What will the rule changes mean?

Well the way I look at it..if you get four points no matter how many goals you get then that is a different method to just keeping the score itself (Goalsonly if you will)... It's the difference between rewarding the winner (four points) while punishing the loser (percentage goes down) and simply rewarding ALL the goals scored in the game.. It sounds silly in isolation ..it's only when you look at the whole competition and how an ultra defensive coach for example Ross Lyon (great coach) can engineer lower scoring throughout the game and walk away with the four points.. Yet another game is high scoring and spectacular and the same reward (four points) applies. You see the object of the game is to score goals. (obviously) A hell of a lot of footy is played even when the winner is already pretty well known ( there are exceptions like Gold Coast and Sydney this year but they prove the rule). This is often the case even before the first bounce. But people still play anyway and that is because the game is not really about just winning and losing. Why do they play Footy if it's not just about winning. Take your pick; fun, pleasure, challenge, learning, social, fitness... (Sporting games are one of the most important parts of our whole society.) So even with the idea of winning off the table the overriding object of the game persists and that is to score goals. You can't win but you can still score goals and that is enough reason to keep playing because that basically is the game and not the winning. But the tabling of the results by and large ignores how many goals and just rewards the winner so the GAME SUFFERS. The reason the game suffers is the over preoccupation with defensive mechanisms. Just to repeat myself the four points rewards are exaggerated beyond the scoreboard...22 goals v 21 goals reduces to four points v minus percentage. 8 goals v 5 goals gives the same reward. There's nothing wrong with the four point system, obviously it has been used for a long time largely unquestioned and unexamined. It's just not the most accurate reflection system of what actually happened on the field and how the game was played. It reduces it down to WIN and LOSS unnecessarily. The four point system IS good for the drama as it raises stakes but there is a huge price to pay for the loser as one bad umpiring decision or lucky play can quite easily affect you finals chances. For Example if a team scores about 300 goals a year, one goal does not make too much difference (if all goals count on the ladder) but if that goal costs four points then that's more like a one in thirteen chance of affecting the position on the ladder. So the four points system is about 25 times more punishing than if the goals were tallied on the ladder. The four points system also encourages defensive mindsets and lower scoring. The way I have heard Ross Lyon and others explain it is that the creative side of the game is natural but risky. Because it is natural it does not have to be coached as vigorously. Coaching teams to play defensively together is the real job. Once they can do that then start to work on the attack strategies and that is largely dictated by the individual players you have. Anyway I'm getting off the point. The point is that the four point system and it's effect on the game is worth questioning. Does describing results as merely winning and losing have an effect on the play? Have we missed the best of players like Gary Ablett Jr by not rewarding high scoring more? If we don't let our (deserved) elite shine brightest does that affect sporting participation and society as a whole? It's all in the numbers and they are one mighty powerful MTHFKN symbols. Why not let the match numbers (goals) be the defining ones?

Interpretations will play a bigger role than rule changes. Incorrect disposal is the golden ticket- besides the throws, the “knocked out in the tackle” is the biggest load of junk that simply causes rolling mauls.

When has the aim isn’t kicking as many goals as you can? Pretty sure it’s scorig more than your opponent?

Kick outs - which defenders will have the balls to take on the man on the mark? 10mtr to sprint, can imagine a Zac williams blowing by a stationary tall. Umpires and hitouts - it actually creates an empty zone to hit to. Guys won’t be able to line up behind the umpire but I imagine many will be streaming into the space behind him once the ball goes up. Ruck change - understand the “repeat stoppage” issue but at the same time creating a clearance is easier if the ruck can take it and hack it forward.

I’m fine with all of them except the banana after the siren crap, that’s a joke.

It must almost be time for the obligatory off season “transvestites in AFL “ story .

Low scoring, congestion and slow play make for unspectacular footy which is hurting the brand as it seeks to expand. These rules are all geared to enable free flowing play and goal scoring. However the reason why the game is often played in these negative ways is the defensive mindset of the coaches chasing the tabling system reward of four points over the natural rewards of THE GAME which is of course quite simply kicking as many goals as you can. These adjustments all look good on paper and I am looking forward to higher scoring, more space and skills. But there is more than one way to skin a cat... Counting goals on the ladder and doing away with the clerical complication of the four points would be a more accurate determination of excelling at the game as it was intended.

will put more emphasis on keeping veteran players on each line to provide on field coaching

the idiotic ticky touch fairy touches in the back was the dumbest rule ever brought in to start with. Most of the time defenders were simply protecting themselves. good to see some commonsense for a change.

IMO runners should be only allowed on the field after a goal and then must be off the field before the next bounce. Runners block space intentionally. I like to see a clean field of play. Rule 7 is stupid

Rule 7 is the one I dislike the most. I just don't know why it's necessary that we need to allow players to be off the line of the mark. The old system works fine, go round the corner if you want, but the minute you get off the line, it's play on.

Maybe they'll stop pinging players for "blocking" now when they're actually protecting their space to take a mark.

More rule changes to help forwards. The poor old defenders have no chance. I thought we were going to see a simplification of the rules, not more rules to fix the broken rules. I can't fathom the kick-in rule; it is a fundamental change to the game. Rather than fix the problem by applying the current rules correctly and getting rid of rules that add to congestion (eg. the ruck nomination rule) the AFL have just muddied the water yet again. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that the AFL wants to keep umpiring open to interpretation as much as they can because it allows them to manipulate the flow of the game through the umpires. There are two positives though: - getting all of the runners and drink carriers off the ground is a good thing - stopping all the niggle and carry-on when a player gets a 50m penalty is a good thing. There are four things I would have changed that they didn't that would open the game up without changing the fundamentals of it: - got rid of the abomination that is the ruck nomination. It's the most completely unnecessary rule in the game. The umpire can count to two; they know if a third man has jumped. It just slows the game down and is unnecessary bureaucracy. - got rid of the protected space 50m penalty. There's actually no infringement on the player with the ball, so the penalty is completely unjust. - Relax the need for players to get back over the mark in the back half of the ground. You see it time and again; a player takes a mark, gets almost back to his mark, kicks to a player who is clear, and then the ball is called back and he's made to take one more step to his side to kick over the mark. Meanwhile, the opposition players have all formed their zone and play stagnates. Make them get within a metre of the mark only; this pedantic interpretation of the rules just punishes the player with the free kick. It's not needed in any other ball sport; it's not needed in this sport. - Take away prior opportunity when tackled. This would immediately stop the repeat ball-ups. Simple, effective.

Prior to the hands in the back rule umpires didn't enforce the push in the back rule.

Doubtful, the player would basically have to take themselves out of play for a period. Any advantage from getting instructions are going to be outweighed by playing a man down for a period.

Getting runners and water carriers off the field during play is the single best rule change to happen in the game, possibly ever. Will we see an increase in 'medical situations' though, with medical staff ostensibly coming out to tend to an 'injured' player, but really just delivering instructions?

Agree with Paul here, it actually makes umpiring easier. It was the one rule I truly loathed. We can have a little bit more of a show of strength now a la Carey/Jakovich days. Also like the starting positions, think it will be mildly beneficial and produce slightly more scoring. You should never be able to snap for goal post siren though, that is a disgrace and your right, it goes against the fabric of the game.

What a non article! Some very good changes here. I hope the AFL also applies stricter interpretation to holding the ball, incorrect disposal and in the back (riding someone into the ground or jumping on them). Quickest way to stop congestion is pay a free kick sooner as happened mid way through this year. Except for the GF!

Being able to protect your space is an essential part of playing as a leading forward. The hands in the back made this near impossible as you couldn't use your hands to move an opponent coming into your space. This rule will prevent players blocking space not only on forwards but on defensive players trying to exit the backline. More importantly it will allow players leading in to contest for a mark to be able to protect the space. As far as interpretation it will be easier as umps will look to see if the defender is holding his space and is pushed forward or is moving back into the leaders space, if it is the later bad luck no free. Love the ruck grabbing the ball from the ruck too. Umps will call ruckman who do not release ball quickly, if opposition team tackle high to grapple the contest that is their decision no free against the ruck. The situation is the ruckman will grab and move the ball quickly. Also the snap on goal out of the Ruck will be back.