AFL rule changes spoken into existence

My wife and I are stateside fans, so perhaps our reactions don't carry a lot of weight, but we've been watching the preseason games and find the effect of the rules, particularly the mandatory positioning of players at the center bounce, completely destructive of the game. We're watching matches where the scores are in the 100s by the third quarter. We want footy, not a track meet. The AFL wants 6-6-6? Fine. But there is no good reason consistent with the history and nature of the game to spread the field the way these rules require. Without the element of strong challenges around the ball -- which the new rules have virtually eliminated -- it isn't footy. Period. American football made the same mistake, regularly changing the rules to favor the offense, and almost destroyed the game. I'm seriously afraid I see the same thing happening to footy, and believe me it will make it impossible for people like us, as well as people we have been bringing to enjoy the sport, to stick with it. Sad to say that, but it's true. The "spread the field" concept just has to go.

I do not see a great outcome for the bigger goals square in practice. Congestion is related to the number of players in a given area. Coaches will simply move the zones back about 8 metres. The boundary lines are almost parallel to each other at the wings so the area defenders will have to cover is not really going to be very different if team opt for long kick outs. However, what will become easier is a full back kicking the ball to himself and playing on. The other thing that is likely to become easier is the 30 - 40 meter kick in because it will be harder for the defenders at the back of the zone to cover forward. If I was a coach I would be encouraging kick into the pocket by putting two defenders on either side of the square to cover the play on kick and collapsing the defensive zone forward if a mark was taken in the pocket. One of the factors that makes kick ins easier to defend is requiring that the ball be kicked. If play could be started with a bounce or hand pass as soon as all clear is signalled, the speed on getting the ball back into play would probably be sufficient to beat the zone. If umpires simple got the ball bounced or frown up faster, much of the congestion would never occur because players would not get to the contest in time. So don't wait for the ruck, no nominations just make it fast.

The AFL can't undo what they have done. It's to do with the corporate branding. The marketing people haven't worked out how to undo bad things while not attracting negative comments. They are the smartest people in the AFL but that one is too hard even for them. It's so much more preferable to change something else in a positive way such as the the rule changes currently under discussion. It looks like the square change is gone for next season. There were ideas in 'THE ROAR' that teams would start to bail out with 20 metre backward kicks to opposition goals just to get the extended kick out. That would not be a good look for the game.

Why do they have to keep adding rules - why dont they simply remove some of the stupid rules that are ruining the game. The protected zone is one of the most stupid ill thought out rules ever. The deliberate out of bounds makes no sense - they are paying it to players who miss kick into their attacking forward for f%#$s sake. The sliding rule is over umpired - the umpires are always too quick on the whistle - sometimes the ball is coming free and they ahev already blown the whistle. Gone are the old shirt front and the proposed goal alley will have unintended consequences that will punish players who will go for low percentage checkside kicks rather than centering the ball - the reason - because the kick out from a point will be just too much of a disadvantage. What will happen with the old "lock it in the forward 50" - too bad for the teams where they worked so hard in training on doing that. The AFL wants to turn the game into a vanilla style game where every team fields the same type of players and plays the same - they want to get rid of the variation between games that makes individual teams unique.

Instead of adding rules on top of rules on top of rules the AFL would spend its time better to remove some of the ridiculous layers of rules that will return it to the game it use to be. It appears that all these new rules are just trying to fix the consequences of the rules they have prevously added when removing the rules would do the same job! Though the 6-6-6 trule is more palatable than a ridiculous goal alley they proposed to introduce - it is turning the game into a vanilla ame where every team is expected to field the same type of players and play the same type of game style which is exactly what will make it boring. They are better off keeping it the way it is, remove some of the already introduced rules and allow teams to recruit and train and play their unique style and allow teams and coaching to evolve naturally. The AFL is just so STUPID - leave the game alone - the only people complaining are the hournos and thats beacuse they are paid to say things regardless of if it makes sense or not.

Congestion does not happen when the the team with the ball is composed enough to be precise with their skills. So there is an emotional element that overrides technical rulings. Fearless football is really the ultimate motive. When both teams are a bit panicky and fumbly the look of the game is not a great spectacle no matter how well contested. "The game" vrs "winner take all"... if you like the look of the game then simply grinding out a win can get a bit ugly from an entertainment point of view. On blowouts .... people will turn off the TV if they think the game is over. Higher scoreing will lead to bigger margins so that's a culture clash right there. Business V Sport.. Lower scores means more close games and less TVs being turned off. So TV wants enough goals to have a few adds but not real high scores. Winning is all that counts on the ladder but it's not why people play sport. People who play 'win at all costs' are a pain to those more interested in the friendly rivalry workout true nature of sport. A lot of people don't play any sport at all. By simply adding up the wins of the ladder are we ignoring the game, even hurting the game? How else can we determine ladder positions and finals merit. The game has rewards it own merit system, theyre called goals. If we recorded the goals scored in the game on the ladder then everyone is on notice that the game is the important thing.

It seems to me that on this occasion, new rules are not being rushed in, as in the past, but we're taking our time considering them. I look at that as a great step forward.

Players have obviously been coached to exaggerate sliding contact by slumping or diving over a player in the same way soccers players exaggerate contact to draw penalties.

All I can say is this. From 1987 t0 about 2014 or so I was a big fan of rugby union. I grew up in Perth, played Aussie Rules as a kid, but moved to Brisbane as an adult, was drawn to the original world cup of the Rah Rahs, learned to love and appreciate the game, stayed up late at night to watch us play Scotland etc on the end of year tours. But around 2000 or so, they began to meddle seriously with the rules, every year came another rule change...over time, I became more and more exasperated as the interpretations were completely at odds with my understanding of the game. Ironically, in about 2009 I watched a bit of Shute Shield (Sydney club comp) and found it a better spectacle than international tests. By 2014 or thereabouts I was ready to give up completely on rugby, this was confirmed after watching a 6 nations game with my American brother in law in the USA, we were watching the 6 nations. He had become a fan of the game after I told him what a great game it was, he cursed ''goddamit, why does that guy keep blowing the whistle, cant he just let them play?" during one over refereed Wales v Scotland game... We gave up on the game at half time, went to a bar , had a few beers and began watching the UFC and a strange realization came over us, life was better not watching rugby. So I left rugby behind..no more stress, no more throwing things at the TV, no more google searches trying to uncover some obscure law to explain some inexplicable refereeing decision. Life is good...I returned with a passion to my first love Australian Rules Football.... Lo and behold... 5 years in... the administrators of the AFL want to ruin their great game the way rugby administrators ruined theirs... If that happens I guess I will take up fishing on the weekends. So my advice to the rule Nazis at AFL headquarters is this...''if you're thinking of changing the rules...don't, '' because when people who played the game as kids no longer understand it, they will stop taking their kids to watch it''

Thomo! Well written article and I agree with some but not all points as I have a few alternative suggestions: 1. As a mainly TV viewer, since I am overseas most of the year, I hate the ugly congestion for most of the season. I agree that the finals have been great viewing and some awesome football, but the large crowds are not due to the style of football but with the large memberships of the participating clubs. 2. The extended "square". I would prefer a 15m rather than 18m as the 18m is just too long. A 15m would reduce that oblong view while still helping to reduce congestion from lock in tactics and give more opportunity to a more open style game. However, I would prefer the goal square to remain as it is and reduce the playing field numbers to 16. The other two going to an extended interchange. What's the advantage? a. Players are complaining that the season is too long or that they have to spend too much time on the ground. Reducing the player on field number to 16 and increasing the interchange to 6 will have that effect as players will have less time on the field and keep players fresher. b. The second advantage is that there will be more openness on the field and that will also reduce the congestion - as it did in the VFL many years ago. This will create the more open and run style that excites the crowds watching AFL. 3. I'm OK with the 6-6-6 starting positions at centre bounces although I would prefer it to be limited to the first 3 centre bounces of the quarter. After that, do what you like. Even in cricket they have field restrictions for a limited number of overs. This would allow, perhaps, half of the quarter on the restricted rules and half in the more traditional style. 4. I absolutely agree that the holding the ball rule appears indiscriminate and needs better consistency. Also the 10m protective zone is inconsistently applied. It was brought in because of the "prowling" method that was congesting the play. So I feel the 10m could be reduced to 7m as long as it really is 7m. Even now, the so-called 10m is actually only 5m when players are on tight angles shooting for goal. It needs to be consistent. I have a few other thoughts but this is sufficient for now. Again - a good thought-provoking article.