AFL to propose introduction of last touch rule from 2026

Greg Swann confirms his first change.

Changes proposed include:

• last touch rule for out of bounds as applied in SANFL & AFLW,

• no more subs

• centre bounce likely to go as it wants to encourage 'athletic' ruckmen, not wrestlers.

The last rule expected to favour athletic high jumpers like Kalani White.

However, the interchange cap is expected to remain at 75.

The last touch rule is a significant change to the game. But I hope that it gets rid of the rubbish "deliberate" or "insufficient intent" calls we are currently seeing raffled by the umpires.

One thing I hate is the 50m for many minor transgressions. For example the stand rule if you are caught, sometimes very unreasonably, I don't understand why it has to be a 50m.

Can they have let's say a 20m rule for lesser violations of the rules?

1 minute ago, ElDiablo14 said:

One thing I hate is the 50m for many minor transgressions. For example the stand rule if you are caught, sometimes very unreasonably, I don't understand why it has to be a 50m.

Can they have let's say a 20m rule for lesser violations of the rules?

I would only support a 20m penalty if it is forward of the centre square.

From a deep defensive position, a short penalty would delay the game and allow opposition to set up.

2 minutes ago, deanox said:

I would only support a 20m penalty if it is forward of the centre square.

From a deep defensive position, a short penalty would delay the game and allow opposition to set up.

sensible

the rule was introduced when Hawthorn thought that obstructing a player and thus preventing play on was worth a 15M penalty.

The last touch rule effectively over rides the insufficient intent rule which gives one less reason to criticise umpires. As I understand the rule the player has to have had control of the ball before it can be called an infringement

3 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

sensible

the rule was introduced when Hawthorn thought that obstructing a player and thus preventing play on was worth a 15M penalty.

The last touch rule effectively over rides the insufficient intent rule which gives one less reason to criticise umpires. As I understand the rule the player has to have had control of the ball before it can be called an infringement

So kicking off the ground and out is fine?

17 minutes ago, deanox said:

The last touch rule is a significant change to the game. But I hope that it gets rid of the rubbish "deliberate" or "insufficient intent" calls we are currently seeing raffled by the umpires.

The last touch proposed rule will be a significant blight and stain on our great game. We already have stupid rules like 50 for on the mark infringements (either stepping on the wrong blade of grass of not having a measuring tape to determine over the mark in the stand position or "insufficient intent" for a sloppy kick that bounces the wrong way).

This rule will destroy the nexus between winning penalties from the contest only, not from some stupid interpretation of crazy rules. With now four field umpires on the ground, why do we need this. Scrap it and any other nonsensical idea.

There was a time when our great game was officiated to reward the contest. Let's go back.

22 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

One thing I hate is the 50m for many minor transgressions. For example the stand rule if you are caught, sometimes very unreasonably, I don't understand why it has to be a 50m.

Can they have let's say a 20m rule for lesser violations of the rules?

Don't get me started on the 'stand' rule and 5m rule. I defy anyone to work out what the rule is by simply observing what actually happens.

7 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

So kicking off the ground and out is fine?

If it's out on the full it was a free anyway but if you elect to kick the ball you have taken control so if it goes out you are pinged.

The AFLW "last-touch rule" is a rule in the AFLW competition where a free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player kicks or handballs the ball out of bounds, and it was the last player from their own team to touch the ball. This rule, which applies between the 50-meter arcs, aims to reduce stoppages and congestion, leading to a more free-flowing and higher-scoring game. If the last touch is unclear or contested, the umpire will throw the ball in instead of awarding a free kick

TBH it could be a lot tougher thus discouraging teams that hug the boundary line such as us !

The last touch rule should of come in decades ago. It's a shame it's only between the arcs which doesn't completely remove the subjectivity.

Edited September 8, 2025Sep 8 by lorn

Go back to basics with the rules I say, mid 90's.

53 minutes ago, deanox said:

The last touch rule is a significant change to the game. But I hope that it gets rid of the rubbish "deliberate" or "insufficient intent" calls we are currently seeing raffled by the umpires.

I agree but unfortunately it looks like insufficient intent will still apply inside the arcs.

58 minutes ago, deanox said:

The last touch rule is a significant change to the game. But I hope that it gets rid of the rubbish "deliberate" or "insufficient intent" calls we are currently seeing raffled by the umpires.

So, say young JVR or any of the second rucks punch the ball out of bounds on a throw in… the other team gets a free?

Edited September 8, 2025Sep 8 by GawnOfTheDead

So if you kick the ball from the centre to the forward pocket roll out is it deliberate? Last touch or throw in?

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

the rule was introduced when Hawthorn thought that obstructing a player and thus preventing play on was worth a 15M penalty.

I remember it as a response to a Kevin Sheedy tactic at Essendon.

17 minutes ago, GawnOfTheDead said:

So, say young JVR or any of the second rucks punch the ball out of bounds on a throw in… the other team gets a free?

That's already a free under the current rules isn't it?

1 minute ago, Demonstone said:

That's already a free under the current rules isn't it?

Only if it's on the full?

10 minutes ago, BigBadBustling said:

Only if it's on the full?

Correct. Gawn frequently took full advantage of this current rule by smashing the ball 20 metres in our direction and straight to the boundary. As long as it's not on the full he wasn't pinged for "insufficient intent."

I don't like last touch between the arcs, but I'm happy to accept anything that makes the job easier for umpires.

A lot of people say the between the arcs stipulation makes sense. I find it frustrating because you can essentially kick for touch when blasting inside 50 with no chance of kicking a goal. In the women's game especially, getting a throw in beside the behind post is a boon; most teams find it really difficult to move it out of deep defense.

Interesting to see if they go harder on insufficient intent inside the forward 50 in the men's game.

28 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

That's already a free under the current rules isn't it?

Unsure mate. Didn’t notice that one.

Last touch is a horrible idea - last touch only encourages the will be beneficiary to not try to keep it in. Maybe if the boundary umpire threw in from 5 or 10 meters in from the boundary there would be far fewer repeat OOB. And if boundary throw ins required ruckman to be separated by 10 meters as the ball is thrown it would stop the gorilla wrestling and enhance the game.

Stand is absolutely counterintuitive and worse because the umpires never force the kicker to go over the mark. Often they run wide and the poor defender has to look by stupidly until play on is called.

IF insufficient intent is to stay, surely it should only apply when the kicker is free - whenever the kicker is in a tackle there should be no insufficient intent paid. I can't remember who, but at the weekend some poor guy was 360 degrees into a tackle, got his kick or handball away and was pinged. No feel for the game. The most absurd one of which I can recall the detail was Angus in the dying seconds of the 2021 game at Geelong - Dees were trailing and desperate to go forward, and the 1d10t called deliberate which would be the last thing on Angus' mind. Fortunately the undeserved free went OOB and the rest is history.

Centre bounce - umpires require just one technical skill and many don't master it. When recalled there is usually a loss of 2 seconds which can be crucial in a close game. If the bounce persists, and is recalled, the clock needs to reset.

Edited September 8, 2025Sep 8 by monoccular

Couldn't be any worse than the farce we have now.

Less throw ins mean less clearance based footy mean we need to get out of our current midfield yesterday.

Although I have no idea how many stoppages this rule would reduce. Anyone have the stats on that??

The last weekend saw 68, 56, 46, and 77 non-centre square stoppages so that GWS/Haw game was a stoppage for nearly every minute of actual play. And that’s not including stoppages for goals…

Works fine in the AFLW. I just don’t know the numbers it will impact really.