind. Commentator #1 "That's tackled without possession, isn't it?" No intelligible response from the special comments section. My response: No it's not, and hasn't been for about 40 years.

They umpired the game that way in the first 2 rounds and personally I thought things were better, then the coaches and players and media bleated and we went back to what we have now. The main problem with then and now, is that players now tackle much better and deliberately wrap-up the arms. In the past you would tackle around the waist so that you could not be side-stepped. Now you tackle much higher in an attempt to pin the arms to the body so that the opponent can not handball. That technique leads to more head-high free kicks (tackling the arms leads to the Selwood shrug) and to more balls being spilled-out or dropped.

So agree and so do the coaches. The other one getting the coaches upset is the DOOB

So agree and so do the coaches. The other one getting the coaches upset is the DOOB

No Kris he mentions that in his discourse. But it is rules like the deliberate out of bounds rule that confuse players, coaches and fans due to umpire interpretation. Another rule that seems to be interpreted instead of just paying the free on sight is that of incorrect disposal. This is the most controversial rule due to the fact that players are being allowed to throw and drop the ball without being penalised. This goes against one of the great features of our game, the handball, that makes it different to any other game. This should be sacred as far as I'm concerned. In fact I am not the only one who thinks so as the majority of coaches and players who have been interviewed on this subject agree. Even Beverage made the comment after the 2016 GF that if the umpires were going to allow incorrect disposal his players would take advantage of that. He must have known pre-game this was the case because they did it all game and got away with it. Gillon McLachlan has said and I quote 'Incorrect Disposal is too difficult to clean up'. Several coaches were furious over these comments and again the CEO of the AFL shows his inability to bring people along with him on key issues. He also made a definitive statement on a key issue concerning every sector of the AFL community without even consulting umpires, coaches or players. Again, like the Sydney trade ban he fails in his communication and negotiation skills. This is a very great concern and many fans are beginning to get jacked off with his glib treatment of key issues. The game has to evolve but not at the expense of the key elements. The AFL should be protecting all the elements of our game that ensure it is unique, not trying to turn it into a hybrid of Rugby Union. If you have rules that are highly interpretive then the umpire's job is far harder. Other problems also ensue like difference in interpretation of the three umpires on one day and a variety of interpretations over a weekend. This is not good for the game as it frustrates players, coaches and fans alike. At the moment the whole issue of interpretation, especially of deliberate out of bounds and incorrect disposal is a powder keg waiting to go off. Beverage likened the deliberate out of bounds interpretation to Morcombe and Wise or Monty Python as it has become a very bad joke. I think there will be far more vitriolic coaches' comments in the weeks to come on both rules. Other silly rules are the player kicking in having to get the ball from the bag, so stupid. The third up rule, which has been confusing at times and sometimes left teams with nobody up. The holding the ball interpretation, again a high degree of interpretation needed, where a player tackling holds the ball in is another contentious interpretation. In fact there is a rule that could penalise the player tackling and deliberately keeping the ball in, it is called 'Deliberately wasting time' . This is a rule rarely used but could definitely be used in this context as the player being tackled does not have possession of the ball the player tackling does. In fact technically if a player tackled the tackling player then that player would have to be deemed as in possession. So highly interpretive rules are a blight on the game and continue to frustrate everybody. Gillon McLachlan and your other glib mates please do something about this situation as you are ruining our great game.

#Scott Helmets don't really help - because it doesn't stop the brain bouncing around inside the skull. And in the American examples helmets have given players false confidence and then the evolution of helmets has seen the helmet become a weapon.

The cause and effect leading to rule changes can be interesting to trace - sometimes it's about the balance of risk and reward. Consider the kick in after a behind. It used to be that the kicker had to await the waving of the flags by the goal umpire - but, this slowed things down and gave the attacking team time to set up their defensive zones for the kick in. So - no longer did the kicker need to wait the flags, and he even gets a bucket of balls. Suddenly - there's not just a time saving but an absolute incentive to concede a behind even ahead of a stoppage because the defending team gets a free kick in the goal square. Control of the play and control of time killing (as seen by Hawthorn in 2008 GF). So - we've had to really crack down on rushed behinds - because the penalty of 1 pt isn't a great enough disincentive unless scores a really close near the end of the game. We could increase the penalty (risk) or we could decrease the reward (reward a rushed behind by the defenders) with a ball up at the top of the goal square instead of a free possession (but the AFL don't like stoppages - they seem to prefer silly free kicks that put pressure on umpires). So - we have free kicks paid based on umpire interpretation and based on the (9 metre) length of the goal square (so, as least it's not a soft interpretive distance) - however the whole notion of direct or indirect pressure or not confuses the issue. So - why not just bring it back to a ball up for ANY rushed behind. Although then, is the despairing dive on the goal line to touch/knock through what would be a goal to instead concede a behind - - is that deemed touched or forced? or does that not matter. So - for me - tinker more with the risk/reward mechanisms rather than bringing in new interpretations of intent, or pressure or distance.

Most frustrating current non rule is incorrect disposal. In years gone by if a player was tackled it was either a ball up or holding the ball. If the player dropped the ball then a free kick was payed for incorrect disposal. Now every game we see players get tackled and simple drop the ball and the umpires just yell play on. This is so frustrating and I can't understand why the AFL has changed this rule!

3rd man-up was a safety rule as was the sliding at the knees rule. The intention of all those other rules is to reduce congestion, stoppages and packs and create more open play and increase scoring. Some would say the intention of these changes is to 'improve' the spectacle which is what the author wants. The coaches are actively trying to slow down and congest the game and reduce scoring; the administrators are actively trying to counteract the coaches and keep the game open and free-flowing. It is frustrating but that's life. The stakes are too high for coaches to think about entertainment in preference to winning.

That's fair enough but you would think making everyone wear a helmet would be the most logical decision for that. Not that I want that but it makes sense. That still doesn't explain the new deliberate interpretations, 3rd man up, 10 metre zone on the mark, new rushed behind interpretation and so on. Those are just the new rules from this season and last. what on earth will the game be like in a few decades if they keep introducing rules like this every year. It's hard enough for everyone to understand now. They are making all this effort to expand the game to the eastern states and internationally when the biggest problem even 10 years ago, was trying to explain the rules to a newcomer

Bit narrow-minded unfortunately. Large numbers of cases of brain-damaged and early-death footballers in the USA blaming concussion. The AFL has to respond or be sued themselves for negligence. Rules to protect the head, punish any head-high contact and enforce concussion protocols are one example of rules that have to be changed not to improve the game - but ensure it is immune from a massive class-action law suit. There can be more than one reason a rule is changed.

Speak up, I can't hear you.

NEXT THEY WILL STOP THE GAME`S EVERY MOVE LIKE THEY DO IN THIS DOPY GAME THEY CALL FOOTBALL HERE IN THE STATES. EVERY MOVE HERE THE UMPIRES CHAT ABOUT IT, AND THE HEAD UMPIRE SHOUTS IT OUT SO ALL THE SPECTATORS CAN HEAR THE RESULT, AND IT TAKES 5 MINUTES TO RESTART THEIR CRAZY STUPID GAME THEY CALL FOOTBALL. I AM DREADING THE START OF THE SEASON HERE WHICH IS A FEW MONTHS AWAY YET,BUT THEY ARE GOING THROUGH ALL THEIR RECRUITING AND SEE HOW MANY MILLIONS EACH PLAYER FROM ALL THE CLUBS CAN GET FOR THE COMING SEASON.. THANK GOODNESS FOR THE CHOMECAST SO I CAN WATCH EVERY GAME LIVE IN AUSTRALIA. .THIS STUPID GAME IN THE USA IS STUPID AND YOU NEED TO HAVE NO BRAINS AND PLENTY OF BRAUN TO EVEN THINK TO PLAY IT.THE QUARTERBACK IS THE ONLY PROTECTED PLAYER PLAYING ,BUT EVERYBODY GETS CLEANED UP AS THE GAME GETS GOING. NO WONDER IT TAKES 4-5 HOURS TO PLAY AS ALL THE DOWN TIME IS ADDED ON.

Perfect article mate. What ever happened to them trialling rules for a few years in the preseason before introducing them. The lawmakers need to realise that they don't have to change something every single year. I think that they think they have to so they can keep their job. What on earth will the game look like in 40-100 years when they keep making a few new rules each year

I beleive that the major problem with the current rules is the fact that we have three umpires each with a diffrent interpretation of the rules which in a lot of cases can give the impression that one or more of the umpires are favouring one team over another. The game would be improved if we got rid of the rugby style of every one on top of the player when the ball comes to ground. I suggest that the third player third player on top is penalised this would speed the game up and the ball would come out of the pack quicker . Wouldnt it be lovely if we could return to the past one ump more high marks one on one contests sorry i'm dreaming.