RIP The Bounce

The AFL Commission has approved rule changes to remove the centre bounce and the substitute for the 2026 season.

The league announced the change on Wednesday morning after “extensive consultation with clubs, umpires, players and the AFLPA”.

The AFL’s manager of football performance, Greg Swann, said the game had evolved and removing the bounce would bring benefits in “several areas”.

“Currently, umpire pathways are being narrowed by the requirement of the bounce. It is a difficult skill to execute, and we believe is preventing some of our best umpiring prospects from progressing any further in the AFL pathway despite having elite decision-making skills.

“By removing the skill aspect of bouncing the ball, umpires can focus their energy on adjudicating the game and consistency of decision-making.

“We also anticipate this decision will be safer for umpires and players at the contest and lessen the likelihood of umpire contact at the restart.

“The removal of the bounce we predict will also have a positive impact in the reduction of game length and produce a cleaner and fairer ruck contest, two areas we have been monitoring for the past two seasons.

“Additionally, it will also create consistency across national competitions.”

With the removal of the substitute rule, clubs will name 23 players, with five players named on the interchange.

“We have listened to the feedback from players, the clubs and the AFLPA to remove the substitute in favour of a fifth interchange player with rotations to remain the same,” Swann said.

Timely for Max Gawn at this stage of his career. It could extend it by a couple of years with the capacity to have your back up ruckman playing on and off the bench.

This could also assist players like JvR as they could concentrate on becoming settled as KPF's without tiring themselves out as relief ruckmen.

It might also affect how teams go about their drafting this year.

6 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Timely for Max Gawn at this stage of his career. It could extend it by a couple of years with the capacity to have your back up ruckman playing on and off the bench.

This could also assist players like JvR as they could concentrate on becoming settled as KPF's without tiring themselves out as relief ruckmen.

It might also affect how teams go about their drafting this year.

I like JVR in the ruck. He competes hard and it gets him involved in the game.

I don't see the extra player being a ruckman for us.

Look for us to now play with two rucks.

I don't mind either rule change in themselves but what I don't like is the tinkering with individual rules here and there. For example, removal of the sub and increasing the number of interchange players to five shouldn't be done without considering other related matters such as numbers of rotations and whether four or five (or something else) is the right number of players on the bench. Similarly, removing the bounce shouldn't be considered without also examining the ruck nomination and "no third man up" rules.

To be fair, perhaps these matters were considered. It would be helpful if the AFL said so, if they were.

Edited Wednesday at 01:013 days by La Dee-vina Comedia

4 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Look for us to now play with two rucks.

How does eliminating the bounce make a difference

such a shame about the bounce, it was unique and historical. a few whinge and moan and get their way and spare me on the umps backs and "improving decision making" give us one to open every game that thump of ball into turf is pretty special and isnt going to do them any significant harm beyond what the roles and responsibilities they sign up to as umpires demands

11 minutes ago, Oxdee said:

How does eliminating the bounce make a difference

I'm not talking about the bounce.

I won't be sorry to see the end of the bounce (particularly bad ones that are recalled) and I doubt that anybody will even notice that it's gone.

We are/were the only sport in the world that required an official to execute a ridiculously difficult skill and I wonder how many potentially decent umpires were lost to the game because they couldn't bounce the ball straight. If anybody is in doubt as to the degree of difficulty involved, try it for yourself and see how you go.

30 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Look for us to now play with two rucks.

I wouldn't back Max for less on ground time.

Five on the bench... soon it will be six because when it was four we had to have a "medical back up".

Anyone watching VFL knows the bounce had to go.

I'm ready for abolition of posters as well.

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

I wouldn't back Max for less on ground time.

Five on the bench... soon it will be six because when it was four we had to have a "medical back up".

Anyone watching VFL knows the bounce had to go.

I'm ready for abolition of posters as well.

Who have you got in mind? Surely not me?

Sub rule fair enough, but nothing changes, just have no sub. Every team has same amount of interchange so when someone is injured that team has one less on the bench. Might as well have just axed the sub and left with 4 on bench, but hey extra bench why not.

31 minutes ago, Turner said:

such a shame about the bounce, it was unique and historical. a few whinge and moan and get their way and spare me on the umps backs and "improving decision making" give us one to open every game that thump of ball into turf is pretty special and isnt going to do them any significant harm beyond what the roles and responsibilities they sign up to as umpires demands

Fully agree, Mr Turner.

Maybe because I'm an older afficianado of the game , I like the traditional aspects.

So they have to rebounce a throw if the first one goes awry.

Big deal. Is it so much of a disruption?

Perhaps umps just need more experience.

They certainly do with most of the rules.

Edited Wednesday at 02:073 days by Previously known as LITD.

20 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

I won't be sorry to see the end of the bounce (particularly bad ones that are recalled) and I doubt that anybody will even notice that it's gone.

We are/were the only sport in the world that required an official to execute a ridiculously difficult skill and I wonder how many potentially decent umpires were lost to the game because they couldn't bounce the ball straight. If anybody is in doubt as to the degree of difficulty involved, try it for yourself and see how you go.

It's not the bad bounces that get recalled that irk me, it's the bad ones which don't get recalled. And by 'bad' I include bounces that advantages one ruck and disadvantages the other. I like tradition, but the bounce is too often unfair.

But I'm amazed the AFL has dumped it without C'wood losing a grand final because of a disadvatageous bounce in the last 30 seconds.

Abolishing the bounce isn't about fairness. It's about making it easier to get better umpires by removing a physically difficult task which currently reduces the pool of prospective umpires. For a start, it will make it easier for more women to become field umpires at the top level.

I would have gone further, Ruckman are not allowed contact until the ball is thrown in from boundary throw-ins, and no grappling at centre bounces. It's a blight on the game.

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Abolishing the bounce isn't about fairness. It's about making it easier to get better umpires by removing a physically difficult task which currently reduces the pool of prospective umpires. For a start, it will make it easier for more women to become field umpires at the top level.

Will also stop me jeering bad bounces, which admittedly isn't entirely their fault.

37 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Abolishing the bounce isn't about fairness. It's about making it easier to get better umpires by removing a physically difficult task which currently reduces the pool of prospective umpires. For a start, it will make it easier for more women to become field umpires at the top level.

Whatever the AFL's motivation, throwing it up wiill be fairer.

1 hour ago, Demonstone said:

I won't be sorry to see the end of the bounce (particularly bad ones that are recalled) and I doubt that anybody will even notice that it's gone.

We are/were the only sport in the world that required an official to execute a ridiculously difficult skill and I wonder how many potentially decent umpires were lost to the game because they couldn't bounce the ball straight. If anybody is in doubt as to the degree of difficulty involved, try it for yourself and see how you go.

I'm sorry to see it go. It's part of the uniqueness of our game which has been diluted further by this move.

I would have changed the rule so they did not have to bring back a bad bounce.

Also would have brought back the bounce around the ground.

If they want fair then change to a round ball.

...and as for the sub, I would have eliminated it and not added another interchange player.

4 on the bench is enough.

Cut the rotations to a small number a Q...and you won't need to be worried about disadvantage with injury.

Would be good if they at least kept it for the start of the quarter. Make it a moment of significance, indicating the start of the quarter.

Even reducing to only the first bounce of the game.

Makes it significantly easier on umpires backs if that’s the actual issue.

Edited Wednesday at 04:052 days by GawnOfTheDead

OK, I'll go with maybe first bounce of the game. Given there are several umps on the field, that could be done with the one who is best at it and has a strong back.

Throw it up and pop your money on Max winning the Brownlow next year.