Rule changes 2024

[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-...hiL0zvosRGUdVA

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

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.