Officiating in the AFL is about to reach breaking point, with a real danger that the rules and how they are adjudicated may start to significantly affect attendances.
While the AFL argue that the 6-6-6 rule-change has seen a better brand of football played, it certainly hasn’t increased scoring.
So here’s my two bob’s worth – eight simple changes that will improve the game.
Only one umpire per match bounces the ball
The required skill of bouncing the ball at the start of matches limits the talent pool from which the AFL can recruit.
While I can see why the AFL wants to maintain the bounce, only one umpire can ever do it at any one time, so let’s have one bouncer and two other umpires.
This means a larger group of potential umpires to choose from, which will surely lead to better officiating.
In ruck contests, let the two ruckmen do (essentially) whatever they want
Most free kicks in ruck contests fall somewhere between highly technical and inexplicable. So, unless the action is dangerous or a clear free kick (like one ruckman tackling the other before the ball is thrown up), let them do whatever.
A little hold with the off arm, leaning in the back, a look at the opponent before initiating contact: all fine.
Amend the third man up rule to ensure one ruckman from each team contests
This one seems like common sense. None of this nominating malarkey.
In marking contests, a total prohibition on blocking off the ball
This would free up scoring. At the moment, when we see two defenders on one forward, one defender ensures the forward can’t contest, while the other takes an uncontested mark.
Let’s put an end to that and give the forward the opportunity to contest the ball.
Once this free kick is paid all the time, scoring will increase (and we may get another 100 goals-in-a-season forward).
Lance Franklin (AAP Image/Julian Smith)
For the deliberately rushed behind, make a different player kick it in
This rule was created as the sledgehammer to smash the peanut. Let defenders rush behinds again, but the player who rushed it shouldn’t be allowed to kick it in, thus slowing the play. Problem solved.
Penalise players who tackle the tackler
This would stop packs forming. Only the player with the ball can be tackled – you can’t grab the bloke doing the tackling if he’s on the other team.
Change the deliberate out of bounds rule to ‘sole intent’
This one is about making the game easier to umpire. One of the big problems with officiating is the difficulty, with umpires regularly being asked to judge what is going through a player’s mind.
While this doesn’t completely fix this problem, it sure makes the rule easier for umpires to adjudicate (along with the proposed change to the deliberate rushed behind rule above).
And finally…
Let one umpire overrule another if they have a better view
Sometimes an umpire pays a push or a high-contact free, but it is clear that there was no free from another viewpoint.
Umpires should be able to discuss these ones if the non-controlling umpire has a better perspective.
Put all these suggested rule changes together and the game would improve.
deano
Roar Rookie
you two can start a club, coz you've obviously done the same. try reading slowly, out loud maybe.
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
I don’t believe he has. I agree with him. It’s a ridiculous suggestion. Doesn’t even qualify as an “idea”.
RT
Roar Rookie
As Clarko said last year, instead of coming up with new rules to ease congestion, enforce the rules we already have. Go further to get rid of prior opportunity and players would stop handling to a teammate one metre away, who will be immediately tackled for a ball up. The game would open up. Also agree with the article around deliberate. Opposition don't generally cover the boundary line because everyone is too concerned to kick it there, meaning a greater concentration of players in the corridor.
Billy Mumphrey
Roar Rookie
No no no. In our wonderful game the ball needs to go through the goals without interference to be a goal. If it is touched or hits the post then a behind is called. This is the way it is and should always be.
The Footy Guy
Guest
Get rid of this ruck nominating, besides that the game is fine as it is. If we keep on tinkering with things it creates more problems and they are more ways to exploit things and find loopholes like we see coaches and senior figures in football clubs do all the time. For once let's just keep the game as it is. Something like midseason trading would make things a lot worse. The great thing about trade period offseason is it allows people to fully comprehend what's gone on and is better for player welfare and makes it easier for the players to move as they have a month or so.
Andrew Lewis
Roar Rookie
When I was growing up, shepherding was something you did when your team had their hands on the ball. Happens more now in marking contests (when the ball is in the air rather than in a team's possession) than in general play.
Grand-Dag
Guest
There is one rule which has never been discussed in AFL - and that is 'The Send Off Rule' I played lacrosse for 30 years and the send off rule worked really well. There was a grade of times for the adjudicated severity of the infringement - 1 minute up to 5 minutes. Once it got above that it was a reportable offence. Time started once you sat in the penalty box and would stop for along with normal timing delays such as goals, out of bounds etc. This penalised the side as well as the player and instantly created a graduated scale of penalty to suit the crime. I know it will not happen but it is quite a good system.
Grand-Dag
Guest
No point in only having one ball bouncing umpire - would not change anything. Ruck duels have become a joke - just two blokes standing next to each other to see who can reach the highest. Let them do what ever they want apart from biting. Nominating the ruckman is a fail experiment - get rid of it. I think the opposite about 'blocking' off the ball - 'shepherding' used to be a prized skill and it allows a team-mate to benefit whilst reducing the ability of the opposition - and it is so difficult to judge half of the decisions made using this rule. Players should be able to rush behinds as a legitimate way of stopping goals - they do it anyway and are never penalised for it. Too many variations on the situations where change the 'tackler being tackled' is a legitimate play, or not being able to have a distinct, easy ruling. Leave it as it is. I think there is some confirmation discussion between umpires now and so if there is a 'disputed' decision who is going to finally decide, and quickly. I don't think this should be a rule but up to the umpires co-operation. Apart from that I don't have an opinion! Same as above - players are doing it and getting away with it most of the time and then being pinged when it is a genuine rushed or miss kick.
Goalsonly
Roar Rookie
We don't want clear rules. The endless debate is an absolute necessity and the game won't survive without it. So what if newcomers and seasoned veterans alike are mystified by the adjudication. It has to be that way as the constant outrage and controversy are the AFL's strongest engagement via word of mouth. The game itself is not as important as the promotion of it. You just have to have your priorities in order and keeping people baffled is a kind of genius and noone does it better than the AFL. Sometimes I even believe they don't mean it and just go along for the ride.
John Mac
Guest
Thank goodness someone acknowledges that the game is at crisis point.It is getting very hard to watch. The answer is simple as opposed to complex .The goal umpire has been standing in the same spot for 125 Years.The skills have never been better and that includes tackling and its tackling thats congesting the game.2 ideas.When having a shot for goal if you miss get off the ground or my personal favorite at AFL level when you kick a goal you get $1000, when you miss you pay $2000 .Its self funding for obvious reasons.These guys are better skilled than ever they hit targets all over the ground except for the guy who now wears fluro standing in the middle of the goal square. Go figure.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Hence the talk about officiating.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
That second player is usually sitting or laying on the first player's back...usually after jumping on the back. Penalise "in the back" and there is no more pack.
Tazzie
Guest
AFL rules under permanent confusion with non stop rule changes and interpretations, " make AFL better ", clean out the current autocracy that is the administration, self serving, accountable to no one and running a fiefdom.
Porta22
Roar Rookie
The first rule whilst makes sense wont work from an umpiring perspective. The umpire who bounces the ball controls the mid zone. This means he is umpiring all the play from 45m out from one end to 45m out at the other end. This is the most physically demanding position as an umpire. The other two are watching the forwards and getting a different view of the contest while only controlling play in the arcs. This position is rotated every 2-5 minutes to reduce fatigue. If one umpire was to spend 70% of the game in the mid zone due to being the bouncer, he'd be cooked after 3 quarters and his decision making would drop.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
Not a terrible idea that, 20m would be ok
anon
Roar Pro
To much talk about officiating. Umpires should be seen and not heard.
Jonboy
Roar Rookie
I am sick of rule changes far to many, although one i like is the one penalise the tackler tackling the tackler, common sense would stop the ugly scrums. Schoolyard stuff.
Cat
Roar Guru
The only rule that needs to change is the distance for a mark. Fifteen metres is just too short for modern athletes. Change it to 25m for a mark. Players will spread more, less congestion and umpires will stop paying the little dinky 7m kicks they routinely pay now.
deano
Roar Rookie
i think you've misunderstood the idea, brendon.
XI
Roar Guru
Agree muchly with the ruck changes here. Disagree with the deliberate ones. I kind of agree with the overrule idea but they already kind of do that with paying free kicks now and it leads to more than a few unnecessary calls, I can't imagine how it would go with being able to overrule and out of zone umpires cancelling free kicks.