Malcolm Blight has named four rule changes he’d like to see implemented in the AFL.
I’m a big fan of Malcolm Blight. I love his lateral interpretation of the game. But I can’t agree with any of his suggestions.
One by one, here are Blight’s suggestions.
1. Last touch out of bounds
This has been mooted for a while now, and was trialled in pre-season competitions. Besides the fact that there will be grey areas where it’s impossible to determine who touched the ball last (necessitating a throw-in anyway), why are we punishing the playmaker?
For example, a player wins the ball at halfback, sidesteps an opponent, and gets a clearing kick. When the ball hits the turf, it takes a leg break and goes out of bounds. Now it’s a free against that playmaker.
The playmaker is punished for trying to create.
Here’s something we need to accept: there’s a boundary line around the field of play. Occasionally, the ball will go out. It doesn’t always have to be a bad or punishable thing. It’s okay to have little breaks in the game.
Why we have this insistence on trying to keep the ball in motion at all times is beyond me.
2. Kick length for a mark goes to 20 metres
Here’s another one that’s been around for a while. Supporters of this rule believe it’ll open up play because it’ll stop short-range chipping. I think it’ll have the opposite effect. The reason? Mathematics.
Opposition will zone from ten to 50 metres to block a team moving the ball by foot. Now they only have to zone 20 to 50 metres, which means more players are occupying less space. And even less if you disallow marks from backwards kicks.
Then we fall back into the gray area of needing umpires to estimate what 20 metres is. They have a hard enough problem with ten, which would be easier to judge.
(Photo: Scott Barbour/Getty Images)
3. Any backwards kick is play on
This is a change that comes at the game’s peril. It was trialled years ago in a pre-season competition. Did it improve the game? Not notably. Were their incidents when umpires in the wrong positions couldn’t make calls on whether a kick had gone backwards or not, or made the wrong calls? Yes.
It’s also a rule that changes the nature of the game. If a player catches the ball from a kick, it’s a mark… unless it goes backwards.
For our next trick, let’s pay a mark if a player catches a one-hand rebound off the goal post. That’ll keep the ball in play, reward marks, and make the game even more exciting. Sigh.
AFL is essentially a keepings-offs sport. One team will try to keep the ball off the other so they can gain enough ground to attempt to score. People complain when teams chip the ball around, trying to whittle away time.
If they want to kick sideways, backwards, or whatever, they are well within their rights to do so. It’s their prerogative as the team in possession. We don’t need a rule that impinges their ability to do so. The onus is on the opposition to win the ball back.
4. Fewer rotations
The game evolves. That evolution is contingent upon strategies, such as rotations, and human conditioning. Every player has effectively now become a midfielder.
And now people continually champion taking evolution backwards.
You cannot devolve the game. You created it to be this, so now it’s this.
Trying to go backwards is only going to tax players. People say it’s better for the game. Is it? I don’t enjoy watching players cramp or be so tired they can’t kick the ball, or break down with soft-tissue injuries.
What’s wrong with rotations anyway? People complain like one day we’ll have 3000 rotations in a game, and that the interchange bench will be a constant revolving door. We need to be realistic with expectations.
At some point, rotations will peak. A player coming off for five rotations in a quarter might be ideal. A player coming off for seven rotations might mean he’s now running more to get off and on the ground than he would have if he’d just stayed on.
We never discovered that peak, though, because the AFL naturally had to get in there and solve a problem that didn’t exist with a cap.
Rule changes
In the 40-odd years I’ve watched the game, only two rule changes have been positive.
Decades ago, a player being tackled could bounce the ball – this was considered the equivalent of disposing the ball. This meant the tackler had to let go, and then re-apply the tackle, which wasn’t really fair on the tackler. Eventually, it was deemed illegal to bounce the ball in a tackle. This was a good change.
Also, decades ago, when a player took a mark in the goal square, umpires would pontificate and get out protractors and try to work out what angle the player should be on. Now, if you mark in the goal square – regardless of where the ball came from – you have a shot from straight in front. Nice and logical.
All these other tweaks and reinterpretations and reinventions just muddy the game, and often cause new issues, which then require further rule changes.
(Photo by Darrian Traynor/Getty Images)
If we’re genuinely looking at improving the game, can we first try enforcing the rules we do have? The laxity applied to holding the ball slash incorrect disposal has been a bugbear of mine for years. In the pre-season games, umpires seemed to be paying this a bit more, which opened up games and allowed them to flow.
Otherwise, if we’re making rules, can we look at things that are logical?
Here’s an example: can we penalise stacks-on in tackles?
This is particularly annoying when players from both teams join in a tackle. Hang on. Only one player has the ball. His opponent is the only one who can lay a legal tackle. If the ball-carrier’s teammate joins a tackle, who’s he tackling? He can’t tackle his teammate. If he’s tackling an opponent, he’s holding the man.
If you thinned these gang tackles, you’re more likely to see the ball come out.
As is it, I really wish certain people would stop determining there’s aesthetics within the game they don’t like, so they must be addressed.
Just let the game go and sort itself out.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
It needs to be clear cut. If you take the ball in expect to be tackled. You can always paddle/slap the ball forward. Territory is more important than possession in Aussie. ----- Every rule should be about Aussie be a better game where you are rewarded for effort. In Aussie, get tackled, it's a turnover; capitalism. In League, get tackled, you get to keep the ball; socialism.
sven
Roar Rookie
pretty sure the penalty for dropping the ball if u bounce the ball & are then tackled was brought in specifically cause kevin bartlett was expert at bouncing the ball just as he was about to be tackled & thus was paid a free for being held (without the ball). on the subject reckon at times the tackler gets rewarded too much rather than the bloke who has gone & got the pill, used to be the ball player got looked after a bit more, u didnt need a reward just cause u laid a good tackle (understand the current interpretation keeps the ball moving better). the one that gets me is when a bloke has the ball smacked out of his hands & is then pinged for incorrect disposal (even when there is no one actually tackling them). seems theres a lot of people constantly wanting to tinker with the game, reckon the game generally evolves to sort out a lot of the issues that people seem to think need addressing with constant rule changes
Seymorebutts
Guest
The way to reduce rotations is to go back to having two on the interchange bench. In addition you can have an emergency on the bench who can only come on if the doctor rules one man cannot continue.... and if the doctor rules you out you cannot play the following week.. so it cant be abused by coaches.
Seymorebutts
Guest
Thats the whole point of the holding the ball rule. if you get caught its an automatic free.. so dont get caught with the ball. The only exception is if you get tackled the same time as you take the ball.. then there is no prior opportunity.. so a ball up. Thats the way it had always been and it works.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Drop a pocket at each end.
Redb
Roar Guru
16 Players should be instigated. The game is vastly faster than 100 years ago. Would ease congestion and open up play.
Matches
Roar Rookie
I agree Blight is a lateral thinker and more power to those like him. The rule changes have been excellent in most cases. The centre square stopped a rugby scrum at ball ups. Now the 6, 6, 6 affords breathtakingly deep, quality clearances. Play- on after a point, (before the goal ump waves the flags), killed the flood. I recall the doomsayers thinking the sky would fall in when they brought it in. Running out of the goal square at kick-ins is another improvement. Some changes weren’t great – like the sub and the studs-up rule – so they changed it back. Excellent agility. Lets hope shorter quarters come in too. Those who try things will always be ahead of those who don’t.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I vehemently object to no prior opportunity. If you take the ball in expect a tackle. Plus rewarding the tackler with a turnover sets the game apart from Rugby League.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
"Mootions"...add it to the Macquarie.
Bill moot
Guest
Spot on they either reduce the amount of time on or bring it further back to a seventeen minute quarter to qive us the original 25 minute one
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
On Blight we should seek to understand what he means. It should be debated hard as to what is his intention. He is a brilliant thinker on the game. This doesn't mean l agree with mootions (=mooted ideas) ----- One rule change reversed recently, that l vehemently disagree with, was the "hands in the back" rule. Why do we say the man in the front should be paid the advantage when the current rule allows for them to pushed out the way? Why should the 2nd man in be rewarded for being the slower to the contest? Socialism stinks!!! ---- Look at the old 'bouncing the ball rule when being tackled'. It was incorrectly rewarding incorrect disposal and supporting the delusion that they were not in control of the ball. It should've been a tackle from the get go. Bouncing the ball is a function of possession. Duh!!! :angry: :angry: :angry:
Mooty
Roar Rookie
Exactly right Tiger, shortening the length of the quarter has made no difference to the overall playing period. It needs to be reduced to 20 minutes with less time on taken into account, to get back to a 25 minute quarter
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Just don’t stop the clock after a ball up or a mark; problem solved. All of the current issues with the game have been caused by the AFL; changes the rules back to how they were and they all go away. For example, no prior opportunity means players will knock the ball on rather than forcing another ball up. They’ll have to take the game on out of the backline.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
I can’t add anything to this article; it’s perfect.
Charlie McCormack
Roar Rookie
Couldn't agree more. Whilst Blight's suggestions are a good topic of conversation, given the new sets of rules that were just implemented last year, the last thing the coaches/players/fans need is more rules to adjust to. Let the game naturally evolve instead of trying to tweak it to become a more promotable or aesthetic product.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Free kick for last touch out of bounds was done in the 50s.
Lukey Miller
Guest
Blight is worth listening to - he was a lateral thinker and innovator as a coach. One thing is for sure; he knows and loves the game. I am not sure about the "last touch out of bounds" suggestion. However, the other ideas all make sense to me. Much fewer interchanges would be the change that would help make his other suggestions work. The 20 metre distance for a mark makes sense as it is currently not unusual for umps to pay a mark for a 12-13 metre kick. The main problem for the game is having all 36 players jammed within a 50 metre area on the ground. This is a blight on the game, but can not be fixed without the cooperation of its creators - the coaches - good luck with that. A 360 game like ours, with no off side rule, will always need timely changes and interventions to combat tactics that are likely to adversely change the nature of the game. Players used to be allowed 15-20 seconds to dispose after a mark or free kick and then a couple of years ago umpires changed to giving them about 8 seconds - this was a necessary and positive change. Changes to rules will be a constant with our game, the coaches will make sure of that.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
I agree. 6x6 x6 was such a dramatic rule change let’s let the game breathe for a bit
shifty
Roar Rookie
The extra time for prior opportunity is to let the umpires feel like they are part of the show with the big theatrical movements.
RT
Roar Rookie
When it was 25 minutes, there was no time on for ball ups or throw ins. The result is we now have longer quarters on average. With current time on rules they could drop it to 18 minutes to bring it back a bit.