The AFL insists it can improve the on-field product and make the game safer at the same time after rubber-stamping rules around smothers.
The league has ticked off on a raft of changes for the upcoming season following a meeting of the AFL Commission on Monday, held at Collingwood’s AIA Centre.
The lead item was amending the smother rule, first floated in December after Collingwood vice-captain Brayden Maynard’s infamous tribunal case during last year’s finals.
After a marathon four-hour hearing, the Magpies defender was not suspended despite Melbourne midfielder Angus Brayshaw suffering a season-ending concussion in the smothering incident with Maynard.
The AFL has tweaked the rule so when a player elects to leave the ground in an attempt to smother, any high contact with an opponent that is graded as low impact will be deemed to be careless in the guidelines.
Angus Brayshaw was knocked unconscious in a collision with Brayden Maynard. (Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
It comes as the AFL is dealing with an ongoing class action from dozens of former players against the league relating to concussion.
Last week, a minimum 21-day break between a concussion and the resumption of competitive contact or collision sport was announced for grassroots sport in Australia.
“We want to make the game safer, we want to make the game better and we’ve seen over the past couple of years an evolution of the on-field product,” AFL football boss Laura Kane said after the changes were announced on Tuesday.
“The game is as good as it’s ever been. It’s a spectacle. It’s exciting, it’s fast.
“But at the same time we’ve made over 30 changes to the rules and the regulations to make it safer.
“So we can do both at once and our responsibility, the cascade effect to community football is most certainly not lost on us.”
Just as she said last year following Maynard’s tribunal case, Kane reiterated she was not “comfortable with the outcome”.
“We weren’t comfortable with the outcome of the tribunal and the changes today are taking steps to change that,” she added.
The AFL also confirmed the sub is here to stay “for now” but clubs will be allowed to name five players on the interchange. Clubs and coaches were frustrated last year when they were forced to “omit” a player from the previous week’s team because they intended to make them the sub.
There will also be a change in interpretation to allow straight arm blocks in a ruck contest, provided the player still contests the ball.
The most curious change was a ban on coaches whistling from the interchange bench, saying it “interrupts the audio of match broadcasts”.
“Whistling is not something that I want to see on the sideline,” Kane said.
“For our umpires, our broadcasters and everyone on the bench, whistling won’t feature as part of our game moving forward.”
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Naughty's Headband Nope. He was there too late to actually smother the ball. Smothering is when you attempt to impact the ball at the ball drop or immediately thereafter. Maynard knew he wasn't going to get there - - he was going for height to try to impact that ball at his highest reach. That's a different action and there's 2 choices for the player. 1. make you jump as vertical as possible to effectively present as broad an obstacle as possible to either touch the ball or force a poorer kick (i.e. the player pulls the kick to provide greater elevation and in so doing makes it easier to contest/defend down field). A collision with the kicker is NOT a certainty and if happening will not be a high speed or uncontrolled scenario. 2. you jump reckless up and toward the kicker such that a collision is inevitable. And will occur at relatively great speed/force and potentially in an uncontrolled manner. And we saw an example in 2021 of Mitch Duncan on Aaron Hall that ironically wasn't even free kicked in which Duncan was very controlled......only thing was he'd covered about 4 meters in the air and crashed into the kicker just as the kicker landed after having executed the kick. The days of recklessly jumping at someone without responsibility are gone. Yay - - tick. And the MRO, umpires and the tribunal must ALL come along for that ride. In 2021 the umpires were absent. In 2023 the tribunal was absent and the MRO was 'coerced'. Hopefully in 2024 and moving forward - - we're all on the same page and seriously better for it. It's actually not that big a deal - - these incidents are very, very few and far between.........that's why all the 'sky is falling in' reaction of some was so ridiculous. The vast majority of players get it right pretty well all the time.
RT
Roar Rookie
In the end, whatever his intent, the tribunal should have looked at the outcome. It was reckless just like any head high contact in a tackle or bump. Why was this thrown out for a smother? Given they have changed the interpretative just for a smother, does it mean a player can be reckless in other actions not spelled out?
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I don't think he intended to knock the Dee out. But launching yourself like that invites criticism. Any tackling, smothering or hip'n'shouldering should be with done kept feet.
Knoxy
Roar Rookie
Yeah you can argue it was reckless. That doesn't mean he intended to knock out Brayshaw like some posters on here have suggested.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Why did he elect to jump instead of running? Had he ran he would've met the ball. By jumping he negated the chance of meeting the ball. Which is the point of a smother. I think the jumping was a way of actually pulling out from the smother. He needed legs on the ground to meet that ball. Any hurdles coach will tell you that
PeteB
Roar Rookie
Nah jumping off the ground, hitting a player in the head and knocking them out should get a minimum 6 weeks every time. The only legitimate defence to justify the action is actually making successful contact with the ball. It was a reckless act resulting in severe head injury. End of story.
PeteB
Roar Rookie
It was a reckless action. Extremely low probability of an effective smother. Extremely high probability of knocking the player out.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
A coward wouldn't have tried to smother. I'm sick of this argument, I swear people close one eye so they can see what they want to see. The bloke jumped to smother the ball, protected himself when he realised he was going to crash into the other player. End of story. The hyperbole surrounding this incident is totally ridiculous.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
He was preparing to jump which slows your momentum down. Being in the air slows you down as well. Had he speedily kept running he would've met the ball to effect a good smother. ------- You see it differently. That's fine.
Knoxy
Roar Rookie
I mean... the footage clearly shows Maynard jumping at the same time as Brayshaw kicked it. The ball certainly hadn't 'left the station'. Now it can still be argued that it was reckless conduct. I have no issue with the AFL changing the rules to reduce the likelihood of such an incident happening again. However, I haven't seen solid evidence that Maynards actions were malicious. It looked like a desperate attempt to smother the ball in a final with high stakes.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
And we see it differently, no worries, it's an opinion site.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
At the end of the day the smother involves the ball. I get it, others may, and do, see it the other way; fair enough. -------- My fulcrum-point is that in leaving the ground so early meant he arrived late ..... and missed the ball. The truly courageous thing to do would've been to stay on his sleds, meet the ball and effect a real smother. Hurdlers know that 'time' in the air means lost momentum. ------ Am l being harsh? Probably ... yes. And l maybe in the minority, c'est la vie
Chanon
Roar Rookie
Not sure Rowdy the biomechanics & reaction time of each footballer is different thus our interpretation of the perpendicular can alter our perception.
Knoxy
Roar Rookie
I just watched the replay. He jumped at the same time Brayshaw kicked the ball.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
If he had eyes for the ball he wasn’t seeing it clearly. The ball had left the station. A good smother involves the ball.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I certainly say put the smother on but he was too late. The SE Qld / Northern Rivers guy told other high school coaches that his, my, teams were good because he coached with an emphasis on defence. I just reckon Maynard’s actions were cowardly.
Knoxy
Roar Rookie
How do you know he didn't have eyes for the ball? What footage shows that? It looked like a desperate attempt to smother the ball to me.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
"when a player elects to leave the ground in an attempt to smother, any high contact with an opponent that is graded as low impact will be deemed to be careless in the guidelines." I'm far from an expert in AFL, but how does this change help player safety? I seriously laughed when I read it because if they hit the player kicking the ball, so unprotected, they can still do damage and potentially serious damage. All this does is make it easy for the Tribunal to decide about incidents when players are charged - which is after the fact.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
I'd be filthy as a coach if a player didn't try to smother and put pressure on.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I hope they don’t get rid of it entirely. What happened last year was cowardly by Maynard. He never had eyes for the ball; a most critical component of AF. Instead launching himself, because he was too late, and taking Brayshaw out. It was an ill-disciplined act and the type of act I’d rip a player over if l was coach. To me, the Pies guy was indicating a weakness in his defensive play.