Opinion 2025 rule interpretations watch

[baldandbroke]

We all are trying to get used to the new tweaks that the genius laden AFL headquarters have come up with for 2025.

HTB - complete crap-shoot. If you have had no prior and get tackled you can drop it / throw it / pend to kick it / hold onto it with no penalty. I’d change this immediately, forget prior. If you have possession and get tackled and don’t dispose of it legally it’s a free. Give ‘em a count of 2 OR 360. Done.

Not 15 - Hilarious that the change is … “we now call it not far enough if it doesn’t go 15m” - depending on the situation and position on the field of course.

High tackles - again, “we won’t fall for players acting / players that contribute to the high contact … unless we do fall for exactly that”. Contact on the shoulder is high. Small player running into larger player is high. Kneeing in the back of the head in a marking contest is fine [emoji15]

Insufficient intent - don’t get me started. Just pay last touch (I’d allow deliberate out of bounds kicks that cross the defensive 50 arc and travel over 15m).

Rushed behind - this is just dumb. Players don’t know what the rule is, what “pressure” is deemed to be. It was created to stop what the Hawks did in the grand final where the player just walked back over the line if they didn’t like the look of the kick-in. Just change the rule so that this can’t happen - ie ball must be disposed of from a kick in (even if they play on) otherwise you can rush it through whenever you want.

Stand rule - has become the outside 5 rule, even if you are only 1m off the mark. Either make them stand, or get rid of it.

Contact below the knee - if the player who makes contact below the knee is stationary (ie not sliding into the other player) it should not be a free.

 

[feenix67]

Tell you what I've noticed. During the Community Series and Opening Round games, Umpires were umpiring "by the book" and it was great. If a free was there, they paid it, and players adjusted. Simple.

Now we've gone back to umpiring by scale of severity of infringement and it sucks again.

 

[Coopers]

Insufficient intent - don’t get me started. Just pay last touch (I’d allow deliberate out of bounds kicks that cross the defensive 50 arc and travel over 15m).

Rushed behind - this is just dumb. Players don’t know what the rule is, what “pressure” is deemed to be. It was created to stop what the Hawks did in the grand final where the player just walked back over the line if they didn’t like the look of the kick-in. Just change the rule so that this can’t happen - ie ball must be disposed of from a kick in (even if they play on) otherwise you can rush it through whenever you want.

At least for these two, there is a way to make the rule so there is no interpretation required on the umpires behalf, so it would be an obvious positive change to make.

No chance of that!

 

[spenze]

My favourite bit of insufficient intent is when a player kicks a long droppie, it takes a leg break and goes out of bounds. There was no intent to kick it out don't pay it.

Insufficient intent should be the easiest to pay but somehow they still manage to eff it up

 

[FR0GGY]

My favourite bit of insufficient intent is when a player kicks a long droppie, it takes a leg break and goes out of bounds. There was no intent to kick it out don't pay it.

Insufficient intent should be the easiest to pay but somehow they still manage to eff it up

Well insufficient intent to kick an off break.

 

[Scorpus]

I love the change to not 15

The maximum running distance without a bounce and minimum kicking distance for a mark should be the same. They are the same in the rules.

It is very, very clear in previous years that umpires let players run a further distance than they would pay for a mark. It needed fixing.

Not calling some of those kicks 15 is more consistent then they have been previously where there's been this huge inconsistency been run and kick distance

 

[spenze]

I love the change to not 15

The maximum running distance without a bounce and minimum kicking distance for a mark should be the same. They are the same in the rules.

Yeah, not sure any Patrick Cripps kick will be assumed to have covered 15 if that's the case

 

[FR0GGY]

Yeah, not sure any Patrick Cripps kick will be assumed to have covered 15 if that's the case

Just wait till the start calling his throws

 

[BRL121]

Just wait till the start calling his throws

They did last night and he didn't like it.

 

[whattagun07]

Last night there were a couple of blatant 'not 15' that were still paid as marks. In particular I think there was one inside Coll F50 that came from a defenders quick kick (a bit of a mis-kick) and was intercepted. It barely went 10 but they paid the mark.
Coll benefited from another kick inside 50 that went about 12m and was paid the mark. (I think to Bobby Hill?)
Not a chance in hell that those distances would be paid as a mark if it were anywhere else on the field.

 

[baldandbroke]

To fix the "not 15m" rubbish in defensive 50m that cost teams goals ... how about a change to the line work?



For kick-ins - you need to kick from inside the goal-square to outside the 15m arc (and 9m line) for a mark to be paid ... if you play on from a kick-in it must go outside the 50m line to be called a mark?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

How about the AFL stop ****ing around with the rules without telling anyone but the umpires & we go back to 3 umpires.

 

[baldandbroke]

How about the AFL stop ****ing around with the rules without telling anyone but the umpires & we go back to 3 umpires.

Agree Kane ... but when has that EVER happened?

The "stand rule" is a good example. They brought in a rule to open up the game. Simple to administer, you have to stand the mark, don't move.

EXPLAINER: How the new 'standing the mark' rule works

AFL.com.au takes you through how the new 'standing the mark' rule will be adjudicated

www.afl.com.au

Controversial stand rule costs Blues goal

Carlton pay the ultimate price after Sam Petrevski-Seton fails to abide to the new rule

www.afl.com.au

Then players would dupe the person on the mark by faking a handball, so they gave swung between giving the player on the mark some latitude or calling play-on.

Now we have a moving person on the mark - the umps yell "outside 5". It's created new problems.

No issue with updating rules, but they need to stick with them for longer than two weeks ... AND they need to minimise the rules that have soooo much interpretation in them AND they need to let the players know in advance so the tactics and strategies can be decided and trained for the coming season.

 

[cmndstab]

Honestly, the stand rule is a perfect example of an introduced rule that solved no actual problems but created a bunch of new ones, like almost every rule change/interpretation change the AFL has ever introduced.

What was wrong with how it was before? Players knew that they could move on the mark, but if they encroached over the mark it would be a 50m penalty. No issue, everyone understood it, it almost never caused a problem. But the AFL changed it anyway. Why? Claims that it "opened up the game" are bullshit - introducing a rule that makes the opposition players sit on the ground after a mark would "open up the game" as well, but nobody says we should do that. Forcing an opposition player to stay rooted on the spot renders them completely unable to impact on the contest, why is that a good thing?

The stand rule has dramatically reduced the incidents of players being able to smother the kick after a mark, which was always a fun spectacle. It has also made a mockery out of goalkicking by allowing players to run wildly off their line while the opposition stares pleadingly at the umpire to allow them to move and do something, anything to stop it. In addition, we now have a whole slew of 50m penalties which completely swing the momentum of games, simply because a player flinched on the mark, despite not impacting the play at all. And we have this farcical situation of players deliberately trying not to get on the mark so they can be "outside 5", but then sometimes they accidentally are on the mark and the umpire has to scream "STAND" at them while they fall over their feet trying to stop. Or other times one player thinks it's their teammate who is on the mark so they jog off and it becomes a 50m penalty.

And that's before we even consider the aesthetic nightmare that is listening to the umpires scream "STAND! OUTSIDE 5! STAND! OUTSIDE 5!" after every single damn mark, over and over again for the entire match.

Again, what problem were we solving here? Was the game really damaged by allowing players to move around on the mark but not encroach over it?

 

[TBM]

How about the AFL stop ****ing around with the rules without telling anyone but the umpires & we go back to 3 umpires.

Huge correlation between # of umpires increasing 3 to 4, and the standard of umpiring declining big time.

With 4 of them, they're all trying to impose themselves on the game, where they often aren't warranted.

 

[feenix67]

Honestly, the stand rule is a perfect example of an introduced rule that solved no actual problems but created a bunch of new ones, like almost every rule change/interpretation change the AFL has ever introduced.

What was wrong with how it was before? Players knew that they could move on the mark, but if they encroached over the mark it would be a 50m penalty. No issue, everyone understood it, it almost never caused a problem. But the AFL changed it anyway. Why? Claims that it "opened up the game" are bullshit - introducing a rule that makes the opposition players sit on the ground after a mark would "open up the game" as well, but nobody says we should do that. Forcing an opposition player to stay rooted on the spot renders them completely unable to impact on the contest, why is that a good thing?

The stand rule has dramatically reduced the incidents of players being able to smother the kick after a mark, which was always a fun spectacle. It has also made a mockery out of goalkicking by allowing players to run wildly off their line while the opposition stares pleadingly at the umpire to allow them to move and do something, anything to stop it. In addition, we now have a whole slew of 50m penalties which completely swing the momentum of games, simply because a player flinched on the mark, despite not impacting the play at all. And we have this farcical situation of players deliberately trying not to get on the mark so they can be "outside 5", but then sometimes they accidentally are on the mark and the umpire has to scream "STAND" at them while they fall over their feet trying to stop. Or other times one player thinks it's their teammate who is on the mark so they jog off and it becomes a 50m penalty.

And that's before we even consider the aesthetic nightmare that is listening to the umpires scream "STAND! OUTSIDE 5! STAND! OUTSIDE 5!" after every single damn mark, over and over again for the entire match.

Again, what problem were we solving here? Was the game really damaged by allowing players to move around on the mark but not encroach over it?

Perfectly articulated. One of Hocking's ideas to "open up the game" yet I havent seen any net increase in scoring since and Im sure there hasn't been any. It's a childish rule that looks farcical on the field and should just be done away with.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If I was running a dodgy competition there's a couple of rules I'd looooooooove because bias can be applied without showing up in the stats.

The 15m for a mark interpretation.

Whether to pay advantage or to call it back.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Perfectly articulated. One of Hocking's ideas to "open up the game" yet I havent seen any net increase in scoring since and Im sure there hasn't been any. It's a childish rule that looks farcical on the field and should just be done away with.

It's the 50m penalty that I take issue with. It's a ridiculous penalty when most of the time it's accidental and the kicker isn't even affected. You can hit a guy in the face with the ball and get less of a punishment. How does that make sense?

 

[feenix67]

If I was running a dodgy competition there's a couple of rules I'd looooooooove because bias can be applied without showing up in the stats.

The 15m for a mark interpretation.

Whether to pay advantage or to call it back.

I dont understand why Aussie Rules Umpires cant adjudicate advantage like soccer refs. Dont blow the whistle, hand signal to indicate you're applying advantage, whistle if it turns out not to be. Simple.

The 15m adjudication is being messed up because umpires arent in the right position to judge. If you aren't somewhat perpendicular to the kick, you cant accurately judge how far it went. With four umpires, surely the secondary umpire can position him/herself correctly to make a call?

 

[SugarShane]

To fix the "not 15m" rubbish in defensive 50m that cost teams goals ... how about a change to the line work?

View attachment 2292082

For kick-ins - you need to kick from inside the goal-square to outside the 15m arc (and 9m line) for a mark to be paid ... if you play on from a kick-in it must go outside the 50m line to be called a mark?

I might be on crazy pills but I honestly don't think it's that hard to judge 15m even without lines. The umpires just have an innate inclination to want to pay it in forward 50 and not in defensive 50.

The core of the issue is: is that how the AFL wants it umpired?

If yes: Change the ****ing rule. Kicks in defensive 50 now must go 20m and kicks in forward 50 10m.

If no: Train the ****ing umpires. It is genuinely not as hard as they make it seem. Get them all out on the oval with a tape measure. Show them how far 15m is straight, horizontally, diagonally. If you practice it, you will get better at it.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

If they did away with the requirement for kicks to travel any particular distance before being adjudged a mark, what would happen?

Would teams start doing 1m passes?

 

[ams4crows]

If they did away with the requirement for kicks to travel any particular distance before being adjudged a mark, what would happen?

Would teams start doing 1m passes?

Mark Keane would just kick it up to himself like in Gaelic football over and over to set a world record for marks in a game.

There needs to be a distance but whatever they set it at it'll continue to be exploited.

I think the AFL umpires just need practise or they only call really obvious not 15 (ie 8m and below) and let the rest of them slide.

If you start calling ones that only go 14m in general play not 15 but then let dinky kicks in the forward line stand that pisses off fans more I'd say.

 

[SugarShane]

Mark Keane would just kick it up to himself like in Gaelic football over and over to set a world record for marks in a game.

There needs to be a distance but whatever they set it at it'll continue to be exploited.

I think the AFL umpires just need practise or they only call really obvious not 15 (ie 8m and below) and let the rest of them slide.

If you start calling ones that only go 14m in general play not 15 but then let dinky kicks in the forward line stand that pisses off fans more I'd say.

Yeah, if it's consistent, people are a lot less likely to be annoyed.

I definitely think it needed cracking down on, so I applaud the AFL in that regard. The issue of course is the inherent incompetence of most umpires. They're told, "be harsher on 15m kicks", and they do, until the heat is on in the forward line and they shit their pants more than the defenders and pay marks.

Personally, I'd also LOVE to see "ran too far" cracked down on. And the way to make a decision is literally as simple as:
Player running with ball - as soon as he's run as far as you'd pay a mark, he's run too far
Player kicking the ball - as soon as the ball has travelled far enough that you'd pay run too far, that's a mark

The AFL is making millions of dollars from TV rights. Can we not pay the umpires more and make it a full time job?

If the AFL doesn't want 15m to be the same as 15m, then change the rules. But as the rules are now, that's how you umpire it. But the umpires are far too soft and want to pay marks that are clearly too short, and let players run distances that are clearly too far. If this is an AFL directive, then the rules need to be changed.

 

[Scorpus]

If they did away with the requirement for kicks to travel any particular distance before being adjudged a mark, what would happen?

Would teams start doing 1m passes?

Yes

 

[FR0GGY]

If I was running a dodgy competition there's a couple of rules I'd looooooooove because bias can be applied without showing up in the stats.

The 15m for a mark interpretation.

Whether to pay advantage or to call it back.

The length of a 50