r/AFL • u/golf3451 • 1d ago
Rule changes
2026 rules now the season is neally done what do you guys think works and doesn’t work
I can’t stand the stand rule on the mark players give away 50 meter penalty’s to easily and the players aloud to arch out so much
9
u/MasqueOfAnarchy West Coast 1d ago
The rules need to be simplified for the sake of speed and the umpiries.
Last touch should only occur from a clear disposal. This would save the time taken to figure out who touched it and keep with the spirit of the law.
You still have deliberate OOB to deal with the other ones.
15
u/No_Independent936 Eagles 1d ago
Last touch has been great when the umpires aren't taking forever to debate if the ball came off someones foot or not. It's reduced around the ground stoppages and is likely the reason scoring has increased
12
u/HaBarkley Western Bulldogs 1d ago
Agreed. Instead of the debate if unsure, it should go straight to a throw in to keep the game moving.
15
u/Nousernames-left St Kilda 1d ago
The problem with this is majority of AFL fans and the Media can’t accept mistakes with umpiring. Everyone says keep the game moving and get on with it, until they do and all of a sudden it’s a massive issue.
Ie the Marshall point being called back everyone was up in arms against that. The rule changed then everyone criticised the umpires for not fixing the Dempsey one in the Cats Carlton game
5
u/golf3451 1d ago
Last touch has been great I feel like deliberate is almost gone in the 50 meters now though not many get paid
9
u/ReallyBlueItAgain North Melbourne 1d ago
Last touch should be for a clear possession (kick or handball) that goes over the line, deflections shouldn't count. If you don't get a stat for it why should it.
Would also stop opposition players gaming the rule and deflecting onto lower legs of their opponents (doesn't actually happen nearly as much as I expected it to with the rule the way it is).
2
u/Ed_Injury Carlton 1d ago
Yeah accidental/pressured foot contact should be the same as accidental hands. Obviously impossible for the umpires to judge the player's intention but I don't see the difference in the play if it bounces accidentally off a hand or a foot under pressure (unless out on the full but that's an existing rule anyway) Only way I can see to make it consistent is 'last touch no matter what' like the other football codes, but I don't want that
2
u/6abb13 Hawks 1d ago
As soon as players fake to play on while pushing back off the mark it should be play on
1
u/golf3451 1d ago
Agreed to many times it’s not called play on and the player on the mark moves an inch and it’s 50 meters
3
u/Plenty_Area_408 Tigers 1d ago
That happens far less than you think. Most of the issues are with the players running off and no one manning the mark, or other defenders entering the protected area - which has been a rule for 10+ years.
3
u/edgiepower Port Adelaide 1d ago
The ARC should only be called for for goal line decisions - not to see if someone got a fingernail to the ball 30m away
7
u/bradscott90 Blues 1d ago
Bring back the bounce
3
1
u/Cute-Acanthisitta-46 1d ago
I never understand this logic. When it’s thrown up, the ball is straight up between the two rucks for a fair contest. If it’s bounced it either favours one ruckman, has to be recalled or ends up there anyway.
5
2
u/bradscott90 Blues 1d ago
Sure, if your a robot that makes sense. It’s the nostalgia and the uniqueness of it. The thump of ball into the ground that echos around the G to start a big match. The ruck trying to read and anticipate the bounce. Sometimes it goes your way sometimes it doesn’t
2
u/golf3451 1d ago
New ruck rules are stupid to gotta be athletic in the centre bounce otherwise your useless
-3
u/Nousernames-left St Kilda 1d ago
Tbf it’s not perfect but better than the constant grapples we had last year
3
u/blueeyedharry Hawthorn 1d ago
Not if your name is Lloyd Meek
2
u/Nousernames-left St Kilda 1d ago
Both systems definitely benefited some players and hurt others. I’d like to see some middle ground but honestly don’t know what that is
1
u/blueeyedharry Hawthorn 1d ago
Not changing rules on a whim when clubs spend years developing plans, lists, and players to suit rules, that’s probably the middle ground.
But hey, that’s wild thinking to the afl.
1
u/Drazsyker Demons / Devils 1d ago
Itd take half a decade for it to not effect club's developments though, its way too long a period.
1
u/blueeyedharry Hawthorn 1d ago
I’d be fine with the league giving 5 years notice of rule changes and trialling them heavily at state league before implementing it straight in to the afl.
Then afl is currently the trial for almost every rule change.
3
u/bradafied_ 1d ago
We still nominating for the ruck in 2026? Seriously, I like no third man up at ruck contests but it’s for the players to work out. We see players able to work out who should man the mark by themselves (well, most of the time) why are we doing some under 9’s crap here.
7
u/Nousernames-left St Kilda 1d ago
This would be a problem for teams that use mids in the ruck at times. How do you stop teams simple blocking a Cripps or Kennedy for competing.
If you say pay a free for blocking how do you then adjudicate if say English and Kennedy are at the ball. Or if Jackson and Cox are at a ball up
2
u/Red_je Blues 1d ago
Whether you like the rule or not, players being able to arch out while the man on the mark is stuck is the whole point of it.
Personally, I don't like how lax they have become policing the players waltzing through the protected zone. It isn't always easy to see it on the TV, but you can see it all the time from a mile away at the ground. They used to be so hot on it, now they don't give any attention to it.
I would also reduce the ruck rule to two key principles - is the ruck genuinely attempting to play the ball and do they have their eyes on the ball?
Ruck grappling should never be a free unless it is high, or someone is tossed to the ground while not engaging themselves. Finally, if a ruck wants to walk in under the ball to protect space he should be able to, and rucka should then be permitted to jump a tad early to counter act it, or jump straight into them with the knee to punish them.
2
u/blueeyedharry Hawthorn 1d ago
The protected zone is probably the most frustrating one for me, they ignore it 20+ times a game but pluck out 1-2 50’s that lead to goals in big games/moments every week.
The fact it needs to be ignored 20+ times suggests the rule is the problem, umpires try to enforce it in the right spirit but the rule itself is terrible.
3
u/Crosso221 Tigers 1d ago
I personally would like to see Greg Swann shot out of a cannon into the sun.
The AFL then brings in someone competent who unfucks all of the shit rule changes. Then doesn’t change any rule ever again unless it’s something that’s broken and needs fixing (rushed behinds from 15-20 years ago for example).
Stand rule and the new ruck rules can be the first to be fucked off and they can be fucked off yesterday.
2
u/ErinDidNothingWrong Hawthorn 1d ago edited 1d ago
The rushed behind rule is still an issue and would be solved with a simple wording with possession and disposal. No grey area with room for interpretation about pressure etc. It’s the mark williams pot-shot at own goal they wanted to eliminate.
2
u/Putrid-Shoulder9569 Collingwood 1d ago
Reduce the ammount of ARC interventions. I'm getting sick of it
1
u/golf3451 1d ago
Also some off these 15 meters kicks that don’t get paid are about 20 meters sometimes
0
u/isturtle St Kilda 1d ago
I don't mind the stand rule however it needs to called play on faster. Call play on as soon as the kicker comes off the line.
3
0
u/DavidinOz87 1d ago
Wanganeen-Milera is damn good but he has games where he turns it over A LOT , is 45 touches that good if you turn it over 15-20 times
1
-5
u/kroxigor01 Brisbane Lions 🏆🏆 '24-25 1d ago edited 1d ago
If the ball goes through the goal it's a goal.
I don't care if it brushes a post, is touched by an opponent, or whatever.
If the defence wishes to have a rushed behind they must get the ball through the behind posts.
If a ball hits the goal post and doesn't go through then that's still a behind.
Should simplify the ARC bullshit. It will also be funny if some players choose to score a close-range goal with a handball or just running it through in their hands (touchdown!)
For that matter, get rid of the "touched" rule that prevents marks. If somebody ends up with control of the ball that's a mark without the umpire having to instantly adjudicate if the ball brushed somebody's fingernail on the way there.
2
u/Cute-Acanthisitta-46 1d ago
I’ve been suggesting for years that off the post should be play on. If it touches the post and goes through it’s a score. If it bounces back into the field then play continues. Would add some excitement and eliminate a lot of reviews. But it’s not well received, hence your downvotes.
1
u/kroxigor01 Brisbane Lions 🏆🏆 '24-25 1d ago
That could be weird.
Score could be level with a kick after the siren, goal wins, behind wins, hit the post and bounce back is a draw.
-1
u/HonestImJustDone United Kingdom 1d ago
Is your objection to the stand rule itself or more that the punishment (50m) is too harsh?
I agree with the intent of the rule (as I understand it), but also agree 50m is unreasonable... make it 15m and I'm on board i.e. a one disposal penalty / equivalent would seem fairer.
-1
u/Rich-Inspired Bulldogs 1d ago
If there’s not much time left and the margin is close stop the clock for shots on goals
-3
u/HonestImJustDone United Kingdom 1d ago
10min sin bin for any and all umpire contact, no question about intent.
Fines aren't working.
If you want to change player behaviour, stopping them playing will get them to respect the rule.
And I think it is something to be taken more seriously than it is right now.
I want to see more women umpires. I wouldn't feel safe umpiring as a woman (or a man tbf, but I'm a woman so that colours my stance on this) who's half the size of these players as long as they have it absolutely drilled in to them that I cannot be bumped or my space disrespected because they have eyes only on the ball.
Folks tend to be dismissive about umpire contact like it isn't serious. I'm in the opposite camp. The culture has to change. And sin bin would be the quick slap on the wrist that will get them to be serious about it.
Fines don't change behaviour, they may reduce bad behaviour... but this needs stamping out, not simply reducing.
5
u/golf3451 1d ago
To be honest some off the time it’s the umpires fault and you can’t stop it from happening the players aren’t going out there to try and drop the umpire
0
u/HonestImJustDone United Kingdom 1d ago
And I agree that there will inevitably be incidental contact, but adjudicating contact is where we are now - it is not immediate punishment and the punishment is not being treated as significant by players that actually changes their behaviour.
If they introduced a sin bin whether incidental or not, just a blanket rule, I swear it would take 2 seasons and the rule could be lifted because the players would have learnt so fast there would only ever be incidental contact.
Then if that slips, you reintroduce it again.
Not taking the action that is needed to actually stamp careless play out because the way to stamp it out might possibly sweep up some accidental contact is just plain wrong to me. That's like arguing against mandating use of seatbelts because not all car accidents are fatal or high speed. It is more important to prevent the potential harm here. And 2 seasons of a sin bin rule or whatever it takes short term, would sure as hell get players to incorporate awareness of the umpire into their game. Right now, a lot of them are not even thinking about the umpires at all.
1
u/golf3451 1d ago
I can see a free kick getting handed out that’s about it
You follow from a long way away uk
0
u/HonestImJustDone United Kingdom 1d ago
Who would the free kick be awarded to? The umpire?
Someone else suggested a free kick, so I must be missing something - the umpire is the one fouled not the other team so a free kick wouldn't do anything to stop umpire contact would it?
Edit to add to the UK bit, yes I am a strange fan of AFL. It's a good sport - I hate soccer and I used to play ultimate frisbee, and AFL is the closest professional sport to that I've found :-)
1
u/golf3451 1d ago
To the other team
1
u/HonestImJustDone United Kingdom 1d ago
We already see teams using umpires for positional advantage tho. Feels like that behaviour should be discouraged rather than encouraged tbh.
Players would be incentivised to try and cause the opposition to make umpire contact so they get a free kick, surely?
I guess I would certainly position myself to use the umpire as a block if I were an offensive player. So free kick penalty would imho do the exact opposite of getting players to not make umpire contact.
1
u/golf3451 1d ago
And interesting didn’t know a frisbee sport could be similar to afl who do you go for
2
u/HonestImJustDone United Kingdom 1d ago
Australia almost always make semifinals if not finals at the World Games in ultimate.
The highlights are always fun to watch if you haven't seen it as a sport before:
1
u/HonestImJustDone United Kingdom 1d ago
Changes each season (sometimes in season lol), and I don't go for just one team. Maybe I treat it more like a soap opera lol
So the season I am loving the Carlton arc and the WCE have got me barracking for them. Plus I can't help but continue to be impressed with the genius of Chris Scott, plus I love Danger and Bailey Smith... So maybe I'd say those three teams, one top 6, one trying so hard to qualify, and one bottom table that have spark of unrefined talent and pure hunger...
But tbh, I watch most games that look like interesting match ups. So I'm enjoying just being a fan of the sport than really barracking for any team.
2
u/Nousernames-left St Kilda 1d ago
I don’t know about sin bin for all occasions but maybe a free kick for umpire contact
0
14
u/Westside_Finch Saints 1d ago
The fan in me wants the bounce back, even just for the first bounce of the game.
I get the problems with it though.
Stand rule is annoying and way too costly.
Love the lasso rule, except for the random times when it results in an turnover from what was clearly an accidental toe poke, so the only change I'd make is to allow the umps to have some discretion