Are You Sick Of The Afl Changing Rules Every Year

[Bornadog]

The morons at AFL HQ are going to change the game. I prediucted this.

Football bosses told the last disposal rule more likely than unlikely for next year. Ruck rules changes coming and game length to be reduced. But perhaps the biggest message was that father-son and academy changes are coming in 2026.

There must be something serioulsy wrong with the game if they want to keep changing it

[hujsh]

The morons at AFL HQ are going to change the game. I prediucted this.



There must be something serioulsy wrong with the game if they want to keep changing it

I don't really want any of that...

[Bornadog]

Our game of AFL must really be stuffed because the goons in AFEL HQ want to keep changing it to fix it up. This is the final straw in changing the game - really truly have had enough of these morons.

AFL to propose introduction of last touch rule from 2026


By Sam Edmund

The AFL is seeking to introduce a last disposal out of bounds rule among a raft of other potential changes to the game.

The rule will eradicate the subjectivity around insufficient intent and instead see a free kick paid against players who kick or handball over the boundary line between the arcs.

The AFL commission will this month be asked to approve the change, along with several other proposals, as Greg Swann’s vision for the game is laid bare.

Swann last month forecast the change with club football bosses and speaking exclusively to the AFL Record, said that had now been formalised.

“All these things have to be approved by the commission. But there will be recommendations put forward and that will be one that we adopt,” Swann said.

“We do it in AFLW, the SANFL does it, it’s between the arcs and it’s a kick or a handball.

“The stats show on the games played that there would only be two extra free kicks a game. It’s not a big change, but it’s a tough call for the umps sometimes and we’re almost there anyway.”

Swann, who has spent his first six weeks as AFL football boss thrashing out a series of adjustments to the game, will have his team’s recommendations heard by the commission in Grand Final week.

Asked if the Grand Final would mark the last time a coach has to tell a player he would be a substitute, Swann said: “Probably. Yep.”

He said teams would be able to name five players on the bench, with rotations to remain capped at 75.

But the 6-6-6 warning is set to stay.

“I think we’ll keep that in,” Swann said.

“There were 70-odd warnings and only about six were paid free kicks. But I think with the five on the bench there’s going to be a bit more mayhem so we’ll just leave the warning in for the minute and review that after next year.”

Swann confirmed the AFL was still looking at ways to tilt the centre bounce back in favour of the athletic ruckman.

“There’s a couple of options, but I’m working with the umpires and talking to clubs about how we do that,” he said.

“On round numbers, over the last three years it used to be four out of every five times they’d jump at each other. Now it’s four out of every five times they walk across the line and wrestle. It’s not good for the game. We want them to jump.

“Are they allowed to cross the line at all? Do we have a little wedge they’ve got to stand in so they have to effectively face each other and jump? We’ll work that through.”

Will there be a bounce? Swann remained coy on the prospect of abolishing the tradition – “we’ll have to wait and see” - but spoke of the benefits of doing so.

“I think it contributes to the contact with the umpires because they’re down, they’re up, they’re walking,” he said.

“If they can throw it up, quickly get out of the way, and we won’t have the recalls, which waste time.

“Plus, every junior competition in Australia I’m led to believe, throw the ball up. So none of the umpires coming through the system bounce the ball. Where is that going to leave us once this crop of umpires move on?”

[bulldogsthru&thru]

We're almost at last touch now anyway. The rule at least gets rid of any inconsistencies in interpretation.

[jeemak]

We're almost at last touch now anyway. The rule at least gets rid of any inconsistencies in interpretation.

Only between the arcs.

I'd start off with a virtual line extending across the ground from the points of the centre square and mark where it would intersect the boundary, and see how that goes first. A penalty for a simple skill error any closer to goal is too much for me.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Only between the arcs.

I'd start off with a virtual line extending across the ground from the points of the centre square and mark where it would intersect the boundary, and see how that goes first. A penalty for a simple skill error any closer to goal is too much for me.

Yes only between the arcs for sure.

[FrediKanoute]

The rule will eradicate the subjectivity around insufficient intent and instead see a free kick paid against players who kick or handball over the boundary line between the arcs.

Weren't the AFL the one's who tinkered with this rule and made it so that hack kicks down the line effectively became free kicks for insufficient intent. Changed the rule from deliberate to a lottery.

Face palming myself in disbelief! All that is gong to happen is we will now have controversy about who's last touch it is.

[Bornadog]

The rule will eradicate the subjectivity around insufficient intent and instead see a free kick paid against players who kick or handball over the boundary line between the arcs.

Weren't the AFL the one's who tinkered with this rule and made it so that hack kicks down the line effectively became free kicks for insufficient intent. Changed the rule from deliberate to a lottery.

Face palming myself in disbelief! All that is gong to happen is we will now have controversy about who's last touch it is.

It won't be last touch, it will be last disposal like in the AFLW.

Insufficient intent is also a joke and it was the AFLs way of introducing this rule in a sneaky way.

As I said the game must be stuffed beacuse these buffoons keep want to change it.

[BontlowSzn]

The less boundary throw-ins the better for us. Tim consistently gets monstered.

I don't mind this rule change personally. It gives teams less time to set up the ground defensively. Players can just grab the ball and go. Rather than wait 10 seconds for the rucks to get into position, then another 10 for the umpire to throw it in.

[soupman]

Pretty happy with the last disposal rule. It's practically how it's adjudicated now and at least Matthew Nicks should understand whats happening.

I think the 5 interchange thing instead of the sub is dumb, and just setting us up for there to be a new medi sub in 2029 onwards (and then 6 on the bench etc.).

I don't understand the obsession with the rucks jumping, surely no one real is watching the game and pointing that out as a major flaw.

Very happy the 666 warning is staying, don't understand everyones keenness to see a free paid for this.

As always i think downfield frees should be abolished, should just be a freekick where the ball is (or a 50m penalty if they already have the ball). Downfield frees are almost invariably for what is marginally a free, the penalty is super high and disproportionately favours the attackers, and the double goal that happens afterwards is always a joke and no one can be seriously advocating for it to stay. The Rayner example is exactly how it always plays out (for both the initial downfield free an the afters) and it is so dumb.

[lemmon]

The process is so incredibly funny and lacking in any rigour. It really is - new person comes in, they have personal gripe over aspects of the game, the literal laws of the game are reshaped based on the vibe of this one person with relatively little consultation or process.

Greg Swann is seen as a 'good footy man' though and 'someone from club-land' so his tinkering seems to escape any scrutiny.

[my plums]

Crazy this thread started in 2007 and its the same answer every year since. Yes

[Bornadog]

Crazy this thread started in 2007 and its the same answer every year since. Yes

Rule changes do not improve the game, they CHANGE the game.

[Grantysghost]

Only between the arcs.

I'd start off with a virtual line extending across the ground from the points of the centre square and mark where it would intersect the boundary, and see how that goes first. A penalty for a simple skill error any closer to goal is too much for me.

And wait for the endless reviews.

[my plums]

Rule changes do not improve the game, they CHANGE the game.

yes they do, and not necessarily for the better