Rule changes 2024

[Grantysghost]

PLAYERS will have a greater duty of care to avoid high contact when attempting to smother opponents after an AFL rule change was confirmed on Tuesday, although a mid-season trade period won't be introduced this year.


The AFL today confirmed a handful of changes for the 2024 season, with a tweak to team announcements set to end confusion that arose in 2023 around the identity of a team's sub.


The change to the rules regarding smothers coming after the fallout to Collingwood defender Brayden Maynard's controversial Tribunal case during the 2023 finals.


Maynard was sent direct to the Tribunal after intervention from Executive General Manager Football Laura Kane after his bump that left Melbourne midfielder Angus Brayshaw concussed in the opening term of the clubs' qualifying final, with Maynard having jumped and attempted to smother Brayshaw's kick.


After a four-hour hearing, the Tribunal eventually cleared Maynard and he was a central player in Collingwood's premiership win.


However, as flagged by AFL.com.au in December, the AFL has acted after a Commission meeting on Monday, with the change for smothers meaning that when a player leaves the ground in an attempt to make a smother, the player's act will be deemed careless at a minimum "unless the player has taken all reasonable steps to avoid that high contact and/or minimise the force of that high contact (for example, by adopting a body position that minimises the force of the high contact)".


The rough conduct guidelines have also been tweaked to put a focus on run-down tackles.


The AFL had been concerned with run-down tackles where the tackling player has contributed to the force with which the tackled player is driven into the ground, leaving the player with the ball in a vulnerable position, with the proposed amendment giving greater regard to this facet.


The League stressed to clubs late last year that it is not pushing to take the run-down tackle from the game.


The other rule changes announced today are:


The sub rule will continue, but clubs will now name an extended bench of five players (an increase from four) and three emergency players.

Each team's sub will then be confirmed 60 mins prior to the match

The action of a player ruled to have committed a strike when intentionally shoving or fending an opponent will now be graded as Intentional rather than Careless (watch Charlie Ballard incident below, cited by the AFL as an example)

Straight-arm blocks will be permitted in a ruck contest, provided the player contests the ball

If an offence is graded as Severe impact by the Match Review Officer but only the minimum penalty is sought, the MRO can prescribe a sanction and the player submit an early guilty plea without the case having to be referred directly to the Tribunal

The in-finals ranking system has been codified to determine the 'home' club for Grand Finals in both the AFL and AFLW.

The winners of the Qualifying Finals will be ranked first and second, the losers of the Qualifying Finals ranked third and fourth (the higher of the two clubs on the premiership ladder will be third) and the winners of the Elimination Finals ranked fifth and sixth (the higher of the two clubs on the premiership ladder will be fifth)
Whistling from the interchange bench is prohibited


As reported on AFL.com.au, a mid-season trade period won't take place in 2024, with next year appearing more likely.

Last year's Collective Bargaining Agreement between the AFL and AFL Players' Association saw both parties agree in principle to its introduction, but with Opening Round only a month away, it was deemed too soon to introduce the mechanism this year.

The change to announcing teams, with clubs to now name an extended bench of five players (instead of four) and confirm the sub on match day, should remove any confusion that arose when a player who was moved from the starting 22 to the sub role was previously listed as 'omitted'.

The number of Tribunal cases should be reduced, with the Match Review Officer now able to hand down a minimum sanction for incidents graded as Severe, instead of being required to send the player direct to the Tribunal.

Footy boss Laura Kane will address the media later today to discuss the changes.

[Grantysghost]

This is my favourite change :

Whistling from the bench will be prohibited.

[Hotdog60]

There's goes the sub doing Wind of change.

[Hotdog60]

Is Straight-arm blocks will be permitted in a ruck contest, provided the player contests the ball going to Sweety at Port I kind of remembering him getting pinged a few times.
Or is because Tim was AA the AFL has changed the rules to help mitigate any influence he had.
A bit like third man up after 2016.

[Grantysghost]

Is Straight-arm blocks will be permitted in a ruck contest, provided the player contests the ball going to Sweety at Port I kind of remembering him getting pinged a few times.
Or is because Tim was AA the AFL has changed the rules to help mitigate any influence he had.
A bit like third man up after 2016.
Yeah that's a big change isn't it. I don't know how they target particular things it seems so random. Be nice to have some understanding.

Some Demons mates of mine say Max is going to love this change.

[EasternWest]

There's goes the sub doing Wind of change.

No "patience" either

[Axe Man]

This is my favourite change :

Whistling from the bench will be prohibited.

I've read that was actually aimed at us. Apparently we have a guy on the bench with a really loud whistle that he used to get players attention when they needed to rotate.

[Grantysghost]

I've read that was actually aimed at us. Apparently we have a guy on the bench with a really loud whistle that he used to get players attention when they needed to rotate.

Tackling the big issues down at AFL house!

[Grantysghost]

No "patience" either
https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExN3Uzc3RtcTY0MzJuMjZ6dzBiYmJwOGljNW9qbjViZ 2p0d3F0ZjJmeiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/QaOmDp5XSdSnpj26cr/giphy.gif

[hujsh]

So it's still 4 on the bench and a sub, they just confirm who on the bench is the sub before the game?

[Grantysghost]

So it's still 4 on the bench and a sub, they just confirm who on the bench is the sub before the game?
I think they have to name a 5 man bench and the sub has to come from that. Before could they do some dodgys

Edit: I don't think the sub does have to come from the bench. I have nfi.

[soupman]

So it's still 4 on the bench and a sub, they just confirm who on the bench is the sub before the game?

Yeah, just a more annoying version for fantasy players. It almost feels like they are deliberately targeting us, what with this and the debacle that is round zero and the bunch of bye rounds that throws into the fixture.

[Hotdog60]

BAD has been very quiet.

[bornadog]

BAD has been very quiet.

HD, what can I say. But that bloody whistle - I think I will take my own and sit behind the bench :D:D

[Dry Rot]

Frankly, I find any criticism of the AFL on this thread with these changes to be petty and pointless. Really, you should all wake up to yourselves.

As we all know, the AFL is most professional organisation sporting organisation in Australia, and has given great thought to these changes and as always has announced them immediately after the grand final, so that all teams can adapt to these changes prior to trading, drafting, and preseason training, according to the new rules.

Indeed, the AFL is second most professional organisation I can think of, after the Russian Army.

[FrediKanoute]

The smother one is a step in the right direction, but worried that it specifically target's players leaving the ground in the act of smothering. It should be a blanket duty of care. Hit high you're in trouble!

[Grantysghost]

HD, what can I say. But that bloody whistle - I think I will take my own and sit behind the bench :D:D

Duplicate somehow.

[Grantysghost]

HD, what can I say. But that bloody whistle - I think I will take my own and sit behind the bench :D:D

Seriously crazy right. Some of us have worked in places where you make very important decisions.

How does this make the agenda?

Bush league.

BTW if anyone wants to ask Brett Sutton a question just let me know. He's become a colleague.

[MrMahatma]

No "patience" either

And ain?t no fool joining the joyride now!

[jeemak]

I can't believe the smother rule needed adjusting. If in the air after a smothering attempt that you realised the ball had been missed your next move shouldn't naturally be to maim the kicker.

Is the straight arm blocking rule change an out for the likes of Oscar McInerny?

[Grantysghost]

This round could be a train wreck.

From Sam Edmund on X

The AFL has instructed its umpires to immediately shorten the “reasonable time” component of holding the ball in a significant & rare in-season interpretation change. Clubs were on Tuesday night sent a memo notifying of the shift.

[ReLoad]

This round could be a train wreck.

From Sam Edmund on X

The AFL has instructed its umpires to immediately shorten the “reasonable time” component of holding the ball in a significant & rare in-season interpretation change. Clubs were on Tuesday night sent a memo notifying of the shift.

Friday night shit show ahead!

[Mantis]

Friday night shit show ahead!

At least there is a game on Thursday so we can get a sneak preview to the shit show.

I feel a clamp down is a good thing but doing it in season is fraught with danger.

[mighty_west]

This round could be a train wreck.

From Sam Edmund on X

The AFL has instructed its umpires to immediately shorten the “reasonable time” component of holding the ball in a significant & rare in-season interpretation change. Clubs were on Tuesday night sent a memo notifying of the shift.

A train wreck / shit show short term so be it, but common sense prevails, especially when experienced players have no idea what the rule is and not allowing players an eternity to swing around whilst tackled to find a good option to find a team mate nup, when tackled get rid of it immediately, and i liked Luke Hodges take going back to the past when players knew exactly what the rule was, a clear disposal so if you get a shoelace on the ball not good enough, must be a clear pass.

[bornadog]

Can some one tell me when an attempted disposal is ok and it is play on? I thought incorrect disposal was still a rule, but apparently not.

[bornadog]

The examples sent to clubs

https://x.com/DavidZita1/status/1795594744611189046

[bulldogsthru&thru]

At least there is a game on Thursday so we can get a sneak preview to the shit show.

I feel a clamp down is a good thing but doing it in season is fraught with danger.

Completely agree. A clamp down is 100% needed but changing interpretations mid season is a bad idea. And we'll just wait for reactionary correction a few weeks before finals before going back to normal once finals start.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Can some one tell me when an attempted disposal is ok and it is play on? I thought incorrect disposal was still a rule, but apparently not.

I used to understand this up until about 5 years ago. Incorrect disposal with no prior was not holding the ball. But now sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't and I don't know why there is a difference.

[Sedat]

At least there is a game on Thursday so we can get a sneak preview to the shit show.

I feel a clamp down is a good thing but doing it in season is fraught with danger.
They change interpretations wildly on many different rules every week. I'm 100% convinced that this is a deliberate tactic by the AFEL to ensure the game is being talked about and takes up all the available media space. Media rule 101 - it's much worse to be ignored than to be hated.

The way this rule is umpired is completely broken. The clamp down is necessary but it will only last a few weeks and then it will be relaxed again when there is something else the AFEL have seeded to the media to talk about.

[ledge]

Can they actually show us the change in the rule book ?
I would like to see the old version and the new version as it?s written , we would understand it better as fans.

[bornadog]

Can they actually show us the change in the rule book ?
I would like to see the old version and the new version as it?s written , we would understand it better as fans.

They have sent a video to each club to show the difference. I put up a link in a few posts back

Also posted on AFL.com.au

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1140581/afl-tightens-up-holding-the-ball-after-club-feedback

[Bulldog Joe]

Can they actually show us the change in the rule book ?
I would like to see the old version and the new version as it?s written , we would understand it better as fans.

There is no change, because it is about interpretation.

How can the fans understand, because the umpires clearly don't.

I am certainly hoping the proposed interpretation is consistently applied. The players adapt quickly to consistent interpretation.

We might see less congested games with a few extra frees or players just moving the ball on.

[G-Mo77]

Changing things around on the fly again. Do the AFL do this better than any other sporting code in the world?

[bornadog]

There is no change, because it is about interpretation.

How can the fans understand, because the umpires clearly don't.

I am certainly hoping the proposed interpretation is consistently applied. The players adapt quickly to consistent interpretation.

We might see less congested games with a few extra frees or players just moving the ball on.

When the prior opportunity rule was introduced, the coaches and players adapted to it so they hold the ball longer to create a stoppage. Seems this year, the AFL decided to give players longer to dispose the ball, so they are not holding on to it, but they went too far.

After over 150 years, we still can't get the rules right

[soupman]

They have sent a video to each club to show the difference. I put up a link in a few posts back

Also posted on AFL.com.au

https://www.afl.com.au/news/1140581/afl-tightens-up-holding-the-ball-after-club-feedback

Lol the first one has always been a free, the second one yes but maybe a half second early, the third one usually unless he wriggles more (which they don't seem to have bothered with this year), the 4th never a free (although Sheezel might be owed one) and the 5th was only a free in the 360 days.

I suspect the frees on the weekend are going to show a more significant change than that lot.

[bornadog]

Lol the first one has always been a free, the second one yes but maybe a half second early, the third one usually unless he wriggles more (which they don't seem to have bothered with this year), the 4th never a free (although Sheezel might be owed one) and the 5th was only a free in the 360 days.

I suspect the frees on the weekend are going to show a more significant change than that lot.

Get ready for some fun in the next week or so.

[G-Mo77]

Get ready for some fun in the next week or so.

That's the issue. They change things or crackdown on interpretations and then we as fans are left confused. We've watched footy for almost half a season and now it changes. It's pathetic! I don't follow every sport but I don't think there would be a code around the world that shifts the goal posts as much as the AFL do.

[Scraggers]

Changing things around on the fly again. Do the AFL do this better than any other sporting code in the world?

The AFL constantly showing they are reactive rather than proactive.

[mjp]

I must be in the minority but I'm all for this - particularly the ones where a player has one arm pinned but not both...

You have an arm free. KICK IT. If you can't, you're holding it.

p.s. This also plays into the duty of care around a sling tackle. If the player being tackled has an arm free, they CAN protect themselves...let go of the ball and use your arm to help you. Naughton was in that situation last Friday night and he had an arm free...drop it and kick it...It will be holding the ball - but if your arm is free, you 100% can protect themselves. Been some interesting calls on that so far this year and the mandate on the tackler to be 'perfect' is currently too high.

And all of the criticism of the AFL here about being reactive, didn't the NBA just do exactly the same thing around touch fouls etc? Seemed to help the game, not hinder it...

[Bulldog Joe]

I must be in the minority but I'm all for this - particularly the ones where a player has one arm pinned but not both...

You have an arm free. KICK IT. If you can't, you're holding it.

p.s. This also plays into the duty of care around a sling tackle. If the player being tackled has an arm free, they CAN protect themselves...let go of the ball and use your arm to help you. Naughton was in that situation last Friday night and he had an arm free...drop it and kick it...It will be holding the ball - but if your arm is free, you 100% can protect themselves. Been some interesting calls on that so far this year and the mandate on the tackler to be 'perfect' is currently too high.

And all of the criticism of the AFL here about being reactive, didn't the NBA just do exactly the same thing around touch fouls etc? Seemed to help the game, not hinder it...

Absolutely agree with this and I have been saying it for years. If the ball isn't pinned the player needs to dispose of it.

[Hotdog60]

Wasn't the rule back in day dot you must dispose of the ball by hand or by foot otherwise you are penalised.
You don't have to Einstein to make a ruling on that rule may be the AFL need to go back to it roots. So if a player holds onto the ball without hitting his hand or foot your pinged.
Go back to that and what do you know no congestion.

[Hotdog60]

Also while we're at it get rid of the below the knees bullshit which was a knee jerk (pun intended) to one or two cases in a million games of football.

[G-Mo77]

I must be in the minority but I'm all for this - particularly the ones where a player has one arm pinned but not both...

You have an arm free. KICK IT. If you can't, you're holding it.

p.s. This also plays into the duty of care around a sling tackle. If the player being tackled has an arm free, they CAN protect themselves...let go of the ball and use your arm to help you. Naughton was in that situation last Friday night and he had an arm free...drop it and kick it...It will be holding the ball - but if your arm is free, you 100% can protect themselves. Been some interesting calls on that so far this year and the mandate on the tackler to be 'perfect' is currently too high.

And all of the criticism of the AFL here about being reactive, didn't the NBA just do exactly the same thing around touch fouls etc? Seemed to help the game, not hinder it...

Don't recall anything about touch fouls changing mid season? There has been a change in the way the whistle has been blown on since the mid break though but I can't recall anything official.

[bornadog]

Also while we're at it get rid of the below the knees bullshit which was a knee jerk (pun intended) to one or two cases in a million games of football.
The original intention was to stop players sliding in feet first (hello Goodes), which I agree with as it is dangerous. Some how it morphed into below the knees

[EasternWest]

Nothing says pRoFeSsIoNaL lEaGuE more than changing the rules midway through the year.

[bornadog]

Don't recall anything about touch fouls changing mid season? There has been a change in the way the whistle has been blown on since the mid break though but I can't recall anything official.

It was changed heading into 22/23 season, not mid season

[EasternWest]

Also while we're at it get rid of the below the knees bullshit which was a knee jerk (pun intended) to one or two cases in a million games of football.

Dan Hanneberry says "wait, that's a rule?"

[Grantysghost]

Dan Hanneberry says "wait, that's a rule?"
Every time he mentions it Bevo being shafted from lifting the cup plays in my head; then I smile, look contentedly into the distance, and smile.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I must be in the minority but I'm all for this - particularly the ones where a player has one arm pinned but not both...

You have an arm free. KICK IT. If you can't, you're holding it.

p.s. This also plays into the duty of care around a sling tackle. If the player being tackled has an arm free, they CAN protect themselves...let go of the ball and use your arm to help you. Naughton was in that situation last Friday night and he had an arm free...drop it and kick it...It will be holding the ball - but if your arm is free, you 100% can protect themselves. Been some interesting calls on that so far this year and the mandate on the tackler to be 'perfect' is currently too high.

And all of the criticism of the AFL here about being reactive, didn't the NBA just do exactly the same thing around touch fouls etc? Seemed to help the game, not hinder it...

The nba is very difficult to watch with touch fouls (only called for certain players btw).

It's better than it was in the golden state and Curry days though where everything was a foul even contact initiated by the shooter. Defence has been eradicated from the game and its a horrible spectacle where any drive to the rim is called a foul.

Today's game was a good example. Doncic getting calls for zero contact. Now the whole league is full of star players who do nothing but simulate and complain. The officiating has WAY too much influence on results so much so that everyone checks to see who is officiating games. Feels like the afl is going that way.

[Grantysghost]

The original intention was to stop players sliding in feet first (hello Goodes), which I agree with as it is dangerous. Some how it morphed into below the knees

It was Thomas v Rohan broken leg from memory. Totally knee jerk.

[Hotdog60]

Feet first I can understand but the rule killed the likes of Cross who put their head over the footy.

[Bulldog Joe]

Feet first I can understand but the rule killed the likes of Cross who put their head over the footy.

The interpretation of below the knees is just so wrong.

Player bends over to pick up the ball and an opponent tries to get his boot to it, but wins a free for below the knees. That was kicking in danger.

They really should only penalise players sliding in.

The famous unpaid one in the GF was actually caused by Hannebery and didn't even contact him below the knee.

[jazzadogs]

There is still way too much grey, and the umpires are being placed in an even more difficult position with more subjectivity.

Thinking of the dogs, how often will players like Bont and Bailey Williams be pinged when they are halfway through successfully breaking a tackle?

The quick whistle is good in theory but is potentially going to stifle ball players if any half decent tackle results in a htb free.

[jeemak]

They change interpretations wildly on many different rules every week. I'm 100% convinced that this is a deliberate tactic by the AFEL to ensure the game is being talked about and takes up all the available media space. Media rule 101 - it's much worse to be ignored than to be hated.

The way this rule is umpired is completely broken. The clamp down is necessary but it will only last a few weeks and then it will be relaxed again when there is something else the AFEL have seeded to the media to talk about.

Man when I saw you posted in this thread I was hoping for a prior opportunity shit show argument.......

[jeemak]

I must be in the minority but I'm all for this - particularly the ones where a player has one arm pinned but not both...

You have an arm free. KICK IT. If you can't, you're holding it.

p.s. This also plays into the duty of care around a sling tackle. If the player being tackled has an arm free, they CAN protect themselves...let go of the ball and use your arm to help you. Naughton was in that situation last Friday night and he had an arm free...drop it and kick it...It will be holding the ball - but if your arm is free, you 100% can protect themselves. Been some interesting calls on that so far this year and the mandate on the tackler to be 'perfect' is currently too high.

And all of the criticism of the AFL here about being reactive, didn't the NBA just do exactly the same thing around touch fouls etc? Seemed to help the game, not hinder it...

I have no sympathy for players who hang onto the ball instead of protecting their heads, when one arm is pinned.

[jeemak]

Tackling technique has improved more than any skill in the game over the last twenty or thirty years. The intent of prior opportunity is irrelevant now because of that fact.

If I was in charge:

- If a player runs through a tackle and it goes below the knees, it's a free for below the knees

- If a player moves his body or shrugs a tackle without lowering into it and it goes high, it's a free for too high

- If a player possesses the ball and has no immediate opportunity to dispose of it and it's held in, call a quick ball up without nominating

- If a player possesses the ball and does not immediately try to dispose of it when an opportunity was there to do so, ping them for holding the ball

- If a player possesses the ball and tries to dispose of it but it's an incorrect disposal, call incorrect disposal


The second one listed is a bit controversial, but I don't understand why the neck and head should be treated differently than the shins and feet. The rest are easy enough, just get on with it.

[azabob]

Just keeps getting more interesting?

Sam McClure joins Footy Classified to walk us through his exclusive story about umpires being coached in-game, without key figures across the league knowing, including some senior coaches.


https://youtu.be/gGgpg22iFD0?si=E-YQ7FIEczH2rKBs

[jazzadogs]

Just keeps getting more interesting?

Sam McClure joins Footy Classified to walk us through his exclusive story about umpires being coached in-game, without key figures across the league knowing, including some senior coaches.


https://youtu.be/gGgpg22iFD0?si=E-YQ7FIEczH2rKBs

I'm not watching anything with McClure. Does he have any hard evidence of this happening? Or is this just another thought bubble based on rumour, like when "west coast are not going to pick" Harley Reid?

I heard BT talking about it on tv or radio last week as well, so it's clearly been making its way around media land.

[jazzadogs]

If the frees against Sanders x2, Garcia x2 and Bramble are actually what the coaches and AFL want, then I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to watch the game. Atrocious.

[jeemak]

If the frees against Sanders x2, Garcia x2 and Bramble are actually what the coaches and AFL want, then I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to watch the game. Atrocious.

Reckon I could live with it if that's just how it is and it's consistent. But then you get the Daicos non-call and all cred goes out the window and people want to wreck TVs.

[bornadog]

If the frees against Sanders x2, Garcia x2 and Bramble are actually what the coaches and AFL want, then I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to watch the game. Atrocious.

Either we have a prior opportunity rule or we don't

[angelopetraglia]

We were on the wrong end of the interpretation of the new rules tonight. They pinged us a few times with zero prior and then Daicos goes for a casual stroll, gets done cold and they don't play holding the ball. Right in front of me too. What a disgreaceful no call that was.

[JanLorMill]

It’s the crowd rule. If your fans call htb loud enough it’s a free.

[Bulldog Joe]

If the frees against Sanders x2, Garcia x2 and Bramble are actually what the coaches and AFL want, then I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to watch the game. Atrocious.

It is the interpretation I have been calling for since they started the ridiculous prior opportunity.
The game was better for it without players having the opportunity to just hold it in for a stoppage.
There were some mistakes and Garcia was hard done by at least once.
The glaring error of not calling the one to Garcia on Daicos was nothing to do with the changed interpretation.
That has been a legitimate free kick since the game was invented.

[jeemak]

It is the interpretation I have been calling for since they started the ridiculous prior opportunity.
The game was better for it without players having the opportunity to just hold it in for a stoppage.
There were some mistakes and Garcia was hard done by at least once.
The glaring error of not calling the one to Garcia on Daicos was nothing to do with the changed interpretation.
That has been a legitimate free kick since the game was invented.

Try not to imagine the different types of perverted reasons that not one of the two umpires in the zone or the next one closest didn't call that as a free to Garcia.

[Bulldog Joe]

Try not to imagine the different types of perverted reasons that not one of the two umpires in the zone or the next one closest didn't call that as a free to Garcia.

Obviously blind sided because they decided to look where he was going to kick it:)

Still it wasn't anything to do with the changed interpretation.

[JanLorMill]

Try not to imagine the different types of perverted reasons that not one of the two umpires in the zone or the next one closest didn't call that as a free to Garcia.
The umpire love of Nick Daicos was the reason. Might as well be wearing the Brownlow now.

[jeemak]

Obviously blind sided because they decided to look where he was going to kick it:)

Still it wasn't anything to do with the changed interpretation.

100% agree.

[Grantysghost]

The umpire love of Nick Daicos was the reason. Might as well be wearing the Brownlow now.
Also: he's an incredible player.

[jeemak]

Also: he's an incredible player.

Thankfully there's still one better than him going around.

[Grantysghost]

Thankfully there's still one better than him going around.

That's why he's always been my avatar and I've never ever ever (no narcs) doubted him.

[bornadog]

That's why he's always been my avatar and I've never ever ever (no narcs) doubted him.

That Avatar keeps changing though ;)

[EasternWest]

That Avatar keeps changing though ;)

He said no narcs

[bornadog]

He said no narcs
I can't read

[Grantysghost]

That Avatar keeps changing though ;)

:cool:

[Sedat]

The Daicos miss was a terrible screw-up but overall I liked the rule change. Players are already starting to tap it on and not take possession - they are smart and will adapt, as was every player in the first 100 years of the competition.

It will shit me if they relax the rule, and I suspect they will in about a month's time.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

The Daicos miss was a terrible screw-up but overall I liked the rule change. Players are already starting to tap it on and not take possession - they are smart and will adapt, as was every player in the first 100 years of the competition.

It will shit me if they relax the rule, and I suspect they will in about a month's time.

They will. This exact thing happened in 2021 I believe (or 2020).

[azabob]

The HTB rule was a shit show in the first half.

Second half I thought it was ok.

[jazzadogs]

I'm obviously on my own, but if someone picks up the ball and is tackled before they've taken a step, and the tackler helps hold the ball in - that should be a ball up.

I'm not talking about the Naicos miss - agree that had nothing to do with the new interpretation.

I don't think it's entertaining watching guys paddle the ball around, too scared to take possession because they'll get pinged. I like seeing people putting their body over the ball and driving through tackles.

[bornadog]

I'm obviously on my own, but if someone picks up the ball and is tackled before they've taken a step, and the tackler helps hold the ball in - that should be a ball up.

I'm not talking about the Naicos miss - agree that had nothing to do with the new interpretation.

I don't think it's entertaining watching guys paddle the ball around, too scared to take possession because they'll get pinged. I like seeing people putting their body over the ball and driving through tackles.

I tend to agree - I said last night at the game, players are getting scared to pick up the ball.

[Bulldog Joe]

Well I liked the interpretation despite a few errors.

The game is much better when you eliminate the opportunity for players to just hold the ball for a stoppage.

I certainly hope they maintain the interpretation as evidenced in round 12.

It does need to be applied consistently to every player(that is always an issue)

[bornadog]

Well I liked the interpretation despite a few errors.

The game is much better when you eliminate the opportunity for players to just hold the ball for a stoppage.

I certainly hope they maintain the interpretation as evidenced in round 12.

It does need to be applied consistently to every player(that is always an issue)
It's a fine line between prior opportunity and HTB

[EasternWest]

It's a fine line between prior opportunity and HTB

They've done it once, they'll do it again

[Bulldog Joe]

It's a fine line between prior opportunity and HTB

It is a fine line between success and failure as well.

Umpires are there to make the decision and they will get some wrong, but anyone who takes a step or has the ball free need to dispose or it is HTB.

The concession I would make is on incorrect disposal where they attempt to kick/handball where prior opportunity was lacking.

[Sedat]

Well I liked the interpretation despite a few errors.

The game is much better when you eliminate the opportunity for players to just hold the ball for a stoppage.

I certainly hope they maintain the interpretation as evidenced in round 12.

It does need to be applied consistently to every player(that is always an issue)
The Paul Roos effect. Nobody has done more damage to the aesthetic of the modern game than him.

[SquirrelGrip]

It is a fine line between success and failure as well.

Umpires are there to make the decision and they will get some wrong, but anyone who takes a step or has the ball free need to dispose or it is HTB.

The concession I would make is on incorrect disposal where they attempt to kick/handball where prior opportunity was lacking.

I've never really been on top of incorrect disposal and why that's not a thing. I was listening to umpire boss Steve McBurney on the radio over the weekend and he was saying an attempt is good enough, you don't actually have to make contact with the ball to dispose of it.

Why on earth is that acceptable?

[bornadog]

I've never really been on top of incorrect disposal and why that's not a thing. I was listening to umpire boss Steve McBurney on the radio over the weekend and he was saying an attempt is good enough, you don't actually have to make contact with the ball to dispose of it.

Why on earth is that acceptable?

that has slowly crept into the umpiring. I am pretty sure incorrect disposal is still a rule

[josie]

that has slowly crept into the umpiring. I am pretty sure incorrect disposal is still a rule

It’s my big umpiring bug bear. Every match there are multiple incorrect disposals. I assumed rule had been removed. Don’t understand why it’s not used more as it would ease congestion which is what their after.

[jeemak]

The Paul Roos effect. Nobody has done more damage to the aesthetic of the modern game than him.

Paul Roos would counter that by saying Paul Roos.

[Sedat]

Sample size is now big enough - Laura Kane appointment is a massive failure as is Andrew Dillon. I've been around plenty of corporates the last 25+ years so I have a sharp ear for meaningless word salads - whenever I hear someone from executive level use utter gibberish like "let's unpack this further", they are mediocre in talent and have repeatedly failed up throughout the inner bubble of their corporate career.

What has happened with the rules/interpretation is actually scandalous, or my suspicion is that the AFEL don't actually care and that they judge success on completely different metrics to what is truly important. It is obvious that the talkback/media column inches are of a higher priority to the AFEL than the actual integrity of the rules of the game itself. It's all about the clicks, the value of media impressions, and other metrics that ensure maximum TV rights and bonuses for the cabal of senior executives. To hell with the players, the clubs and the lower levels of the game - actually to hell with the game itself.

[bornadog]

Sample size is now big enough - Laura Kane appointment is a massive failure as is Andrew Dillon. I've been around plenty of corporates the last 25+ years so I have a sharp ear for meaningless word salads - whenever I hear someone from executive level use utter gibberish like "let's unpack this further", they are mediocre in talent and have repeatedly failed up throughout the inner bubble of their corporate career.

What has happened with the rules/interpretation is actually scandalous, or my suspicion is that the AFEL don't actually care and that they judge success on completely different metrics to what is truly important. It is obvious that the talkback/media column inches are of a higher priority to the AFEL than the actual integrity of the rules of the game itself. It's all about the clicks, the value of media impressions, and other metrics that ensure maximum TV rights and bonuses for the cabal of senior executives. To hell with the players, the clubs and the lower levels of the game - actually to hell with the game itself.

If you listened to Laura Kane on 774 on Saturday, she was not impressive at all. The FS and academy rules are gong to be changed this year, but they haven't told the clubs what the changes will be. What sort of Mickey Mouse Org are they running.

[SquirrelGrip]

If you listened to Laura Kane on 774 on Saturday, she was not impressive at all. The FS and academy rules are gong to be changed this year, but they haven't told the clubs what the changes will be. What sort of Mickey Mouse Org are they running.

Hang on, isn’t it our President who runs a Mickey Mouse Org?

[bornadog]

Hang on, isn’t it our President who runs a Mickey Mouse Org?

Touche

[Sedat]

https://www.titusoreily.com/afl/the-magical-fairyland-of-afl-umpiring?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0AW8U6B4nj6b2ngtNdR7FbnP YAsmiJTPJ_ewuh9mXRQXQk0bwOAj06B6A_aem_SwtxH9rOhiL0zvosRGUdVA

Brilliant from Titus. Comedians always get to the core of issues. This is all orchestrated.

[bulldogtragic]

AFEL apparently seeking club feedback on:

- removing the 6-6-6 warning
- goal kicking down to 20 seconds

[GVGjr]

AFEL apparently seeking club feedback on:

- removing the 6-6-6 warning
- goal kicking down to 20 seconds

Removing the warning is fair enough but perhaps a drop from 30 seconds down to 20 is a bit to much so 25 seconds seems a fair step.

[Mantis]

Removing the warning is fair enough but perhaps a drop from 30 seconds down to 20 is a bit to much so 25 seconds seems a fair step.

20sec is fine. Players stare at the screen for 10sec to waste time fairly regularly, it needs to stop.

[soupman]

Can we keep the warning? It's the best bit of the 666 rule.

Also reducing the 30 seconds is juts gonna lead to more inaccuracy. I guess it helps stop those last few minutes where players pretend and then pass it but I don't think that's the way to stop that.

[Axe Man]

6-6-6 warning, shot clock among possible rule changes floated by AFL (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/rule-changes-that-could-be-implemented-by-the-afl-before-the-2025-season/news-story/e141cfc57eac8f83933c7b0487887320)

The AFL has asked senior coaches and football bosses for feedback on a list of potential rule tweaks and interpretations including eradicating the 6-6-6 warning and handing players only 20 seconds to take set shots at goal.

The Herald Sun can reveal AFL football boss Josh Mahoney sent out an email on Wednesday night asking for feedback ahead of potential changes which would be released to clubs before Christmas.

The league stressed to coaches it was far from certain to change rules around the topics for discussion but was keen to assess their views.

As part of efforts to continue pushing a more free-flowing game, those club officials have been asked their views on whether the maximum time to play on from a free kick or mark should be reduced from the usual six or seven seconds.

The league wants to assess views on whether umpires should also call play on more quickly after a behind is kicked to ensure the ball comes back into play with less delay as the player kicking the ball in assesses his options.

And rather than handing players 30 seconds from a set shot before they are ?on the runway? towards a shot at goal, the league is canvassing views on a 20-second limit.

The league has worked hard to try to enhance the amount of time the ball is in play, which at one stage in the early 2000s had dropped below 50 per cent of total game time.

Forcing players to play on from a mark or free kick quickly would potentially cause a more chaotic game with more turnovers because players would be rushed into playing on rather than find a free man with a pinpoint kick.

Mahoney asked the coaches and general managers of football whether the league should remove the 6-6-6 warning that is caused when a player does not start in the set positions inside 50 after a goal.

The rule was brought in for the 2019 season to stop clubs playing a loose man at centre bounces, and means six players from each side must be inside each 50m arc at each centre bounce.

But five years on the calls for eradicating the warning have been deafening.

The AFL also asks if it does not eradicate the warning whether the ball should be bounced or thrown up, with one view within AFL House that throwing the ball up after a warning gives some clubs with tall tap ruckmen an advantage.

Other topics for consideration include whether umpires should consider insufficient intent when the ruckman hits the ball out of play from a ruck contest.

Currently if the ruckman hits the ball out on the full they are penalised with an insufficient intent free kick.

But the AFL could allow its umpires discretion to judge whether the player meant to hit the ball out of bounds.

The league is also interested in views on whether all free kicks after a goal should be taken in the middle of the ground regardless of which team gives away the free kick.

In rare cases a defensive player is penalised only seconds after a goal is scored, in effect handing one team a decisive double-goal.

The league could tweak its rules so in that circumstance the team which kicked the goal and was then awarded a free kick would receive that kick from the centre square.

AFL IGNORES CRIPPS, MOORE PLEAS ON FOOTY?S MOST CONTENTIOUS RULE

The AFL is set to retain its much-scrutinised four-man bench and substitute despite strong lobbying from senior players and the player union to eradicate the sub.

The league is still working through potential rule changes for the 2025 season but was thrilled senior coaches and players gave up their time in Grand Final week for a rules and game analysis forum.

At that forum players made clear that they hate the sub and the ramifications for players, much preferring a five-person bench.

Under the current rules the fifth member of the bench is only able to come into the game as the substitute to replace a teammate ? either through injury or tactical reasons ? who then cannot return to the game.

Players hate being the named sub and hate being subbed off midgame, with Western Bulldogs deputy vice-captain Caleb Daniel leaving the club in part because of his use in that role seven times this year.

Players including Patrick Cripps, Darcy Moore and Sam Frost attended that rules summit and were strong in their dislike for the rule.

They believe players who are the sub or are subbed off are often disadvantaged at selection the next week because of a lack of game time and fitness, with players subbed off struggling to hide their frustration at the decisions.

But the Herald Sun understands the league is set to stick with the four-person interchange bench and sub.

It believes that specific make-up of the bench with a cap of 75 rotations allows for fairness and also the capacity to replace an injured player with a fresh teammate.

The AFL remains upbeat about the standard of the game, entertainment value and strong appetite from supporters to attend the football despite gripes about umpiring standards.

Some senior coaches at the summit agreed with the player push, with some believing a fifth member of the bench to be used freely would also bring more tall players into the game.

Coaches say they would more often play a second ruckman in their sides if they had the capacity to use all five players on the bench from the first bounce.

Players and coaches at that rules summit spoke about the stand rule, game length, how to disincentivise dangerous tackles and the holding the ball rule.

Carlton captain Cripps was worried a mid-season rule tweak which rewarded a player who pinned an arm of his opponent would stop players going for the ball.

?It?s around the new interpretation. It?s not a crack at the umpires, it?s what?s being coached,? he said in July.

?The arm being pinged, it?s automatically holding the ball if you don?t get rid of it. My thing is, if people don?t have prior and they have the arm pinged, it should be a quick ball-up.?

Last year the AFL cracked down on illegal smothers over summer in the wake of the Angus Brayshaw-Brayden Maynard finals collision and also banned officials from whistling on the bench as part of rule changes.

It also strengthened the onus on players not to commit a strike when fending or pushing an opponent in a decision that saw Isaac Heeney ineligible for the Brownlow Medal after a high fend on Jimmy Webster.

[azabob]

What about the ruck nomination rule? Surely that also has to stop.

[soupman]

The league has worked hard to try to enhance the amount of time the ball is in play, which at one stage in the early 2000s had dropped below 50 per cent of total game time.



Early 2000's, so 20 years ago.




Forcing players to play on from a mark or free kick quickly would potentially cause a more chaotic game with more turnovers because players would be rushed into playing on rather than find a free man with a pinpoint kick.



Wouldn't this lead to more balls in dispute thus more stoppages from freekicks and ball ups, or defensive kicks down the line that get knocked out of bounds, thus slowing the game more?



Mahoney asked the coaches and general managers of football whether the league should remove the 6-6-6 warning that is caused when a player does not start in the set positions inside 50 after a goal.

The rule was brought in for the 2019 season to stop clubs playing a loose man at centre bounces, and means six players from each side must be inside each 50m arc at each centre bounce.

But five years on the calls for eradicating the warning have been deafening.



If you lose the warning then there will be 1-3 free kicks paid for this 666 rule per game. Do we want that? The current system enforces compliance without bullshit frees. It isn't as if teams are taking advantage of the leniency, its always accidental, you can't take the warning and still play an extra in defence.



The AFL also asks if it does not eradicate the warning whether the ball should be bounced or thrown up, with one view within AFL House that throwing the ball up after a warning gives some clubs with tall tap ruckmen an advantage.


Lol. But if they do the bounce it advantages not as tall tap ruckmen.




The league is also interested in views on whether all free kicks after a goal should be taken in the middle of the ground regardless of which team gives away the free kick.

In rare cases a defensive player is penalised only seconds after a goal is scored, in effect handing one team a decisive double-goal.

The league could tweak its rules so in that circumstance the team which kicked the goal and was then awarded a free kick would receive that kick from the centre square.


Finally a decent suggestion. It has always made complete sense to change it to this.

[Sedat]

Dills and Kane-o need to resign. Among their many responsibilities (for which they are both handsomely remunerated), they are employed to manage the laws of the game - all they do is delegate and transfer their direct responsibilities to other interest groups.

Everybody they are delegating to has a vested interest and an agenda to suit their position/club. Do the job or piss off.

[mighty_west]

20sec is fine. Players stare at the screen for 10sec to waste time fairly regularly, it needs to stop.

Which i don't understand why players do that, it's as though in their heads they have to take every single second but why? Go back, go about your routine walk in and kick the goal, to me it has to be a distraction from your routine monitoring the shot clock, if i'm their goal kicking coach i'm telling them keep your eyes on the ball and goal posts, look at the clock and you do an extra 10 laps at training.

[mighty_west]

What about the ruck nomination rule? Surely that also has to stop.

I was going to mention that but then they have issues with players being blocked, if there is no genuine ruckman in that area said player who is being tagged gets blocked put's his hand up for the free even though he may not have been contesting that ruck contest.

[soupman]

Which i don't understand why players do that, it's as though in their heads they have to take every single second but why? Go back, go about your routine walk in and kick the goal, to me it has to be a distraction from your routine monitoring the shot clock, if i'm their goal kicking coach i'm telling them keep your eyes on the ball and goal posts, look at the clock and you do an extra 10 laps at training.

It's an opportunity to rest, get their breathe back and let their team mates do the same plus set up the ground for a behind. Often to get the ball in a scoring position they have to do a heap of running just prior.

[mighty_west]

It's an opportunity to rest, get their breathe back and let their team mates do the same plus set up the ground for a behind. Often to get the ball in a scoring position they have to do a heap of running just prior.

You're also giving the oppo a rest too so it's no advantage, all it's doing is taking away from your routine, it's arguably the most important aspect of the game and getting that right.

[hujsh]

It's an opportunity to rest, get their breathe back and let their team mates do the same plus set up the ground for a behind. Often to get the ball in a scoring position they have to do a heap of running just prior.


You're also giving the oppo a rest too so it's no advantage, all it's doing is taking away from your routine, it's arguably the most important aspect of the game and getting that right.

The second part is more important.

[jazzadogs]

20sec is fine. Players stare at the screen for 10sec to waste time fairly regularly, it needs to stop.

Why not keep it at 30 but stop the clock. Umpire has a signal for 'shot on goal', timekeeper starts the shot clock and stops the game clock, until the ball hits the boot. Then it's not time wasting.

Do they want 20 seconds purely to speed up the game more?

[Axe Man]

You're also giving the oppo a rest too so it's no advantage, all it's doing is taking away from your routine, it's arguably the most important aspect of the game and getting that right.

Why wouldn't their routine entail taking the 30 seconds? I think most players rely on the umpires warning rather than look at the screen.