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

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 never even knew about the goal square rule in 6-6-6 😀

2 minutes ago, 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

all changes will have implications - some intended and some not; some minor, some not.

I liken these changes to the importing of the cane toad into Australia to control the sugar cane beetle. What changes do we need now to control the cane toad? - and on she goes.

1 hour ago, Demonstone said:

Here you go.

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

A rough count comes to about 30 changes/interpretations to rules in the last ten years.

10 minutes ago, 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

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.

Selective application will continue based on guernsey colour

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by Clintosaurus

This isn’t one of the rule changes for this year but perhaps should have been …..it is the adjudication of what happens when a player goes to kick a ball (say when getting tackled) and he misses kicking the ball and it drops to the ground.

My understanding is that now it is interpreted as ‘made an effort to kick the ball’ so it is ‘play on’.

Problem is the rule is inconsistently applied. It appears to be applied in the middle of the ground but quite often when it occurs near the goals I have seen it paid as a free kick (dropping the ball).

For what it’s worth I reckon if you try and kick the ball anywhere on the ground and you miss the kick for whatever reason (most likely whilst being tackled) it should be given as a free kick to the opposition. But that’s just me.

My guess is they changed the rule or the interpretation of the rule last year to not slow the game down. Happy to be corrected (I’m just lying on a couch thinking and typing….better stop now)

1 hour 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.

Yes, that’s the intention and if it manages to eliminate the “duck-shrug” I’m all for it.

But It’s the quality and consistency of adjudication I’m concerned about.

44 minutes ago, old55 said:

I never even knew about the goal square rule in 6-6-6

You've never seen a goal umpire step forward and give the full back and full forward a little hurry up?

2 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

But It’s the quality and consistency of adjudication I’m concerned about.

In the women's game they've trialled making holding the ball interpretation much stricter, by giving less prior opportunity leeway. I thought it was a good idea. It just hasn't worked. The umpires are not the best of the best and they really struggle to be consistent.

I have much less problem with changing the rules than most. The game changes so quickly that a governing body would be completely negligent if it said "We're not changing any rules for X years". The problem I do have is changing the rules in a way that makes umpiring harder.

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

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.

I agree it’s tricky but the league had to do something about players manipulating tackles to draw high contact. Apart from it being unfair it’s also very dangerous to keep encouraging players to take high hits.

If they are set on reducing delays in the game (which a lot of these changes seem to be addressing), an obvious thing they haven't changed is the resetting of the 30 second countdown clock for repeated goal attempts. I hate this rule as it currently stands. The number of times someone milks the clock at the end of a close game when they have a set shot opportunity from outside 50 m that they then pass off to someone else. I say if you pass it off, the 30 second clock should not be reset so say player A uses 20 seconds of the countdown clock then passes to player B. Player B would then only have 10 seconds to take the shot on goal.

I guess this rule could have potential consequences though if you milked the clock for the full 30 seconds and then hoiked a high ball into the hotspot that was marked by your teammate who than has to essentially play on immediately. Probably would be a bit farcical. Much like most of the AFL rule changes.

16 minutes ago, The Taciturn Demon said:

You've never seen a goal umpire step forward and give the full back and full forward a little hurry up?

No I haven't. I'm probably looking at the centre square match ups at the next bounce (RIP) or some stat on the AFL app or day dreaming as is often the case ...

1 hour ago, Dees_In_October said:

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).

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. 🙄

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by Craig T

28 minutes ago, old55 said:

No I haven't. I'm probably looking at the centre square match ups at the next bounce (RIP) or some stat on the AFL app or day dreaming as is often the case

Ah yeah. That's why I'm so bad at understanding the game. I hold on to my six-year-old curiosity - "Dad, why are the butchers waving flags now?" - rather than who's playing where and why.

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

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.

I disagree. Surely if one team involves two of their players in the ruck contest then they are penalised. Does it matter which one was right or wrong? They should have just got rid of nomination and let players work it for themselves and penalise accordingly.

Thank you Greg Swann for bringing some common sense to the AFL

3 hours ago, 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.

the 'shrug' rule just adds more grey for the maggots and makes their job harder

the stand stuff is ridiculous

the rest seem...fine

reckon the ruck rule will change like it did after the wafl tried it but reverted back

recipe for mcl injuries

3 minutes ago, Lil_red_fire_engine said:

I disagree. Surely if one team involves two of their players in the ruck contest then they are penalised. Does it matter which one was right or wrong? They should have just got rid of nomination and let players work it for themselves and penalise accordingly.

That could make for some comical wrestling engagements where Nank wrestles Heath in our forward line who doesn't go for the the throw in and JVR gets the hit out. Heath says "I was never in the ruck contest, he's holding the man". I think nomination is required.

Can’t we just go back to how the game was adjudicated 20 years ago?

22 minutes ago, Lil_red_fire_engine said:

I disagree. Surely if one team involves two of their players in the ruck contest then they are penalised. Does it matter which one was right or wrong? They should have just got rid of nomination and let players work it for themselves and penalise accordingly.

Imagine this though, round 1 next year, Melbourne vs Collingwood. Throw in deep in the Pies forward line.

Gawn's ready for the throw in. Darcy Cameron is hovering about 5m away, not quite committed to the contest but not out of it either.

Just as the ball is about to be thrown in Dan McStay runs from the side straight towards Gawn. Disco Turner is tracking McStay because that's what defenders do at stoppages. At the same time Darcy Cameron takes a step away from the contest.

McStay's momentum takes both himself and Disco in to the drop of the ball where Gawn is waiting. Disco hasn't actually had any intention to ruck but he's kind of any up there by accident. Umpire penalises him for 3rd man up. Free kick Collingwood. Goal.

Players will exploit any rule they can, so even if it sounds a bit farcical it won't be. And whilst nominations look a bit silly I don't think they're sillier than players effectively playing musical chairs about who goes out for the ruck.

I'm not fan of rule changes as a rule, in large prt because the AFL never seem to consider the unintended consequences (as an example all these changes are an attempt to fix the unintended nehative consequences of previous rule changes) but IMHO all seven are good changes, with the possible exception of the shrug rule.

And I think two in particular are excellent, and much needed changes- last disposal and the change to the stand rule.

Im simply not a fan of most rule changes.

The game in the 70's/80's was much better.

The rules were RULES then.

Now 90% is subjective...

And there's 4 [censored] maggots and they still [censored] it up.

AFL are destroying the game.

These 'changes' dont help

I'll be waiting for the first head clash after a non-rucked ball up hits the deck. A concussion (sadly) waiting to happen.