The new rules aren't that bad, but what impact will they have?

We’ve had a few days now to dissect and discuss the new rules that the AFL will introduce next season. And the verdict of them seems to be that they’re not as bad as they could have been.

But what will they change, if anything?

It’s very interesting that the AFL is promoting the changes as ones which will reduce ‘delay’, not increase scoring.

To quote Competition Committee member David Rath, “Scoring hasn’t been at the forefront of what we’re trying to do. We’ve referenced the fact scoring has declined, but the measures we’ve put in place were not centred around the idea of, ‘We want to increase scoring’.”

This is smart by the committee because, on their own, the new rules may not increase scoring. And if they don’t, it could look like change for change sake. Linking the rule changes to a notion of ‘delay’ is very clever.

Delay is hard for a layperson to measure. I’m sure the AFL has measures which they’ll be able to point to after the rules have been implemented, but the general public won’t. But let’s cut out the corporate speak – these rule changes are about increasing scoring, by reducing the efforts of some teams to defend.

But, that said, the changes are not revolutionary nor do they threaten the soul of the game as other proposals would have.

The goal square rule is an interesting compromise, and one that is certainly better than what was being proposed. The removal of the requirement to kick to yourself when leaving the goal square actually seems eminently sensible.

It was simply a hangover from older times, and the new rule brings it in line with every other free kick that gets paid.

The new rule will certainly increase the tactics that are available to players kicking out, and decrease a teams ability to shutdown a kicker. But, teams defending the kickout will also have many options, if they want to try to close down the kick, or defend further out.

This is a good rule, and it’s very surprising that the AFL did not make public that this was ever being proposed. It also keeps the ground markings the same as they are now, which is a definite positive.

Sam Weideman kicks the ball. (AAP Image/Julian Smith)

Once again allowing a ruckman to take possession of the ball out of a ruck contest without fear of an immediate ‘holding the ball’ call is an interesting change, especially as that rule was created in order to decrease continual ruck contests (and by extension, delay), where a ruckman could just take possession and then be immediately tackled over and over.

But, the AFL clearly want the ruckman to have a greater role in the game, and allowing them more freedom at ruck contests will definitely increase their importance – but also stop teams from nominating a smaller ruck to try to exploit the ruck nomination rule. Since a ruckman can now take possession, teams will want to actually contest, rather than allowing an uncontested clearance by the opposition ruckman.

Now we come to the 6-6-6 rule, and it remains a problem. It’s a problem because it’s a compromise, it both goes too far, and not far enough, and as such it will annoy people who don’t see any need for change and won’t do much to actually solve any congestion issue.

It seems to be the first move in a plot to fully introduce zones into the game, where a certain number of players must remain in the two fifties at all times, rather than just at centre bounces.

How long this will take is up to the AFL. It’s however long it takes for the public to become comfortable and accepting of the new 6-6-6 rule, and open to the idea of extending it.

The weirdest part of the new rule remains the requirement for an attacker and defender to start in the goal square at each centre bounce.

Since they are allowed to leave the square as soon as the ball is bounced, what is the point? It’s also unenforceable, because an umpire cannot have their eyes on the bounce and the goal square at the same time.

So unless it’s a blatant breach or the umpire guesses, the rule will not be enforced.

As for the 6-6-6 rule as a whole, it will be interesting to see if it changes the game at all, and whether teams actually have to change their structures much to deal with it.

The most obvious change will be a team not being allowed to drop a player back and play a spare man in defence. This will certainly make defending a lead more difficult, and might bring back high scoring full forwards.

Will the rule changes lead to more 100-goal seasons? (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)

It might however have the opposite effect, as power forwards might have less space to work with. For example, in the first half of their Round 23 match against St Kilda, North Melbourne very successfully played only four forwards.

By opening up space for Ben Brown, he was allowed to dominate the front half, and arguably should have kicked five goals by half time.

Had the new rule been in place, he would have had much less space to work with, and would have had much less impact. But, it will still be interesting to see how this rule plays out.

The new rules will definitely have an impact, but we won’t know how much of one until at least a few games have been played.

If scoring increases at all, the AFL will herald it a success. But if they have little impact, the AFL will almost certainly look to extend them into rules that threaten the freedom of movement that is the hallmark of Australian football.