Rules 7 new rules - AFL Rule Changes for 2026

[Do the Dew]

Worst rule ever, keeping the pressure off the ball carrier and removing the mobility of the sport.

Stand is by far the the single worst rule ever brought in.

I sure love the umpires screaming "STAND" 100 times a game, I love bullshit 50m penalties where a guy moves a toenail or the incorrect player stands, I love players walking around the guy on the mark who is powerless to do anything. It's a ****ing joke of a rule, hasn't improved scoring which was it's main KPI, and needs to be instantly scrapped (along with pretty much every other Hocking era rule change).

 

[GuruJosh]

I dont mind the stand rule in general.
Just making it anyone within protected area seems silly and worse than what is currently in place.

I think being able to man an opponent is a foundation of the game and that part should not be removed.

You're essentially allowing the same forward to take any set shot. He can just walk into the protected zone next to the kicker, nobody can go near him and he can have a virtually free shot at goal.

And we will see 100 goals once more!!

 

[JoondalupJ]

This the end of wrestling ruckman. Sorry ROB

Watch examples of the seven rule changes that will impact 2026

Ruck contests, the stand rule, and the 'last disposal' out of bounds rule are among a host of changes ahead of 2026

www.afl.com.au

29.10.2025

Changes to Laws of Australian Football and Umpiring Processes/Laws Interpretations

Following the October AFL Commission meeting changes to the Laws of Australian Football, Umpiring processes and/or Laws interpretations for the 2026 Toyota AFL Premiership Season have been made.

The below changes come into effect after extensive industry consultation involving all 18 Clubs, umpires, players, and the AFLPA, and are in addition two previous changes relating to the removal of the centre bounce and the substitute:

• Remove the requirement for a Player to start in the Goal Square at each centre ball-up;
• Introduce a Free Kick for the last disposal Out of Bounds in between the 50m arcs;
• At all centre ball-ups, a competing Ruck cannot cross the Centre Circle line and engage with the opposition Ruck, prior to contesting the football;
• Around the ground, the Umpire may restart play without a nominated Ruck being present;
• A shrug (in a tackle) will be deemed Prior Opportunity (i.e., as an attempt to evade or fend an opponent);
• A Player must stand if they are within the Protected Area (i.e., within five metres) when a Mark or Free Kick occurs;
• Align the interpretation of ‘reasonable time’ for a Player to bring the football back into play from a Behind being scored and the time allowed for a set Kick around the ground. Currently, reasonable time for kick-ins is 12 seconds, whereas around the ground is eight (8) seconds. Players will now be allowed eight (8) seconds in both instances.

AFL Executive General Manager Football Performance Greg Swann said the changes have been made following extensive industry consultation.

"The changes have been made with a focus on making the game easier for our umpires to adjudicate and also reducing total match length," said Mr Swann.

"Streamlining procedures such as stoppages and centre ball ups will enhance the flow of the game for players and fans alike.

“We have consulted clubs and other industry stakeholders over the past six months and taken on board their feedback and ideas and we believe these changes will make a positive impact on the game."

Clubs will be taken through the changes in more detail ahead of the return of pre-season training programs.

For those rules not already in play in the AFLW, the AFLW Laws of the Game Committee and Competition Committee will discuss the relevance and impact of additional changes on the competition before a decision is made on any relevant implementation to the NAB AFLW.

Hell last touch out of bounds inside the fifty-metre range?????
Is this another touch the arms way to give forwards more advantage to increase scores. What if a defender punches the ball away from a forward and it goes out of bounds.

I have one relative given the game the bullet with rules and other over kill of the sport.

Why do we need any rules for ruck craft. That is what competition is about, tactics and beating an opponent.

It seems that now with all the advantages,yet underneath every advantage is a question mark left inside the brain of every umpire as to the degree that the action was legal or illegal, it has a stymieing affect on this sport. Umpires would be better off if the game was slower and more skillful but we don't habe the players, so we have to give the umpires an easier go, what a load. What is Greg Swann. An over paid corporate game wrecker.????

All I can see is another of the last 20 or so years of additional penalties and weird rules, and another nail in the coffin of stopping it being a contact sport.

Another season of weakening the game, and throwing advantage to some and not the other.

Defenders have been killed by new rules.
Even specially, the sharp pass from a team mate to a forward where the forward knows where it'll go and the defender is at disadvantage immediately!

If he is close to a forward and he chases and is fast, his punch to defend usually ends up him getting free kicked against. For "hitting the arms????????????????????

This last out of bounds is going to cause so many umpire goals.

When John Platten used to pump a kick at Jason Dunstall, the defenders then at least we're able to "hard play" "defend" physically.
Now, you may as well stand and watch your forward mark, unless you are on the blokes boot with your stops, but of course that will end with a report.

I think the castrating of the game has turned out to be decidedly in the direction of "don't you touch a soul"

This is under certain circumstances, that do not happen every second of a match, but they happen often enough times for rules to create advantage, scoring without meritorious football playing.
Worse, they can decide a result.
No rule was ever designed to create a result. NEVER!

(MANY OF THESE RULES ARE FOR NO GOOD REASON! Perhaps politically, correct?? reason) Who knows?

Well once again I rave about the rule changes , now we have 5 to 7 changes added.
What is the question the AFL needs to answer?

Well its WHY?????????????? Give reasons for rule changing that has been happening drastically for the last 20 to 25 years, dramatically changing our sport.

It'll drive people away from our game. Now we have another team coming in, and we are diluted, maybe that's why rules are changed every year , to lift lower teams. So much for reality in improvement.

And its only the rules overkill, that are ruining the sport, most kids can play at a level needed or nearly to standard, to make reserves. Still we're diluted.

It seems we have an autocratic AFL ruling the roost and, as with politics, they forget who they are representing, that's the public who pay for it all.

How many free kicks get goals in the last 5 years???
NOT A HARD QUESTION ONLY 5 YEARS FOR THE STATS LOVERS, TO GO THROUGH, GO OVER.

Do you like our game, your game!!! Being hijacked by who??? And why?

Do you easily pleased people, like seeing free kicks changing the run of a game , and against your team?

Could be that I drop out myself if the games start to be won because of stupid rule changes and free kicks in the forward line that's what it is becoming.

The worst is, frees, they can cause advantage, and loss of momentum, so see what happens .

But I've been bellyaching about this for years now on BF, but we, like the bee-drones just go along watching a few succeed and the rest fall into disappointment.

Fancy having an historical old club like StKilda not having seen a premiership cup for 60 years.
Maybe that's a little off subject, but when will they ever, again?

PS Mr Swann knows nothing! He maybe should but he doesn't.

 

[JoondalupJ]

And we will see 100 goals once more!!

No, they don't kick like they used to. STRAIGHT that is. Stand is a nonsense, oit of boundslasttouch is going to be unfair in the extreme , free kick goals will become the order of the day umpires will cause losses and wins and momentum killing, I simply don't understand why the AFL thinks it needs to massacre the best foot on field sport on planet earth. They do not own the game you know.
We used to say "I'd like to see that" now it's I don't want to see that, where umpires are given more time to make decisions on the fact that there are 50 million new damned rules!

 

[JoondalupJ]

Bringing the men’s game into line with aflw …. Great stuff because aflw is such a spectacle

Unfortunately the AFLW will never develop into elite football and high scoring.
Its not a knock against women, its just a fact that it is worth about a 10minute (if that) look.

Its TV rights will have no sponsors.

The girls love it and good on them, but the AFL cannot make a new game for women. It's too hard to be elite for 10 or 15 years for the female anatomy. Sorry.

The skill level is only seen in a handfull.

And how in the end do they find topline elite women "footballers" to draw TV audiences for 19 clubs eventually?.

 

[aCunningPlan]

I like the stand rule, its very easy to officiate and is applied fairly consistently.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

I think it is fine as I said. But only if they call the player play on if they walk off the line.

I think that's even too much for the umpires to micromanage.

What happened before was that the player would stand then the ball carrier would shuffle sideways a meter giving them a free run past a helpless defender.

The moment a player with the ball starts sidestepping or shuffling just call play on.

The enjoyment was all the pressure psychologically on the ball carrier. Now, the pressure is gone, why would anyone want no pressure in Aussie Rules?

 

[GoldbergsGold]

I like the stand rule, its very easy to officiate and is applied fairly consistently.

But why would you want no psychological pressure on the ball carrier?

 

[Vindicater]

But why would you want no psychological pressure on the ball carrier?

Because it is written as a free and unimpeded kick and always has been.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Then just make every crossing over the boundary line like Soccer, no point even keeping throw ins.

The ruck contests are entertaining, though.

Hardly. It’s just an ump pulling a freee kick out of thin air to a ruck. It’s only until the arcs anyway. This rule has simplified it massively for everyone

 

[GuruJosh]

No, they don't kick like they used to. STRAIGHT that is. Stand is a nonsense, oit of boundslasttouch is going to be unfair in the extreme , free kick goals will become the order of the day umpires will cause losses and wins and momentum killing, I simply don't understand why the AFL thinks it needs to massacre the best foot on field sport on planet earth. They do not own the game you know.
We used to say "I'd like to see that" now it's I don't want to see that, where umpires are given more time to make decisions on the fact that there are 50 million new damned rules!

I think the game changed when forwards could no longer take out defenders who drop in the hole and now we have a game where players flood back defensively so we can all watch defence v defence. It’s a cycle of coaching tactics v rule changes.

 

[GuruJosh]

Because it is written as a free and unimpeded kick and always has been.

Probably bcos I tired of watching a game where players are running back clogging up the 50 we need the ball getting in faster n oppos stopped from trying to cut off all ball carrier options before they get a chance to release it.

 

[Do the Dew]

I like the stand rule, its very easy to officiate and is applied fairly consistently.

Hi Steve Hocking.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Hi Steve Hocking.

I'm being quite honest here, I usually umpire around 50 games a year and I might only pay two 50m penalties for players not standing over the course of a season. It's really not a bad rule.

I'm glad they tightened up the centre ruck contests, that felt very open to interpretation and more controversial.

 

[p4p1]

Or just go back to the leniency of out of bounds like it use to be.

How far back do you want to go though?
Out on the full only became a rule because players and coaches games the rules to get a throw in when they had no good options to kick to a teammate. Once that rule was introduced, they then made sure that the ball bounced before it went over the line etc. When players and coaches come up with a way to game the rules, eventually the league is going to step in the try and implement something that is inline with the spirit the original rule was written in.

I would say the same thing about the stand rule. Both it's original introduction and the revision that is coming in now. It's a result of teams gaming the rules, both by moving on the mark to cut off the 45 degree kick and moving back 5m, giving up the mark but being able to cut off an angle.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Because it is written as a free and unimpeded kick and always has been.

What does that have to do with the players outside of the protected area? And why does the protected area need to be ridiculously large and not a straight line like it use to be? Why take away the psychological pressure even with a protected area? It was so much better having the players exits blocked, so the ball carrier while still having their protected area would be on edge, that's why the stand rule is the worst rule for taking away the pressure.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

How far back do you want to go though?
Out on the full only became a rule because players and coaches games the rules to get a throw in when they had no good options to kick to a teammate. Once that rule was introduced, they then made sure that the ball bounced before it went over the line etc. When players and coaches come up with a way to game the rules, eventually the league is going to step in the try and implement something that is inline with the spirit the original rule was written in.

I would say the same thing about the stand rule. Both it's original introduction and the revision that is coming in now. It's a result of teams gaming the rules, both by moving on the mark to cut off the 45 degree kick and moving back 5m, giving up the mark but being able to cut off an angle.

I think either go back to the 90s boundary line rules, so there's out on the full still, but deliberate has to be super obvious, or just do what most sports do and pay a free kick to the opposition for every ball crossed over. The inbetween overly subjective compromise is absurd, should be one way or the other.

 

[GuruJosh]

I think that's even too much for the umpires to micromanage.

The enjoyment was all the pressure psychologically on the ball carrier. Now, the pressure is gone, why would anyone want no pressure in

What does that have to do with the players outside of the protected area? And why does the protected area need to be ridiculously large and not a straight line like it use to be? Why take away the psychological pressure even with a protected area? It was so much better having the players exits blocked, so the ball carrier while still having their protected area would be on edge, that's why the stand rule is the worst rule for taking away the pressure.

I am not sure what you want from the game mate which is why this goes in circles. Do you actually want the same clogged up defence with players running away from their opponents. I’m just asking, how do you want the game to look?

 

[GoldbergsGold]

I am not sure what you want from the game mate which is why this goes in circles. Do you actually want the same clogged up defence with players running away from their opponents.

You're acting as if this has solved super floods, when it hasn't. Score average is still down from 89 in 2017 pre "steeeeeeend" rule to 84 in 2025.

I’m just asking, how do you want the game to look?

I thought I made it clear I want pressure on the ball carrier, even when they have unimpeded possession of the ball, the psychological pressure of being blocked outside the protected area or psyched out when taking shots at goal, like in the movie BASEketball. Who doesn't want players on edge? I don't understand why anyone would want players to be just handed a large amount of free space and be pressure free.

 

[Do the Dew]

I'm being quite honest here, I usually umpire around 50 games a year and I might only pay two 50m penalties for players not standing over the course of a season. It's really not a bad rule.

I'm glad they tightened up the centre ruck contests, that felt very open to interpretation and more controversial.

This is the highest level of aussie rules in the world and players get stuck to the spot as their direct opponent can waltz around them. It's absolutely not umpired consistently either, mostly because it's a garbage rule with grey areas (outside 5 interpretation bs).

The AFL stated that this would open up the corridor and increase scoring. This has not happened. Instead, it just rolls congestion back another 10-15m as teams defend deeper.

 

[Do the Dew]

What does that have to do with the players outside of the protected area? And why does the protected area need to be ridiculously large and not a straight line like it use to be? Why take away the psychological pressure even with a protected area? It was so much better having the players exits blocked, so the ball carrier while still having their protected area would be on edge, that's why the stand rule is the worst rule for taking away the pressure.

Manning the mark was a genuine skill of the game too that's been completely taken away with staaaaaaaand. It was a great way to see how mentally switched on your team was.

 

[GuruJosh]

You're acting as if this has solved super floods, when it hasn't. Score average is still down from 89 in 2017 pre "steeeeeeend" rule to 84 in 2025.

I thought I made it clear I want pressure on the ball carrier, even when they have unimpeded possession of the ball, the psychological pressure of being blocked outside the protected area or psyched out when taking shots at goal, like in the movie BASEketball. Who doesn't want players on edge? I don't understand why anyone would want players to be just handed a large amount of free space and be pressure free.

So how do you propose fixing the defence dominated game? Or shall we leave it as is?

 

[GuruJosh]

You're acting as if this has solved super floods, when it hasn't. Score average is still down from 89 in 2017 pre "steeeeeeend" rule to 84 in 2025.

I thought I made it clear I want pressure on the ball carrier, even when they have unimpeded possession of the ball, the psychological pressure of being blocked outside the protected area or psyched out when taking shots at goal, like in the movie BASEketball. Who doesn't want players on edge? I don't understand why anyone would want players to be just handed a large amount of free space and be pressure free.

The data may show it hasn’t fixed the flooding hence people putting forward ideas on how to possibly fix it.

 

[Do the Dew]

So how do you propose fixing the defence dominated game? Or shall we leave it as is?

Get rid of ruck nominations for a start and just the throw the ball up/in straigthaway. Currently nominating wastes a ton of time and lets team congest the area.

Scrap the 666 rule as it stops teams from rebounding off half back from a poor oppo center clearance.

Unlimited interchanges as the notion that players getting tired opens the game up doesn't make sense. If a team is exhausted, they're naturally going to go more defensive so they don't have to run as much.

Scrap the stand rule in general cause it's horrific.

Main thing is let the game naturally evolve. By constricting gamestyles via rules you essentially funnel all the teams into trying to play a similar way and there's no organic growth with teams working out ways to beat the best. Coaches will always prioritize defense, but the good teams attack the best too. There's always gonna be low-scoring shitfests because we have 18 teams and naturally some of them are going to be bad.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Get rid of ruck nominations for a start and just the throw the ball up/in straigthaway. Currently nominating wastes a ton of time and lets team congest the area.

Scrap the 666 rule as it stops teams from rebounding off half back from a poor oppo center clearance.

Unlimited interchanges as the notion that players getting tired opens the game up doesn't make sense. If a team is exhausted, they're naturally going to go more defensive so they don't have to run as much.

Scrap the stand rule in general cause it's horrific.

Main thing is let the game naturally evolve. By constricting gamestyles via rules you essentially funnel all the teams into trying to play a similar way and there's no organic growth with teams working out ways to beat the best. Coaches will always prioritize defense, but the good teams attack the best too. There's always gonna be low-scoring shitfests because we have 18 teams and naturally some of them are going to be bad.

100% agree. You should see matches from the 1960s, the umpires ball up immediately, they don't wait at all, that's how it should be.