GOALSQUARE STARTING POSITION

While the 6-6-6 rule will remain from centre ball-ups, there will no longer be a requirement for at least one player per team to start in the goalsquare. This will be a measure to help reduce dead time after goals.

Last season, the AFL's findings discovered that the goalsquare was the last remaining facet of 6-6-6 to be organised at 10 per cent of all post-goal restarts. On average, that delayed the game by 8-10 seconds per instance. The League subsequently expects the total time saved through this rule change will be around 20-30 seconds per match.

LAST DISPOSAL

A free kick will now be awarded when the ball crosses the line from a disposal between the arcs, bringing the men's game in line with the AFLW's 'lasso' rule.

It will operate similar to SANFL in the sense that if a player blocks an opponent or doesn't play the ball before it crosses the line, a normal boundary throw-in will occur instead of a last disposal free kick.

In the 2025 season, the AFL's findings discovered that there were 20 boundary throw-ins paid between the arcs and 0.5 insufficient intent free kicks paid between the arcs per game. The League then adapted those numbers for a scenario where the last disposal rule had been introduced. Its adapted numbers showed boundary throw-ins would be reduced by three per game, while 0.3 current insufficient intent free kicks would be negated by a last disposal free kick.

The adapted numbers also showed that there would have been an average of 3.25 last disposal free kicks per game paid across the 2025 season.

The query from club land has been whether a last disposal rule would kill the ruck. However, there still would have been 67 stoppages per game on average in 2025 based on the adapted numbers. That would have brought it back in line with the AFL's 2023 and 2024 averages.

CENTRE BALL-UP CONTESTS

At all centre ball-ups, competing rucks will now be unable to cross the centre line before engaging with their opposition ruck. This is born from a desire to see the jumping rucks return to the game.

The AFL has said this rule would not have been possible without the end of the 'centre bounce', as opposed to the 'centre ball-up', due to the variables of which direction the ball can go from a bounce. The ball-up also gives the umpire extra time and ability to assess where the ruck is stationed when he engages his opponent.

The AFL's findings discovered that only 21 per cent of centre bounce ruck contests had at least one ruck jumping in the 2025 season. In 2023, just two years ago, that number was at 63 per cent.

There will still be an opportunity for the more physical wrestling rucks to impact the game at around-the-ground stoppages and boundary throw-ins.

ALIGN KICK-IN TIME

Umpires currently allow 'reasonable time' for a kick-in, which is deemed at around 12 seconds. However, 'reasonable time' for a mark or free kick paid around the ground is deemed at eight seconds. From 2026 onwards, both of these will align to be eight seconds.

The AFL sampled more than 1200 kick-ins across the 2025 season, with a quarter of those lasting longer than 10 seconds and 13 per cent lasting longer than 12 seconds.

There was an average of 21 kick-ins taken per game across the 2025 season. If a quarter of those are reduced by four or five seconds, the League is conservatively hoping that around 21 seconds of match length is knocked off through kick-ins alone.

RUCK NOMINATIONS

Umpires can now restart play without a nominated ruck being present, bringing the men's game in line with AFLW rules. If there is no nomination, or the nominated ruck is too far away, the play will be restarted immediately.

The 'third-man up' is still outlawed, so if no rucks nominate – or if the two nominated rucks are too far away when play is restarted – the ball will be thrown up and will have to hit the ground before 'play on' is called.

The AFL discovered that there were on average four ball-ups and six boundary throw-ins per game last season with a delay due to the umpire waiting for nominated rucks to arrive at a contest before restarting the play. It contributed to an average of three and a half seconds worth of delay on ball-ups and around one second worth of delay on boundary throw-ins.

One particular example from St Kilda's victory over Melbourne late in the year saw two rucks nominate for a boundary throw-in on the opposite wing, despite only just returning to the field of play from the bench. The umpire waited more than 25 seconds for the two rucks to arrive at the contest, before restarting the play.

SHRUGGING IN THE TACKLE

A shrug in a tackle will now be deemed prior opportunity. It will be similar to how a fend, or an attempt to evade a tackle is deemed prior opportunity.

It's hoped this will stop players from contributing to a high tackle, while making the rule easier to adjudicate for umpires.

STAND

There will be a stronger enforcement of players being told to 'stand' if they are inside the protected area.

Now, if you are within 5m of a mark or a free kick when it is paid, deemed the protected area, you will be required to 'stand' and can no longer reverse to being 'outside five'.

The AFL found that more and more players have left the protected area to stand 'outside five' across the last season. In 2025 alone, the AFL's findings discovered that only 58 per cent of opposition players would 'stand' when told while 18 per cent of players went to the area deemed 'outside five' by the umpire.

It's hoped this will see more players take the game on, encourage overlapping possessions and more free-flowing ball movement

Any news about the wild card weekend?

Thoughts on these?

Shrugging In The Tackle is going to be a highly controversial (and I predict, poorly adjudicated) one.

The doubling-down of the stand rule is nuts.

I’m ok with ruck nominations being scrapped and somewhat welcoming of the last-touch rule.

Just now, Mel Bourne said:

Thoughts on these?

Shrugging In The Tackle is going to be a highly controversial (and I predict, poorly adjudicated) one.

The doubling-down of the stand rule is nuts.

I’m ok with ruck nominations being scrapped and somewhat welcoming of the last-touch rule.

Love the no nomination of rucks. Just bloody throw the ball up!

last touch rule will likely see disputes and reviews

What happens if a player kicks a ball 30m but it is touched by the man on the mark? That all of a sudden becomes a free to the kicking team?

Seems unfair.

Or when players are close to the boundary line and a player with the ball handballs into the legs of an oppo player and the ball goes bounces over the boundary.

Will be a dogs breakfast

For 100 years we had deliberate OOB that worked ok

19 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Love the no nomination of rucks. Just bloody throw the ball up!

But if no one is nominated you have to wait for the ball to hit the ground. Similarly if only one team nominates what happens

All it seems to be doing is doing away with the wait for the nominated ruck. (Confusion reigns)

13 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

But if no one is nominated you have to wait for the ball to hit the ground. Similarly if only one team nominates what happens

All it seems to be doing is doing away with the wait for the nominated ruck. (Confusion reigns)

37 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Love the no nomination of rucks. Just bloody throw the ball up!

Yep, I read that as nomination remaining, they just aren't waiting. That sucks. It should be no nomination at all and third man in is penalised.

Also hate the stand rule crack down.

All the others are meh.

2 minutes ago, Mickey said:

Yep, I read that as nomination remaining, they just aren't waiting. That sucks. It should be no nomination at all and third man in is penalised.

Also hate the stand rule crack down.

All the others are meh.

I bet the shrug-means-prior rule won’t have you saying “meh” when it costs us a game.

That one is going to be a total schmozzle.

Why do they keep changing the rules? All this guff to save a few minutes a game. Just reduced the game time from 100 minutes to 92 minutes. There you go and then we would not have to work through numerous changes that will further complicate fans understanding.

Any danger we could focus on incorrect disposal

So a bloke is tackled and it’s in his best interest to not try to break the tackle?

just stand there like a dead fish?

Some of these changes are good but this is terrible. Viney will cost us 5 frees a game

Would love to know the total number of rule changes in the last 10 years, must be a world record?

I dont mind the last disposal rule (has worked well in the SANFL) except for kicks Inside 50 to a contest/shot should not be included.

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Love the no nomination of rucks. Just bloody throw the ball up!

There's still ruck nominations, it's just the umpire doesn't have to wait if both rucks are a mile away.

There will always be a need for some form of nomination or designation for rucks whilst 3rd man up is (rightfully) banned.

39 minutes ago, Mickey said:

Yep, I read that as nomination remaining, they just aren't waiting. That sucks. It should be no nomination at all and third man in is penalised.

Explain how you determine who the 3rd man is without nominating of having one very confused and bumped over main ruck?

I like all these rule changes. The last touch rule has been almost in effect anyway.

The main challenge will be the ruck nomination and blocking the ruck.

10 minutes ago, DubDee said:

So a bloke is tackled and it’s in his best interest to not try to break the tackle?

Depends if he's already had prior opportunity.

I understand the thinking behind this, although I'm almost certain some umpires were already treating a shrug and a fend of equally previously.

There's a huge difference between a typical Charlie Spargo or Nick Watson shrug, which is all about free kick seeking, and a shrug that lets you slip under a tackle and continue with the football. I hope they go really hard on the former next year.

11 minutes ago, DubDee said:

So a bloke is tackled and it’s in his best interest to not try to break the tackle?

just stand there like a dead fish?

Some of these changes are good but this is terrible. Viney will cost us 5 frees a game

This is to punish the duckers. Peatling, JHF, Daicos, half of Hawthorn. If they keep trying to draw free kicks they run the risk of giving one away.

Some players will be unfairly punished but mostly it should just be targeted at the players who stop playing moving by chasing free kicks. They aren't attempting to break the tackle, they're attempting to get a free.

It bring it in line with guys who dive on the ball, fend, lead with the head or raise their arms.

I find the change to the 6-6-6 rule to be the most interesting. The justification for the change makes no sense to me (why not just enforce the 6-6-6 rule within the prescribed time, rather than worrying about how long it takes for the players to get inside the goal square?) It will be interesting to see how coaches use their 6 forwards and defenders now that they have more freedom to move them around.

PS: If the issue is about reducing time, why not cut time after a goal is scored before the next centre ball up? The broadcasters have really pushed this out to allow a 30 second ad (in the case of the free-to-air broadcaster) plus a replay.

They're nearly all bad rules changes and continue a long line of the AFL changing the rules every year at the detriment of the sport. The average football watcher can no longer watch a match and understand all the rules. They should be removing rules, not further complicating them. My thoughts on the 2026 rule changes below.

Goal square starting position - Will make no difference on matches. We already have 6-6-6 in place, which disarms coaches of strategic options and increases congestion as it essentially forces player to man up and causes clustering. 6-6-6 sucks. This doesn't change or improve that.

Last disposal - This will be an unpopular rule and the average football watcher will not understand how this gets officiated. I can see this going a few different ways. It could encourage teams to play more attacking through the corridor and avoid risk of handing ball over via free kick. The AFL want this and are trying to force this. On the flip side, and IMO more likely, teams will play slower and go more keeping off. Coaches are more about limiting risk than taking risk. I believe this rule will have the opposite effect than intended (as always) for this reason.

Centre ball contests - Removing the bounce removed the unpredictable nature of a bouncing oval ball. Couple it with this rule change and you get the rise of athletic jumping ruckman again. I don't ind this rule change, but would've preferred the bounce remain.

Align kick-in time - Will have no difference on the game other than causing minor confusion with a perceived early play-on call a few times a year.

Ruck nominations - Good rule change in theory, but of course they stuffed it up by adding the "ball must hit the ground before play on called" bit. Ruck nominations are stupid, but if there is no big ruckman at the contest and a player takes it out of the air they are penalised with a free kick. We'll have this scenario where a bunch of players stand there watching the ball just get thrown up and fall to the ground before they can pounce on it. Stupid. Should've just left it as no nomination required.

Shrugging in tackle as prior opportunity - This one is horrific going to ruin matches. Umpires can't even officiate holding the ball, insufficient attempt to dispose etc. Why add another layer to the confusion, and also one that is even harder to see? A player could get tackled immediately, the force of the tackle moves their arm/shoulder, and the umpire sees the movement and deem they tried to shrug and pay a free kick against. This rule change will be discussed every week in the media as it ruins games. They need to simplify, not further complicate, holding the ball.

Stand - Bad change. Being firmer with the stand zone and rule will cause more stupid looking free kicks where the offending player is not impacting the contest at all. They should get rid of the stand rule, not double down on it. It has not aided cleaner ball movement, and as always coaches work to exploit it because it's a bad rule specifically designed to disarm players instead of enforce a smart of fair contest.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Lord Travis

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

What happens if a player kicks a ball 30m but it is touched by the man on the mark? That all of a sudden becomes a free to the kicking team?

Or when players are close to the boundary line and a player with the ball handballs into the legs of an oppo player and the ball goes bounces over the boundary.

It's last disposal not last touch. So the first would be a throw-in because the last interaction with the ball wasn't a disposal but a touch. The second would be a throw-in if the umpire deems it to be a deflection (touch) not a disposal (kick).

35 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

Would love to know the total number of rule changes in the last 10 years, must be a world record?

Here you go.

https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/history/rule-changes

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

last touch rule will likely see disputes and reviews

What happens if a player kicks a ball 30m but it is touched by the man on the mark? That all of a sudden becomes a free to the kicking team?

Seems unfair.

Or when players are close to the boundary line and a player with the ball handballs into the legs of an oppo player and the ball goes bounces over the boundary.

Will be a dogs breakfast

For 100 years we had deliberate OOB that worked ok

It's last disposal not last touch. Kicks and handballs. Makes it easier for the umps, keeps the game moving and punishes players who blindly bomb the ball to the boundary line. It will be fine

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

What happens if a player kicks a ball 30m but it is touched by the man on the mark? That all of a sudden becomes a free to the kicking team?

Seems unfair.

I had a quiet chuckle at this one. Lucky we've already got a state of the art, highly accurate, goal review system we can lean on here which just about always confirms touched kicks off the boot.

And Seems unfair. Can just about guarantee this'll be a rule for life if it's likely to be unfair.

13 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

This is to punish the duckers. Peatling, JHF, Daicos, half of Hawthorn. If they keep trying to draw free kicks they run the risk of giving one away.

Some players will be unfairly punished but mostly it should just be targeted at the players who stop playing moving by chasing free kicks. They aren't attempting to break the tackle, they're attempting to get a free.

It bring it in line with guys who dive on the ball, fend, lead with the head or raise their arms.

That sounds good and agree this is the intent. But Aussie Rules has a history of implementing a rule that makes sense in theory but is extremely hard to officiate leading to more frustrating free kicks. If it is as described in the OP, if a player is tackled, he tries to shrug it and the tackle sticks, it will be a free kick. So players may have to be advised to take the tackle. Takes a fair bit away from the contest of the game.

29 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

Depends if he's already had prior opportunity.

I understand the thinking behind this, although I'm almost certain some umpires were already treating a shrug and a fend of equally previously.

There's a huge difference between a typical Charlie Spargo or Nick Watson shrug, which is all about free kick seeking, and a shrug that lets you slip under a tackle and continue with the football. I hope they go really hard on the former next year.

I believe change is stating that a shrug will be the prior opportunity