1 hour ago, Macca said:

Kornes is clueless but so is the AFL

The coaches have re-designed the game and the game evolves into a different form on a year to year basis

There's too many players on the field for the modern game. 15 or 16 a side would fix most of the issues with congestion and allow far more free-flowing football

As a result, the game would be far easier to umpire

But it might take the AFL another 10 years to realise that the crowded nature of the sport is the real issue. Maybe 20 years

From the mid 2000's onwards the sport became too congested with endless stoppages

Meanwhile, Rugby League (the AFL's biggest competitor) is now a fast, free-flowing sport with very few stoppages

I agree. I still believe having so many interchange rotations is the game's greatest evil as it allows onballers to keep up with the play making the game look like primary school football. Increasing to five players on the bench may yet make it worse. If the AFL is going to persist with five on the bench, I would love to see interchanges limited to 20 a game (plus extras for blood rule and while concussion assessments are undertaken). That would, in effect, allow one rotation per player on the bench per quarter.

Are we seriously getting rid of the bounce? It’s a unique part of the game and visually epic.

Are we seriously going to start a Grand Final with a ball up?

The people running the game are truly lost.

56 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree. I still believe having so many interchange rotations is the game's greatest evil as it allows onballers to keep up with the play making the game look like primary school football. Increasing to five players on the bench may yet make it worse. If the AFL is going to persist with five on the bench, I would love to see interchanges limited to 20 a game (plus extras for blood rule and while concussion assessments are undertaken). That would, in effect, allow one rotation per player on the bench per quarter.

Yes, all the changes that they make to try and get less stoppages and more free-flowing football are a band-aid approach

After a time, the coaches find a way to create stoppages again so it's rinse & repeat

Try doing that with 15 a side and 20 rotations ... 2 games in and the players would be cactus

Extreme examples of free-flowing & way less congestion are Rugby 7's & AFLX (which is not what I'm advocating)

Just take 4-6 players off the field with limited rotations

By the way, in Rugby League, they still only allow 8 rotations per team

This stand rule "upgrade" is going to be a farce. The players don't know where this imaginary zone is at the best of times. They're being penalised for running through or near it already. Now they're supposed to realise they are in this imaginary zone, and rather than run away from, or out of it, they have to stop and stand still??

I've got a feeling there will be so many 50m penlties paid in the first 3 rounds due to players not standing, that they will do away with it.......I hope

36 minutes ago, HBDee said:

This stand rule "upgrade" is going to be a farce. The players don't know where this imaginary zone is at the best of times. They're being penalised for running through or near it already. Now they're supposed to realise they are in this imaginary zone, and rather than run away from, or out of it, they have to stop and stand still??

I've got a feeling there will be so many 50m penlties paid in the first 3 rounds due to players not standing, that they will do away with it.......I hope

I anticipate a tweak to the amended rule within weeks. It will make it clear that only one player needs to "stand" while all other players will be allowed to leave, as long as they leave the protected zone immediately. Of course, it will be much harder to umpire than that - who knows which player is the one who has to "stand"? I'm convinced eliminating the "stand" rule is still the best option.

4 hours ago, Macca said:

Kornes is clueless but so is the AFL

He's an inflammatory shock jockey, but in this case he's 100% right. We're seeing rule changes to counter-act the failure of previous rule changes. These rules are basically all objectively bad and will cause further confusion to an already over-officiated sport with too many interpretations on what should just be clear rules. It's a sad state of affairs when games are deciding by unclear umpiring decisions on a weekly basis, and the media wind up discussing poor umpiring more than the sport itself.

5 hours ago, Demonland said:

Well said by Kane. Sucks having to agree with him when he's right!

22 hours ago, Craig T said:

They may be planning on adjudicating it differently with the men, but in the AFLW if it comes off a player's foot by any method it is deemed last disposal and they are penalized. 🙄

Good point. I've definitely seen it paid that way...but also the other way. Consistency 🙄

1 hour ago, Lord Travis said:

He's an inflammatory shock jockey, but in this case he's 100% right. We're seeing rule changes to counter-act the failure of previous rule changes. These rules are basically all objectively bad and will cause further confusion to an already over-officiated sport with too many interpretations on what should just be clear rules. It's a sad state of affairs when games are deciding by unclear umpiring decisions on a weekly basis, and the media wind up discussing poor umpiring more than the sport itself.

Well said by Kane. Sucks having to agree with him when he's right!

No, Kane is wrong because he can't see the big picture ... 6 too many players on the field and what is needed is a drastic cut in rotations. Why should the players get a rest? It's bs

What are Kane's answers? Has he ever had an original thought? As I said, he's clueless

But 18 per side seems like it's an untouchable number

Here's another tradition that's gone ... the playing positions are now obsolete and each team is full of mids

It's an ok sport if you enjoy watching endless stoppages

I only follow the sport because I want the Demons to win. There's no other reason

Edited October 30Oct 30 by Macca

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I anticipate a tweak to the amended rule within weeks. It will make it clear that only one player needs to "stand" while all other players will be allowed to leave, as long as they leave the protected zone immediately. Of course, it will be much harder to umpire than that - who knows which player is the one who has to "stand"? I'm convinced eliminating the "stand" rule is still the best option.

And they've now made the stand ruling even more complicated with protection zone criteria.  It's like a dog chasing it's own tail

The Stand rule is another band-aid approach.  Although it kind of works, it's another example of how the fabric of the game has changed

Apart from the changes that I've advocated, I'd ditch the stand rule because with a more open game with loads more space, it wouldn't be needed

So many of these "rules" never used to exist.

Look its meat and 3 vegetables game. It ought not be that complicated...it never used to be. Now it's mutton dressed up as lamb with VCAT presiding !!

It's far too over complicated now.

4 hours ago, No10 said:

Are we seriously getting rid of the bounce? It’s a unique part of the game and visually epic.

Are we seriously going to start a Grand Final with a ball up?

The people running the game are truly lost.

Yes, they could have at least left the bounce in there for the start of the match (any match)

Out of the 4 umpires, one of them would be adept at the bounce

57 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yes, they could have at least left the bounce in there for the start of the match (any match)

Out of the 4 umpires, one of them would be adept at the bounce

While I am a long time critic of the bounce, I cannot for the life of me understand why the AFL would not retain it for the start of a match. My only reserv ation about doing it at the start of each quarter that in a tight game a bad bounce at the start of Q4 might have too much infkluence on the outcome.

2 minutes ago, sue said:

While I am a long time critic of the bounce, I cannot for the life of me understand why the AFL would not retain it for the start of a match. My only reserv ation about doing it at the start of each quarter that in a tight game a bad bounce at the start of Q4 might have too much infkluence on the outcome.

One bounce at the start of each match would have kept a small part of a rich history

Did you ever try bouncing the footy? Damn hard thing to do and with the first 10 or so tries, the ball would often come back straight at your snozz (and ... would bring tears)

To speed up the game just play a point for anything that goes through the outside posts and a goal for anything through the middle posts. It eliminates many score reviews.

Play on for anything that bounces back inboard or play a free kick in for anything that goes out off the behind posts. It works so much better in Gaelic Football and soccer.

That rule is asinine and the goal line cameras are the pox

8 hours 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

I agree but every executive feels a need to make changes.

On 29/10/2025 at 16:11, Dees_In_October said:

The rule states: "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."

I'd think that includes shepherding instead of playing the ball.

Surely if someone shepherds the ball out that is absolutely insufficient intent

1 hour ago, Hellfire Dub said:

To speed up the game just play a point for anything that goes through the outside posts and a goal for anything through the middle posts. It eliminates many score reviews.

Play on for anything that bounces back inboard or play a free kick in for anything that goes out off the behind posts. It works so much better in Gaelic Football and soccer.

That rule is asinine and the goal line cameras are the pox

I seem to recall there was once an experiment in the Ansett Cup or some other preseason whereby if the ball hit any post and came back into play it was play on.

i don’t remember the details but it would be very interesting, and if also as you suggested which space the ball passed through determined the score would get rid of many if those painful score reviews.

9 minutes ago, monoccular said:

I agree but every executive feels a need to make changes.

Surely if someone shepherds the ball out that is absolutely insufficient intent

The way I interpret the rule as stated for SANFL, a player kicks the ball, it bounces and then goes out of bounds without being touched and an opposition player elects not to pick up the ball themself when they could have, instead shepherding it over the line in an attempt to win a last disposal call against the kicker. In that instance, it wouldn't be paid as a last disposal free kick against the kicker, nor would the shepherding player be penalised, it would just be a boundary throw-in. They "played" for a free kick and failed (plus lost the advantage of taking possession of the ball, so a bad option to take all round). Insufficient intent can only be applied to a player in possession of the ball who fails to sufficiently attempt to keep it in, not one without it?

Maybe theyshould have a pre season comp to trial these changes to see if they work

9 hours ago, Dees_In_October said:

The way I interpret the rule as stated for SANFL, a player kicks the ball, it bounces and then goes out of bounds without being touched and an opposition player elects not to pick up the ball themself when they could have, instead shepherding it over the line in an attempt to win a last disposal call against the kicker. In that instance, it wouldn't be paid as a last disposal free kick against the kicker, nor would the shepherding player be penalised, it would just be a boundary throw-in. They "played" for a free kick and failed (plus lost the advantage of taking possession of the ball, so a bad option to take all round). Insufficient intent can only be applied to a player in possession of the ball who fails to sufficiently attempt to keep it in, not one without it?

So here's the problem.

A perfectly sound rule, in place for decades with no controversy was changed the way it was interpreted.

This created major controversies and was universally disliked.

So the AFL introduces a new rule that requires interpretation. It will create controversy and uncertainty no doubt.

The leadership of the AFL are [censored]

On 29/10/2025 at 15:58, DubDee said:

Agree this rule has potential to be a shambles at AFL level.

1 minute left in the game, a team kicks in down the line to a 1-1 contest. The defender would be crazy to not shepperd the ball out of bounds (if possible) and get the free kick to win the game

And those saying this rule change will stop the bad insufficient intent calls are wrong as they will still be there inside 50 which are the most painful ones

On 29/10/2025 at 15:58, DubDee said:

Agree this rule has potential to be a shambles at AFL level.

1 minute left in the game, a team kicks in down the line to a 1-1 contest. The defender would be crazy to not shepperd the ball out of bounds (if possible) and get the free kick to win the game

And those saying this rule change will stop the bad insufficient intent calls are wrong as they will still be there inside 50 which are the most painful ones

I thought that a player shepherding the ball over the boundary line would be guilty of "insufficient intent" to keep the ball in play. It is a little ambiguous to pay a free kick to that player.

14 hours ago, Dees_In_October said:

The way I interpret the rule as stated for SANFL, a player kicks the ball, it bounces and then goes out of bounds without being touched and an opposition player elects not to pick up the ball themself when they could have, instead shepherding it over the line in an attempt to win a last disposal call against the kicker. In that instance, it wouldn't be paid as a last disposal free kick against the kicker, nor would the shepherding player be penalised, it would just be a boundary throw-in. They "played" for a free kick and failed (plus lost the advantage of taking possession of the ball, so a bad option to take all round). Insufficient intent can only be applied to a player in possession of the ball who fails to sufficiently attempt to keep it in, not one without it?

So now we expect the umpires to judge if a players tries hard enough to keep the ball in?

A bloke 30m away could sprint and keep it in. He goes at 70% pace and the ball rolls out.

The AFL make a mockery of our game once again

So past the point of caring about this anymore.

I don't know if new rules are going to work or not but they are constantly brought in to layer over old band-aids.

Last touch OOB free kick good in theory but how many scrappy touches happen that go out, can be hard to tell what is a disposal and what is a tap on, more interpretation for the umps.

Be happy with the umpiring standard as it is because it is never going to get easier. Cries for consistency are futile when it is this difficult to perform.

3 hours ago, DubDee said:

So now we expect the umpires to judge if a players tries hard enough to keep the ball in?

A bloke 30m away could sprint and keep it in. He goes at 70% pace and the ball rolls out.

The AFL make a mockery of our game once again

It goes back to there being a stronger onus than before on the kicker to try to keep the ball in play, regardless of what players positioned 30m away do.

Agree there's a grey area with that though. Still, the idea of the rule is that it's on the kicker to be better with their disposal to avoid the situation arising where the opposition can do that. Harsh perhaps. And I guess the AFL believe it's easier to adjudicate because it takes away more (not all, as you've pointed out) of the judging about intent as compared to deliberate out of bounce (time will tell).

Have to vent! The "stand" rule is an embarrassment to the code. The perpe-traitors should be run out of town! The 'nominate your ruck' rule is a primary school fix to a non-existent problem! The 'last touch-insufficient intent-raffle it' rule is unnecessary. The worship of the high scoring game is only valid if both teams score highly. Both teams scoring lowly can also provide an intense and engaging battle, enhanced by the fact that the team that is losing is only a goal or two away from winning - duh! A majority of the recent rule changes have not had the desired effect and have led to this crazy need for rule changes to fix the rule changes. Greg Swann had an opportunity to clean up the mess by winding back the obvious mess-ups! He failed!

19 hours ago, monoccular said:

I seem to recall there was once an experiment in the Ansett Cup or some other preseason whereby if the ball hit any post and came back into play it was play on.

i don’t remember the details but it would be very interesting, and if also as you suggested which space the ball passed through determined the score would get rid of many if those painful score reviews.

It should happen - the uncertainty it creates would be brilliant as a viewer.