In its bid to reduce unsightly congestion, the AFL has moved a step closer to introducing the 6-6-6 positioning rule for centre bounces and doubling the length of the goalsquare.
The final call now rests with the AFL Commission after the competition committee decided on Thursday to recommend the two changes.
The commission will also decide on a crackdown on runners and water carriers, plus eight rule interpretations.
Any confirmed changes will be announced next month.
The rule interpretations are part of a project by the competition committee to half the size of the game’s rule book over the next 12 months.
The 6-6-6 rule and larger goalsquare were trialled in three VFL games.
The commission will discuss the proposals at its next meeting on the day of the Brownlow Medal, with any changes made official by next month.
“It’s the commission’s decision from here,” said AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking.
“It’s been pretty obvious – the main things have been the 6-6-6 centre bounce set up (and) the goalsquare.”
The main aim of 6-6-6 – which involves teams having six players in each of their defensive and forward arcs and six in the midfield at each centre bounce – and the larger goalsquare, is to open up play.
Hocking said scoring was up 15 per cent across the three trial games and tackling went down by 14 per cent.
“As far as midfielders go (with 6-6-6), there was more time – seconds longer – for decision making,” Hocking said.
“If we showed you the vision, you’d be surprised with the difference it makes – that person coming off the square is no longer there.
“How do we prise the game open and have risk v reward? We want to see more volatile space.”
The 6-6-6 rule means the two wingers must start each centre bounce on the edge of the centre square, plus at least one player must be in the goalsquare.
In terms of rule interpretations, Hocking said the controversial ruck nomination process is likely to stay “unless you have something you can throw at me that blows us away”.
The competition committee wants to crack down on incorrect disposal under the holding the ball rule.
“The player who’s actually contesting the ball, that person has to be protected, definitely,” Hocking said.
“Incorrect disposal is the issue we have … that’s crept into the game.
“We’re not going to sit idle and let players throw the ball ”
There will be tighter restrictions on team runners and water carriers, with the committee keen to keep them off the ground during play.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
I know, I reckon you're ok Richie, it's the other Nuff Nuffs in here that are a worry! Who are your tips this week Richie?
Confused
Guest
Only 3 That is way below average for all teams, especially those that play the Ugly Style.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
Thank you for the feedback. I do respect your creativity. Re your theoretical Theoretically a team could lose all their games but still make the finals. Just kick 20 goals each week and to hell with defence yes that may happen, I'd like to see more numbers in your summation as it would be the story of the year. What's next.... nudge and a wink coaches conspiring to create 40 goals in a match by engineering an all out shoot out so both can make the finals. Excellent point... I can be a little naive about true motivations, again an unlikely scenario but I'll concede until I think it through. Of course because you are competing in goal scoring against all teams all the time the whole season would be a bit like an engineered shootout...it would be more of the same in a way. Next up we have ..... You need a winner and loser in each match.. You would still have each in all matches the higher score wins of course that don't change a bit... In Kids games they don't even score but they still know who won and lost...it's a bit of an insult to everyone to think that four points is the driver in that scenario...winning and losing is the nature of competing...how you play and how you table the results are the interesting variables. then we have..... 6 month match with 21 intermissions Excellent forsight. I agree the whole thing would have more of a 'carnival' feel with free scoring being the new AFL product so to speak. All the matches would still be separated though. As for crowd numbers dropping off because footy loses it's 'winner take all' winners and losers...Yes I agree some of the crowds would come and go a bit but many more could be intrigued by the capitol of the sporting world inspired scoring revolution. This revolution would be a trade off.... you gain things and you lose things.... so even though you have made me question my proposal with things I hadn't thought of I am still more convinced it is a better showcase of the true nature of the game. More sporty, less warlike.
RT
Roar Rookie
This idea is flawed on so many levels. Theoretically a team could lose all their games but still make the finals. Just kick 20 goals each week and to hell with defence. A more likely scenario is that 2 average teams line up in the last round or so, both needing 20 goals to keep in touch with the 8. A bit of a nudge and wink between coaches and you can bet both would score their 20 goals. And then some others would do it and the competition would be a farce. You need a winner and loser in each match but your idea turns the whole home and away season into a 6 month match with 21 intermissions. What an anti-climax each "win" would be and people would soon turn away.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
Record the goals on the ladder as the way of determining ladder positions. If you win you get your goals however many. Lose and you keep your goals as well. Winners and Losers are still part of the culture. They are just not as practical in the tabling numbers from an incentive to high score point of view.
RT
Roar Rookie
And you still have not articulated exactly what you want.
RT
Roar Rookie
See Peter, sometimes we agree on stuff!
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
and what?
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
The AFL have become a farce...any sports seeing what Greene does will be laughing at us if the umpires don't do something about it.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Richie, that is exactly what I was doing. Umps are just bad full stop.
RT
Roar Rookie
And.....?
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
It wasn't really a kick, but a fend (the bulk of the force came from the player running in). It would also be very difficult to create a workable law that doesn't also penalise a number of spectacular marks.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
Its the tabling on the ladder I am talking about. That happens after all the winning and losing is done. It 's done after the game in a little tally room somewhere away from the game. The winning and losing happens on the field.
RT
Roar Rookie
What is incomprehensible is working out what you are proposing. Yesterday in another article you implied we should just measures goals on the ladder not the 4 points. Now you are saying there will still be wins and losses.
RT
Roar Rookie
Maybe Peter is just pointing out Brian's original comment about Richmond is silly. Umpires miss a lot for all teams.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
No he said that was one of the findings, the purpose is to clear congestion. More volatile space, hmm sounds like a science project. You can make copious changes to the game itself or one little change to the ladder...hmmmm Why the big silence on this one? If goals were the indicator of on field action recorded on the ladder then all the defensive tactics would have to disappear. Because if you spend all your energy cancelling the oppositions play you are not scoring yourself and another game might be a high scoring affair and you still go backwards in the greater scheme. Goals on the ladder means a greater shared responsibility for both teams to be part of a higher scoring contest. That would be the general community focus of all teams. Don't worry there will still be winners and losers. I don't see how you could ever change that. The AFL are symptomatic of greater culture of being seen to do the right thing while really not changing much at all. It's a great game always but it could be beautiful too.
Kane
Roar Rookie
What a silly comment, sounding like a sore loser. Where's the comment on the 15 odd (only a guess, probably a higher number) things that Collingwood done illegally and got away with in the same game Pete, or did Collingwood play the perfect game?
Martin
Roar Rookie
Certainly there seems to be a loophole that needs to be urgently outlawed before this Saturday's match between GWS and Collingwood.
SirMaxalot
Guest
5 days on from the game, I'm calling sour grapes. The age-old footy saying, 'Open your other eye' applies very well to your constant carping about the umpiring in last week's game.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
The priority of the report is to get scoring up that is what Steve hocking said are you with me so far?