AFL may trial controversial rule changes later this season

Spot on with the last part of your reply Dalgety. Only penalise if they actually interfere with the player. They should have this reasoning for every rule. That applied perfectly to the protected zone rule when it was only 5 metres, if someone intruded on the player it was a 50. It worked then, it worked perfectly then, it was not an issue. Players still avoided the player after a mark exactly as they do now. Unfortunately with the new 10m rule they are getting penalised when they have absolutely no intention of disrupting the player. No player in any sport should ever be punished for not trying to break a rule nor effecting the play at all. The 50 metre penalty is actually the biggest punishment we have in AFL and it’s payed for nothing, it’s absurd. I’m only focusing on this rule because it’s been an absolute balls-up and instead of just retracting the rule they are talking about adding 6 new ones. AFL in 2035 will have 100s of rules and will plain and simply not be as exciting as the game is today! High scoring games aren’t interesting when the majority of goals are from free kicks. We can just ask rugby union how that’s been going for them

It's actually a pretty good rule. It's just (probably) been communicated poorly and (definitely) executed in a not so good way. The idea of opening up space for players to play on more freely at marking contests is a well-targeted strategy at flushing congestion. The umpires don't seem to get how to apply it consistently, while a lot of players can't get it in their highly resistant skulls they should deviate around the area immediately. Both of those things could take time to rectify. In the meantime, 50m is too harsh a penalty. Something like a 15m or 25m penalty would be more suitable until the rule is better understood and bedded down. There are also other possibilities, like only penalising the opposition player if the actually interfere with the flow of the ball until after it has left the area (so they could run through there, but if they touch the ball or tackle a player in that area they get penalised).

Is that an actual question? I don’t know. But I do know that 1 is more then is required for a rule that doesn’t effect the game at all. The first game of the year had about 6 for that rule alone. It is just completely unnecessary. The player isn’t purposely breaking the rule and it doesn’t effect the flow of play in the slightest, even when the rule is broken but not paid. Whenever a 50 is paid everyone floods back in front of the ball. This crazy rule changing nonsense is ruining the game and all in the name of stopping congestion. Why not get rid of that rule before introducing another confusing one

The game is not in good hands

How many 50s are paid in the average AFL game ?

STOP CHANGING THE RULES. If you wanna stop congestion retract the 10 metre protected zone rule so 50metre penalties aren’t payed which creat congestion

Perry the rule change committee according to McLachlan started with 43 changes on a whiteboard they have gradually taken back to 6.

TTF in case you haven't been watching players have got fitter and coaches have got smarter, we have outgrown the original rules that made the game great. So yes one can lament the past and call for change.

Absolutely.

i agree two umpires is enough ,they changed to 3 trialed 4 what next 5. What does need changing is Gil and Hocking.

Meh, rules can be changed.

You and I know the two sports cant be compared. One is a game which allows all types to express themselves and the other is a hoax. One is a game of pure tactics and technique and the other a hoax. One is a game where pure skill is exhibited and the other a hoax.

That's where I reckon they need to adjudicate the old rules correctly - jumping on a bloke who's tackling someone else on the ground is clearly in the back, and should be a free kick. Many players get tackled without the ball now; that's a free kick. There's so many throws and over the head handballs now - they're all throws and are free kicks. I actually think that there's too many umpires, and they're looking for too many free kicks, but they're looking in the wrong places, and they get in the way of the players. I'd go back to two umpires and have them focus on the right areas not, for example, defenders putting their arms around players and chopping the arms. What I'm proposing is pretty much going back to the way the game was umpired before the AFL started meddling. It's back to the future - the rules and umpiring stay the same so that the game evolves naturally through tactics and team selection, not through the AFL's manipulation.

The No change group have released a statement regarding their opposition to any further rule changes in the future of football. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwMVMbmQBug

Once upon a time we had the kick-off square/rectangle. We didn't have 'behind posts' but there were two kick off posts outside of the goal posts. For whatever reason the 'kick-off' square shrunk to be ONLY the goal square. It would be ironic for that to expand again however - - it is not a silly idea to reconsider its role. That said - I tend to agree, that the 'reward' for conceding a behind can be too great and encourages our version of the 'off-side' trap. You'd rather concede a behind if 3 points down than an out of bounds deep in defense - clearly. At very least I believe 'rushed' behinds should be 'rewarded' with a ball up 25 metres out from goal (the old 'hot spot'). So - a neutral contest in the MOST dangerous part of the ground. But - that creates another stoppage so doesn't fit the anti-clogging mantra.

IAP- i am one of the oldies who called to abolish these stupid new rules in and i think the the majority of the young agree. Plus the umpires pay the free kick before they all just jump on top of one another like grade 3 schoolkids it has long been out of hand. It is not necessary to tackle and throw players on the ground, which never happened (in the old days) hence all the ugly congestion. Without being critical of umpires they need to be taught better, umpire to the rules a little more focus on that area would help i am sure. it is critical to cut the interchange, or at least cut it down to after the three breaks it will slow the out of control concussion rate .Forget making up all these stupid ongoing changes.

The Goal square extension is an idea out-of-the-blue which hasn't been discussed much. My concern is that it makes it a greater advantage to deliberately concede a point (the umpires rarely apply the rule and it's easy to disguise). The team with the kick in will be provide a greater advantage as it will be easier to move the ball into your forward half. Surely you need to reward the attacking team. When defending a few point lead the team in front is more likely to just maintain procession around the ground rather than risk kicking a point. This procession game is bad enough and this rule makes it worse.

Sometimes we AFL folk are a little narrow minded. Look at the game of Rugby Union - 10 years ago it was the ELVs - the 'Experimental Law Variations' (aka the Stellenbosch Laws) - started out with 23 variations, ended up globally trialing 13 ELVs and the IRB ended up signing off on 10. They had been designed by the "Laws Project Group" set up a couple of years earlier. Could you imagine if the current AFL group think suggest 23 variations? Well - perhaps they've considered more than that. And perhaps they should have. The IRB weren't done with yet - last year another 6 law changes - came into play from Aug 1 last year in the Northern Hemisphere - they have Tests being played under trial laws - - so, not a Mickey Mouse pre-season comp. The interesting thing with the AFL suggestions presently - something like the 6-6-6 is a chance to return to the days where the selected side lining up in positions in the Friday morning paper might again carry some meaning?? (I used to LOVE the Friday paper!!). However - the 6-6-6 is a minor impact to a degree - although 6 each inside the 50m arc does create a fair bit of space......out wide!!! Will 5 of each side be starting ringed around the arc? The quickest runners required to sprint hard up into the middle? But that only applies at the start of a quarter and after a goal. That's NOT really an area of congestion concern at present OTHER than if a team actually starts at that point with a bus parked in the opposition forward line. The anti clogging as the game progresses is of more interest. There are rules that have been trialed over recent years in under 18 comps - in SA in particular - and while I'm no fan of the last touch rule trialed in the SANFL - I have heard good things about the anti clogging efforts there. So - it might be worth a try. Whatever is done - keep it simple. No imaginary 'off-side' style rules. But - worth remembering, up until late in the 1800s our game still started with a kick off, and the centre diamond that became the centre square was only introduced in 1973. That was an anti-clogging initiative. But gee - look at the rule changes about 120 years ago, some are clearly trying to overcome players trying to manipulate 'loopholes' while others are about game improvement (worth remembering that the 'header' in soccer is there due to a 'loophole' as it was never the design of the game): 1889 Player kicking off from centre required to cover a minimum forward distance of 18.2m. Goal umpires required to inform field umpire of all scoring decisions. Players unnecessarily delaying disposal from marks or kick-offs were deprived of possession and a ball-up resulted. 1891 Introduction of centre bounce after every goal as well as at the start of quarters. The distance of the behind posts from the goal posts decreased from 9.1m to 6.4m. 1897 The ‘little mark’ abolished. Free kick for push from behind introduced. Present scoring system introduced – six points for a goal and one point for a behind

" . . . in order to get footy back to what it was', whaaaaaat? You've been criticising 'old timers' for pining over 70s footy and being resistant to change in one breath and then waxing lyrical about Daicos and his counterparts in another because apparently these rule changes will see a return to that style of footy. Are you confused?

I've come to the realisation that it's no simple thing to get rid of ruck nominations. If they do, then they have to get rid of the rule against blocking the ruck, since there'd be no way of knowing who the ruck is n the contest prior to them actually competing for the hit out. This is the thing that Angus Brayshaw got pinged for against Geelong when he prevented Dangerfield from contesting the ruck. And this happened because he didn't hear that Dangerfield had nominated for the ruck. Imagine what it would be like if there was no nomination. You could argue that Brayshaw could just as easily have been penalised for holding the man, but conventionally blocking includes a broader range of acts than holding.