After watching the split second moments where we got a free and Maric kicked it within a sec (prob not physically possible to stop) and also a Sydney play on where we then tackled and Davey pumped it back in the F50 in the last (can't remember if we got a goal or point, think it was a point) but this to me so far has been a rule that was bought in that seems to be the worst of the lot so far.

What are your thoughts?

The rule is an improvement I think, and as the players get use to it I think we'll be happy with it.

However I still think whistleless advantage (whereby the ump realises it's advantage, and waves play on) is the best way to go.

They are essentially saying that if you have the potential to make a decision of disposal, you can make the decision not to continue playing.

They know this is impossible, and they have adjusted it as so, so as to counter the stops in play caused by a saturation of re-interpretation. The AFL is essentially "fine-tuning" the game to make it more attractive to international audiences, including foreigners in Australia (students etc.).

In that instance a fairly trivial matter didn't actually cause stoppage in play, because the Melbourne player inadvertently played on, meaning the play never stops.

Once the fear and anger associated with the change subsides (which is purely human nature -- with evolution and progression naturally comes fear), no one will notice it anymore and accept it as a bona fide rule of the game.

I don't really mind it. I'd rather see more old-school stuff not causing a stoppage in play, as it would now with a free-kick and not generous advantage.

I don't think players are always able to make a conscious choice - sometimes there seems very little time between a whistle and the player taking an action that's deemed to be choosing to play on.