Three changes to better the game from 2022

We are giving the ball to the defending team which should be enough. They are the true mediocre team since they gave up a score anyway. To say they are disadvantaged because of defensive structures is crazy. They have the ball. If they can’t get around the other team’s defensive structures then they are not good enough. You use the “hundred years” argument. Well for a hundred years we didn’t have to give the player kicking in a 20 metre head start. There was no need to change that.

So you had a shot on goal and you weren't good enough to kick that goal. We don't need to reward mediocrity. Besides, for over a hundred years we made a conscious decision to give possession to the team that had just conceded the behind, the clear intent being to give them a chance to get the ball out of there. But with the evolution of defensive structures, we find that the team with ball is at a disadvantage. I would have been happy with an expanded goal square, but this works fine.

Gee I can't agree with your logic there. If I read your comment correctly, you are saying it doesn't seem right that it is preferable to be the team without the ball in a kick in scenario. Go back one possession and it is right, because you have just had a shot on goal. If a team is good at defending a kick in then it can only encourage them to attack more.

A couple of years ago there was stat that teams scoring a behind were twice as likely to score next as the team kicking in. When you're encouraged from such a young age to go for the ball, not the man, it seems to defy the very essence of the game, that there is such a common scenario where it is preferable to not be in possession of the ball. To mind, the new rules for kick ins have gone some way to addressing that imbalance. Good teams still find a way to make it hard, but at least it is more challenging for them now.

I like the suggestion that touches shouldn't matter: marking - spoil, out of bounds - last disposal, scoring - 2 points for a rushed behind, tackling - grab hold. Finally, what are the pros and cons of 16 man team? If there is less congestion, there should be less pressure to bend the HTB/HTM rule(s), right? PS: What happened to that research into the ball itself, which was hoped to improve the game?

"...the blowout margin didn’t reflect the final match of the year, ..." What's that supposed to mean ?? A blowout is a blowout !! Blowouts , especially in GFs are the biggest problem facing the AFL today if it wants to be taken as a serious, exciting and sellable sporting competition and business. They are annoying, depressing and embarrassing !!!

I'd like to see deliberate time-wasting penalised. You see it whenever a player is awarded a free but there's an oppo. player on top of him restricting the awarded player's ability to get up , thus giving the defending team time to get organised. Any deliberate delay -however brief - in giving the ball quickly and directly to the right player gets 50 metres penalty. Delaying is cheating and a boring interruption to the flow of the game.

Tyler, different codes have different rules but a lot of the basics are the same. E.g., keeping the ball in the field of play or scoring the most points win. No one has ever been able to explain to me the logic as to why a scoring shot going through the main posts untouched by a defender isn't granted full points. Every week we hear commentors whinge about how long it takes for the umpires take to detect whether the ball flicks the inside of the post. In soccer, basketball, League, Union, Hockey & Golf, in the ball goes thru it goes thru. Award the points & get on with the game. Simplification of rules gives supporters less to whinge about.

The best change would be no change at all in the case of the indigenous code. Our code has been compromised more than enough. Please grant us all at least a decade of predictability and divert your attention to convolute a code i.e. the World Game. Soccer is a sporting metaphor for time standing still, so there is plenty of scope for you to unleash some structural anarchy there, surely.

The 50m penalty needs revisiting. It made sense at the beginning, and then also getting rid of 15m and 50m because that caused confusion. Now the 50m can be unduly harsh for minor breaches, such as moving on the mark. I would suggest we go to a 30m penalty, and the umpires apply it even more stringently than what they are currently doing with the 50m. This makes the penalty hurtful without being devastating, and players know to keep their acts clean (hopefully).

Don't forget the extra distance the player kicking out gets. Now we regularly see the kick out reaching the middle of the ground. I'd go further and return to waiting for the goal umpire to wave the flag and kicking to yourself to play on. Keep the pressure on and keep the advantage with the attacking team, rather than hand it to the team who just let the opposition score.

I just don't know what the benefit of such a rule would be or what perceived problem is it attempting to fix?

What you describe is how it works. Like all suggested changes there are unintended consequences. Which is why the AFL should only change rules after lots of game trials. For AFL with the larger playing field, maybe the line is the 50m mark.

Time to bed in the rules we currently have....for umps, players and fans sake! On kicking backwards- no change, I'm more than happy for oppo to kick or keep ball close to my goals or not move forward, means we can press up and hope for turnover in a good spot or man up! Also teams will just flood forward down the line, kick to a mass pack and force stoppages from scrums On "stand"- it's just a one word command designed to quickly identify the mark and enforce a rule that has been around a long time..... 3rd up in ruck- the noms look and feel stupid and I use to think just penalise the 3rd man but that will be exploit for sure....if the ump knows whose up he also knows whose there to block. There will always be people screaming howler one way or the other due to different angles, different interpretations and from the stands different biases..... Summary- no rule changes please!

The AFL needs to simplify, not create more rules. If I was in charge, this is what I'd do: - abolish the ruck nomination (if teams want to send a 3rd man in, so be it) - abolish the stand rule - only give away 50 for the protected zone if the player with the ball is impeded - go back to handballs actually being handballs, ie. the hand punching the ball actually has to propel the ball - get rid of the 6-6-6. I'd pretty much undo everything that the AFL has done to manipulate the game in the last 10 years.

So regarding this halfway rule, let's say at a centre bounce your ruckman taps it forward then one of your midfielders picks it up, they can't handpass to a team mate running forward if they are behind halfway? I'm not sure that kicking back behind halfway happens that often, it's more often around half forward or half back.

Isn't the 23rd man rule you mention just a rehash of the maligned green vest rule?

The first rule that needs to change is the ruck nomination. If a second player from the same team goes up for the ruck - free kick. Otherwise, it doesn't matter who competes - could be Caleb Daniel against Mason Cox. To speed the game up, boundary umpires and field umpires should not wait for players to get into position before restarting play (but I don't think that's a rule so just an adjustment by umpires). I don't like the stand rule but maybe we should give it another year?

The game is already hard enough to umpire as it is, and now you want the umpires to call play on everytime a ball is kicked backwards? What if a player kicks side ways? Is that also play on? What a nightmare that would be to umpire.

If I ever hear the word ''rule change'' again I might go and jump off a bridge