Another year, another set of rule changes.
I’m not fundamentally opposed to rule changes. I am opposed to constant tinkering with the rules, particularly when the tinkering doesn’t fix the game’s core problem. So what is the problem?
What once was a free-flowing game has evolved into something else. It’s currently best described as a rolling maul, which occasionally erupts into a spasm of temporary open play. There are far too many stoppages. What’s caused this?
It’s a combination of things. Coaching techniques have evolved. Player fitness has increased. Perhaps most importantly the existing set of rules are difficult to adjudicate with an acceptable degree of consistency. The rules are easily gamed by the players, laughably so.
I cannot stress how important the stoppages are. They give teams the time to set up defensively and that’s the key reason for the reduction in scoring. Players are encouraged by coaches to force a stoppage when there is no clear advantage to their side. This causes the rolling maul. It’s a deplorable state of affairs. So what fixes it?
Rule changes that make it difficult for teams to set complex zones, that reduce the number of stoppages, that don’t allow the players to manufacture a stoppage during open play, that replace umpires’ discretion with clear directives that the umpires simply enforce. This piece explores seven changes and clarifications.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
The first change is perhaps the simplest. It addresses player rotations. The current system of a set number of interchanges just adds another thing for the officials to manage. I’d propose that coaches can only interchange players after a goal has been scored.
This will reduce player rotations, making it harder for players to flood back. It should also see a return to interchange players being interchange players, as opposed to just another player. After all, coaches will be loath to remove their best players from play if they can only put them back on after another goal. It will emphasise coaches getting match-ups right.
The blood rule is an exception for reasons that should be obvious. Players can also come off if they are injured and in such circumstances the runner notifies the umpires. However, once a player comes off with an injury they cannot return to the field for the rest of the match. That should stop any antics from creeping further into the game.
The second adjustment is around scoring. Kick outs after a score should be abolished. Instead, each score results in a restart with a centre bounce. This prevents either team from setting up a zone after a point is scored to lock the ball in. It forces both teams to go six-six-six after every score.
Following on from this in the number three slot is a fairly obvious clarification around rushed behinds. No more rushed behinds. If a defender steps behind the defending goal-line it’s a goal. I don’t care if they are under immediate pressure.
These kinds of exceptions are the problem with the AFL rules at the moment. They are impossible to adjudicate consistently. If a defender has the ball and choses to step, or is pushed behind the goal-line, it’s a goal. I’d also add that any player deliberately pushing a player into a behind post will result in an immediate report and a 50-metre penalty.
(Photo: Scott Barbour/Getty Images)
The fourth idea isn’t really a change at all. The umpires actually enforce holding the ball and or incorrect disposal. If you’ve got the ball, you’re standing up, and you’re tackled, the tackler is rewarded unless you legally dispose of the ball immediately.
No prior opportunity, no trying to get rid of it, no more spinning 480 degrees then dropping the ball while disguising it as a handball. If you fall over in the tackle it’s holding the ball. If you try the don’t-argue and the opponent successfully argues, it’s holding the ball.
Now we start to come to some more controversial changes. They are designed to reduce the number of stoppages. They are also the kind of changes that are guaranteed to wind up older fans.
Number five is that whenever a free kick is awarded – any free kick – both teams must set up in a six-six-six formation. The umpire blows the whistle. The recipient of the free kick gets the ball, both teams have ten seconds to adopt the six-six-six formation, then the umpire calls play on.
If the defensive team isn’t in the six-six-six formation within ten seconds it’s a 50-metre penalty. If the team receiving the free kick isn’t in six-six-six formation within ten seconds, the free kick is reversed. Umpires should count down the last three seconds for the players. Maybe show the timer on a screen at the ground.
Number six is a bit of an old chestnut. Remove the boundary throw-ins. The last person to touch the ball before it goes out gives up a free kick. The current situation is farcical. It involves professional athletes who forget exactly where the line is and accidentally step out.
Players kick the ball just close enough to avoid a deliberate out-of-bounds call. Players attempt handballs to each other and miss. All that stops. We replace a messy ball-in with a free kick and the teams have to reset in the six-six-six formation.
(Photo by Jono Searle/AFL Photos/via Getty Images)
The seventh and last suggestion is bound to be controversial. I’m far from certain that it’s appropriate.
My change is no more ball-ups resulting from open play. So what happens when a group of players lock in the ball? Simple. The umpire counts to three. If it’s not out, a free kick is awarded to the team with the ball in their defensive half. If a player is on the ground with possession of the ball for three seconds, no one is tackling them, and they don’t get rid of it, it’s holding the ball.
But how does that reward the player who tries to get possession? It doesn’t and who cares. Players should keep the ball moving. If you’re stupid enough to sit on it, or not skillful enough to take possession quickly and move it on, you get penalised.
There would be no more ridiculous pumping of arms as players desperately try to convince the umpire they can’t dispose of the ball when what they really want is a stoppage. No more falling on the ball and knocking it into your legs on purpose, or your opponent’s legs, while you wait for a stoppage. Clear the ball or you’re penalised. It’s simple to adjudicate and it keeps the play flowing.
So there you have it. These changes may provoke controversy. There will be many criticisms. That’s awesome. We should be passionate. Even if all of these proposed changes are lampooned, I’d be delighted if they in any way get the power brokers of the game thinking.
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
Kris, I enjoyed your article. Change to keep our game a better product as well as being easier to manage have to be balanced & be our ultimate objectives. The best rule improvement I have seen has been the deliberate out of bounds. In a pressure situation how much more exciting is it for a spectator to see a defender use skill to take the ball & dispose of it to a team mate rather than just knocking it across the line resulting in an anticlimax. A skilled pressure forward like Cyril Rioli was so much more entertaining when the defender didn’t have that soft option. The most obvious change I would make to current rules is a goal shaving the inside of the main uprights from being called a behind to being awarding a goal due to it passing thru the main posts as long as it is untouched. All sports are different but most of the basics are the same. In every other major ball sport in the world, this event is awarded full points. How often have we watched 15 replays of a goal that may have or may have not have grazed the inside of the posts? Our cameras often don’t have an adequate angle & we arguing over the outcome. Like, Soccer, Hockey, Netball, League, Basketball, Rugby, Golf & NFL, lets award it full points & get on with the match. If it hits the post & comes back in the field of play or it deflects outside the post it is awarded a behind. What is our current finite judgement on this ruling actually achieving?
Mr Right
Roar Rookie
RT, the problem with the 15 m penalty is that if the play is 70 metres out from goal, smart defenders are going to give away professional fouls, the play is stopped, the defensive line resets & it often penalises the attacking team. If there is a 50 metre penalties, only dumb defenders will give away professional fouls.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
6 wins per round was my very good average. But what had that got to do with anything? At least I tip. You don't ever have a go but spend your time trolling others after the event. What do you gain from that?
Vicboy
Roar Rookie
KISS - anyone who has umpired a game would know how difficult it is to control 36 players on a field our size. Appreciate the sentiment, but some of these suggestions are impractical at grassroots level eg we have 1 umpire and don’t have boundary umpires in home and away games! Can we not focus on umpires mistakes in the media and quite the opposite, encourage them to control the game with their discretion. The umpires could open the game up if we took away the stupid ruck nomination and ball it up as soon as it’s not coming out of the pack. Reward the umpires that create attractive footy!
Nick
Roar Guru
You're right....remind me...how many matches did you tip right this year?
adhitya0710
Roar Rookie
Going back to the centre after each score will result in the game becoming longer. More importantly, more dead time.
Kevo
Roar Rookie
Wow you really do hate the game! Sorry but this article is ammunition for NEVER tampering with the rules again. Why don't we just throw the whole game away and concrete the entire G and put a basketball court in the middle. But if we have to .......... - 50 metre penalties are over used and often unjust and momentum killers in a game. (not to mention spirit of the game killers! No wonder my old man ended up turning away from the game after initially having weined his kids on it) Minimise them and bring in some 15 or 20 metre penalties. - Umps bounce the ball for the start of the opening quarter then throw it up for rest of the game (don't really understand how umpies years ago had no trouble though, despite much less training, and all sorts of conditions.) - Limit interchange down a lot more. - Ease up on the out of bounds rule. Too pedantic and often unjust. Kicking for "touch" should be promoted as a defensive skill. Only blatant obvious running over or handballing over should be penalised. Same with enforced behinds. With all the penalties for deliberate out of bounds and behinds we still have an extremely low scoring, boring, crap brand of footy mostly. - In defensive half as soon as a team kicks backwards or sideways it's play on - There has to be 3 (or more?) players from each team in the 50 (or 60 or 70??) metre arcs at all times. (Possibly the full forward and full back in a 30-40 metre arc) - Increase the size of the centre square, particularly so wings are pushed to the boundaries. - Throw the 6-6-6 rule out. Made no difference. There are lower scores now. - Give more leniency to the player going in and getting the ball. Others waiting back to pounce on him for a free. If an opponent is holding him or trying to tackle him but the ball holder still has control of the ball he should not be penalised. It's a soft tackle at best, even if the ball holder rotates 360 twice. He's gone in and earnt the ball and is attempting to create play, and someone else is just hanging off him. Reward play makers and genuine tackles.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
That's why this is not an appropriate course of action.
Smee
Guest
Old school players were constantly being sidelined for 4-5 weeks for their legs blowing up were they?
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
This plan will ensure that the way they will avoid tiredness is to miss 4 or 5 weeks with hamstring or calf rehabilitation.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Please, please, please...get rid of bouncing the ball! The recalls are an anti-climax and instead of practicing bouncing an oval ball the umpires can practice officiating properly. It is possible to officiate properly as by and large we see better umpiring in late finals. Bouncing the ball is archaic Get rid of it.
WCE
Roar Rookie
good comment ripley. Tweek the game to make it better don't bastardize it
Smee
Guest
Increased fatigue is a silly objective obviously so coaches would have to adapt. Their plans would have to change to avoid players getting too tired. Players covering less kms, less flooding, less congestion. Skills become just as important as stamina. Fully agree with the umpiring bit. They are doing a woeful job.
The Dom is good
Roar Rookie
hang on... your saying every single free kick , the teams have to go back to the 666 - every free kick? count on average how many free kicks there are in a game , times that by how long it will take the teams to get back into position , that ridiculous. In 2 years time this game will be unrecognizable, memberships will drop and people will start supporting something else because it has been smashed with stupid rule changes
Thom Roker
Roar Guru
Give the right penalty for the crime. Player mouths off. 30m. Player swears at the umpire. 50m. Player gives away 50m for running to close to the player taking the kick shouldn't then be given an extra 50m for not running fast enough. Maybe an extra 10m. I wouldn't be too specific though because umpires just don't seem to understand distances. Get rid of the minimum 15m kick too. It is the most poorly umpired rule in the game.
2dogz
Roar Rookie
15m is not enough though. 30 metres seems reasonable
Thom Roker
Roar Guru
Your ideas are certainly creative. The idea of a free kick from being the last to touch it before going out of bounds is already happening, to an extent, with adjudicating on deliberate out of bounds, while in AFLW they give a free kick if the ball is kicked over the line between the two 50m arcs. Another rule that I've always thought should come back is the 15m penalty. Many of the modern rules where 50m or even 100m are given up, often leading to goal, should be given less distance. Except they sound too similar, so maybe give 20m for encroaching the mark or interfering with the player who has marked the ball. 50m is too much to be giving away willy nilly and it can change the momentum of a game.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
I didn't say that and that is so far away from Lyon's style it's not funny. I don't know who you mistake Ross for but you've got the wrong fella. Your comments on Lyon indicate you have absolutely no idea about anything he does or has done. Each comment is an advertisement for your dearth of knowledge...but a penchant for nastiness.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
Agreed - but then the current system favours teams who play in wet and soggy conditions.
sven
Roar Rookie
not a bad idea chrisH but that would favour teams that get to play in better conditions eg optus oval in perth or etihad under the roof as oppposed to a soggy mcg or a wet & windy tassie