The Laws of the Game committee are considering a raft of new changes, which can be seen here: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/100109/default.aspx

For mine, a cap wouldn't work on interchanges, but a substitute system might be OK (3 players + 1 sub).

I can't say I'd like the length of the game to be reduced, nor would I like to see a goal awarded if it hits the post.

But I do like the advantage rule being determined by the player, not the umpire, as well as boundary umpires being able to pay free kicks at stoppages. I also like a new free kick for those who drag the ball under their opponent.

You can have your say here: http://www.afl.com.au/aflrulesyoursay/tabid/16504/default.aspx. I wonder how much weight will be given to the fans' voices.

Edited August 11, 201014 yr by titan_uranus

Joke all of them.

Stop changing the game.

Anderson just said on SEN that they are worried about high collision accidents.

So they are worried about soemthing that may happen. So what happens if a high collision accident happens in the first minute of the game, do we make them run for 1 hour pre game.

Jokes, each and every one of them.

Can they just leave the game alone???

If we keep changing it the game it will end up being chess.

It's disappointing that the AFL are seriously considering capping the interchange, I've watched the topic get beefed up by the media but figured it would never come under genuine consideration due to it being a rubbish proposal. I am strongly against the league capping the interchange because in no way is it a blight on the game and to blame injuries on something like interchange rotations really is as stupid as it sounds.

The only rule change suggested that is even remotely worth considering is the "free kick against player who drags ball under opponent", the rest of them are completely unnecessary.

It's bloody stupid what other game changes there rules so regulary?

I think a cap on the interchange has some merit. The players are all so fit these days that everyone plays as a midfielder, moving up and down the ground en masse.

I think a cap would bring more structure back to the game. The game was a better spectacle when full forwards stayed in the goal square.

God I wish they'd take a leaf out of FIFA's book and stop making massive changes to the rules. It's not up to the AFL to counter tactical innovations by the coaches. Let the coaching community do their job and come up with new tactics to stop them. The only changes I support are harsher penalties for people staging for frees.

God I wish they'd take a leaf out of FIFA's book and stop making massive changes to the rules. It's not up to the AFL to counter tactical innovations by the coaches. Let the coaching community do their job and come up with new tactics to stop them. The only changes I support are harsher penalties for people staging for frees.

FIFA's 'book' would be the one that refuses to look at video referral for contentious goals etc., because they want the game 'experience' to be the same for Croydon vs Ringwood under 11's as for Spain vs Netherlands in the World Cup final! The World Cup 'blunders' throughout the tournament changed results of games. It was a blatent embarrassment. Their inability to change the rules to penalise 'staging' are bewildering.

All the AFL proposed rule changes have merit. The 'post shaving' in particular is a no-brainer. It would not change the way the game is played one iota, and would eliminate controversy, a la Hawkins in Grand Final last year.

cant even get the current rules right on a consistent basis.

It's not soccer. It's AFL. Demetriou better get that right.

If he wanted rules like that 'hit the post' one, then why doesn't he invent a new sport?

It would be a stupid change to a brilliant game.

God I wish they'd take a leaf out of FIFA's book and stop making massive changes to the rules. It's not up to the AFL to counter tactical innovations by the coaches. Let the coaching community do their job and come up with new tactics to stop them. The only changes I support are harsher penalties for people staging for frees.

They made the big mistake years back when they changed the interchange to four. Now their bringing it back, closer to where it was.

This is great. 3 interchange & 1 sub.

We may yet see a Tony Lockett again one day.

A goal being awarded even if the ball hits the post? Can we not retain some unique parts of our great game? What happens if the ball comes back into play, is it play on? There are a couple of disclaimers to this rule, one being that if the ball is touched into the post it is a behind, that's fine. The other is my favourite, which is the ball must travel on the full for a goal to still be awarded. So if the ball bounces and skims the post on it's way across the goal line it will not be credited as a goal? Is it just me or is this crazy? As anyone who takes in the game would know, there are a large percentage of players that like to bounce the ball through nowadays.

To me this has just been a hastily thought out idea in response to the weekends error's.

Just leave the rest of the game as it is, it is fine how it is.

I'm not surprised they are looking at the interchange restrictions. A cap of 80 which is still 20 per qtr should be ample and it does allow for more evenness if one team loses a player through injury during a game. I am happy with this change as it is less central to any particular rule that affects the cosmetics of the game/s.

A goal being awarded even if the ball hits the post? Can we not retain some unique parts of our great game? What happens if the ball comes back into play, is it play on? There are a couple of disclaimers to this rule, one being that if the ball is touched into the post it is a behind, that's fine. The other is my favourite, which is the ball must travel on the full for a goal to still be awarded. So if the ball bounces and skims the post on it's way across the goal line it will not be credited as a goal? Is it just me or is this crazy? As anyone who takes in the game would know, there are a large percentage of players that like to bounce the ball through nowadays.

Hard to know what you're on about here, making everything sound more complicated than it is. The proposal simply states that if the ball hits the post and continues on through the space between the two goal posts, it will be a goal. The current rule might be a much-treasured eccentricity of our game - though I seriously doubt that - but it is just plain illogical and - pardon the weak pun - pointless. The presumption is, I think, that if it bounces back into play it will still be a point as it is now. But to be consistent, they will have to propose that if it hits the behind post and continues on through the space between the goal post and the behind post it will be a point rather than out of bounds.

The proposal will make the goal ump's job easier. It'll be the first sensible rule change for a long, long time. Now, if they would only get rid of the insane 50 metre penalty...

Dont get me started on rule changes.

Leave the damn game alone,why they need to change /add new rules every year is plain stupidity.

More knee jerk solutions to the real core of the problem. Goal umpires making blatant mistakes,

as do field umpires. Human error,its a part of life. Its been like that since day dot.

I'll be glad to see the back of Anderson and his cronies.

Penalise a player trying to get the ball,then its pile on top of him so he is pinned

and he gets penalised,now they feel the need to alter the rule for the very same problem they tried to fix.

and on it goes.

Maybe we can get FIFA to take control,before its totally ruined.

Hard to know what you're on about here, making everything sound more complicated than it is. The proposal simply states that if the ball hits the post and continues on through the space between the two goal posts, it will be a goal. The current rule might be a much-treasured eccentricity of our game - though I seriously doubt that - but it is just plain illogical and - pardon the weak pun - pointless. The presumption is, I think, that if it bounces back into play it will still be a point as it is now. But to be consistent, they will have to propose that if it hits the behind post and continues on through the space between the goal post and the behind post it will be a point rather than out of bounds.

The proposal will make the goal ump's job easier. It'll be the first sensible rule change for a long, long time. Now, if they would only get rid of the insane 50 metre penalty...

Lost Highway? Apt name here mate as it's not me making this sound more complicated. It is the proposed rule You are incorrect. If the ball bounces into the post BUT still crosses the goal line, it will be awarded a behind only.

So, here we head straight into another contentious call when a ball lands like a half volley on the goal line and scraps the post on its way through, is that a goal or behind Lost?

You tell me.

Crazy!

Edited August 11, 201014 yr by Demon Jack 16

I think if they put a cap on the bench numbers that would help the MFC.

Scully, Trengove and Morton all elite runners and have huge endurance. You could add few more to that list.

With reduced rotations I think you would find these guys dominating by either getting to space or the right postions better than their opposition.

The other rule changes are a smoke screen.

Never never let a snicked kick become a goal..its unique and its just part of the game. Heartbreaking at times...but thats footy !! Off limits !!

No caps is my preference but prepared to see what results would be garnered via the preseason games before deciding.

3 int and a sub ( or even two ) might be interesting..best of both worlds.. Allows for significant injuries ( to be catered to) in game whilst forcing coaches to be more prudent with adhoc interchanging. Worth a trial in preaseason also

NO SNICKED GOALS !!!!!

I'm not in favour of an interchange cap. If less congestion is the aim then less players on the ground is the solution. It's not a big deal - cut the on field 18 to 15 and the total 22 to 20 (5 on the bench) and we'd have a more open and still high paced game. The AFLPA may not like it.

I think Mark Stevens is actually onto something for once

- http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-floats-cap-on-interchange-rotations/story-e6frf9jf-1225903879947

the most likely option is 3 bench and 1 sub.

I very much doubt they'd seriously consider capping rotations because then you have the problem

of enforcing the rule.

This is likely to lead to the demise of the backup ruckman and also we'll see players develop into professional substitutes who are versatile enough to cover most positions.

It will also likely lead to 2 classes of players

- those who rotate on and off the bench, and will continue to do so at the current rate. Player likes mids, flankers, and pockets.

- those who generally don't rotate, guys like Fevola or KPP of old who never/ rarely need to go to the bench

I think if they put a cap on the bench numbers that would help the MFC.

Scully, Trengove and Morton all elite runners and have huge endurance. You could add few more to that list.

With reduced rotations I think you would find these guys dominating by either getting to space or the right postions better than their opposition.

The other rule changes are a smoke screen.

& Jones, Bartram, Watts,,,, nearly all our list have great endurance.

I'm not in favour of an interchange cap. If less congestion is the aim then less players on the ground is the solution. It's not a big deal - cut the on field 18 to 15 and the total 22 to 20 (5 on the bench) and we'd have a more open and still high paced game. The AFLPA may not like it.

The game originated with 18 players onfield, with 2 subs, (19th & 20th Men)...

Now we have 22 players accessible to the field,,, = congestion.... = defensive & stoppages...

& Jones, Bartram, Watts,,,, nearly all our list have great endurance.

Bate, Dunn...

Do not change the rule on hitting the post it is has been a part of the game for 100+ years, leave it alone

It is one the things that is different about our game.

Never give the control of the game to the coaches!

The two things I hate about our game have been created by the coaches!

Their only focus is winning and they will bend the rules and look of the game to this end.

It is the Coaches who created flooding. I hate the sight of 36 palyers at one end of the ground.

As a result some games end up a series of congested scrums.

The coaches wanted 4 inter change players so they would not be disadvantage by injuries and they would not have to send injured palyers back into play. It was never intended to go the way it has.

They created the constant changing of the players to the current ridiculous levels where you have no idea who is playing and who is not.

Any change that results in less flooding and a more stable number of players on the ground is fine with me.

But forget about what the likes of Mick Malthouse thinks he cannot see the forest for the trees.

Edited August 12, 201014 yr by old dee

Hitting the post could soon be a goal....Send the AFL to jail for bringing the Game into disrepute.

As the rules of the game are at our club we should play the game by those rules i say

The AFL are not trustworthy.

The game originated with 18 players onfield, with 2 subs, (19th & 20th Men)...

Now we have 22 players accessible to the field,,, = congestion.... = defensive & stoppages...

Although only 18 are on the field at any one time ,the game has effectively become 22 v 22 ..... and the contest is distorted ( 22 v 20) when one team loses a couple of players early in the game. For the integrity of the competition ,I think it is important to re-introduce the concept of a substitute.For many years , clubs only had a 19th man .... and the 20th man came later as more and more teams began to finish a player short. As injured players began to recover on the sidelines, the call went out to allow substitutes to interchange - and then as teams continued to struggle to cover on-field injuries, the interchange bench was increased to four. Somehow this core issue has been lost in a debate about the ability of sports scientists to rotate players for maximum speed.

The question should be : Do you want 18 plus 4 interchanges plus 2 substitutes or do you want to cap the total at 22 (so as not to put more pressure on total player numbers)?

If you want to keep it at 22, then you have two of the AFL's three present options. Leaving 4 on interchange and capping the number of rotations will do nothing to overcome the distortions caused by injuries during a match - and is an unnecessary arbitrary restraint on the evolution of the game.

Let's make it 20 v 20 ( 18 on the field at any one time) plus two substitutes - and allow the 20 to rotate as many times as they like.

Edited August 12, 201014 yr by hoopla