7 new rules - AFL Rule Changes for 2026

[Section 5]

How does this work if a player takes a big pack mark? All opposition players just have to stand where they were when it was marked? Sounds so dumb

Surely at a minimum, you read the previous post?

 

[juss]

So if you are within 5m of a mark or a free kick a player must stand?

What?

What does that mean?

So if a player takes a pack mark against three opponents.......they all stand there?

While their opponents run and spread.

If a player gets a free for in the back with multiple players piling on they all stand there like naughty boys?

This one will be the "whipping boy rule change" for 2026.

And to think people get paid to make this crap up.

This one really worries me and is going to be a disaster, if that's the interpretation of the rule, which is how it reads.

 

[Obeanie1]

This one really worries me and is going to be a disaster, if that's the interpretation of the rule, which is how it reads.

Pretty sure it's only one player needs to stand.

Poorly worded though.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

I think these guys benefit:

• TDK
• Luke Jackson
• Mark Blicavs
• Draper

And, these guys suffer greatly:

• Pittonet
• ROB
• Briggs
• Sweet
• Nank

Then, these guys will probably remain just as effective:

• Witts
• Meek
• Gawn
• Grundy
• Cameron
• Xerri
• English
• Marshall

But happy to be corrected/challenged on some of these - I just know TDK will benefit a LOT

Reeves benefits for us. Prefers the leap and tap more than Meek does. It hinders him a touch but he will work through it. When Reeves was first ruck when this rule was last in place we were top 4 all year for clearances.

 

[jwikked]

So if you are within 5m of a mark or a free kick a player must stand?

What?

What does that mean?

So if a player takes a pack mark against three opponents.......they all stand there?

While their opponents run and spread.

If a player gets a free for in the back with multiple players piling on they all stand there like naughty boys?

This one will be the "whipping boy rule change" for 2026.

And to think people get paid to make this crap up.

It's the exact same as what would happen under the same circumstances in 2025, 2024 and 2023 (or whenever they brought the rule in). Somebody stands on the mark.

No, not every player needs to freeze, just the one who's going to man the mark.

The rule sucks, but it's not hard to understand.

 

[BringFevBack2021]

Reeves benefits for us. Prefers the leap and tap more than Meek does. It hinders him a touch but he will work through it. When Reeves was first ruck when this rule was last in place we were top 4 all year for clearances.

What a luxury, Meek can wrestle and go forward and Reeves can have his spot in the side as a roaming ruck. Doesn’t even need to contribute a ton beyond center throw ups and sitting a kick ahead of the play as defensive cover.

 

[Do the Dew]

It's the exact same as what would happen under the same circumstances in 2025, 2024 and 2023 (or whenever they brought the rule in). Somebody stands on the mark.

No, not every player needs to freeze, just the one who's going to man the mark.

The rule sucks, but it's not hard to understand.

Yep, gonna be great when an umpire calls for a certain player to stand who keeps running cause they can't hear shit and immediately gets pinged for a 50m penalty.

Prior to his appointment, Swann seemed like a no-nonsense, old-school type who wanted to bring the game back to basics and improve the spectacle overall. Instead, he's immediately caved to the AFL exec boys club (if he wasn't part of it already) and doubled down on the single worst rule ever brought into our great game, ****ing STAND!

Even his other rule tweaks should've gone further rather than just pissing around the edges.

• Remove the 666 starting positions instead of just letting a guy take a step out of the goalsquare. It's not netball, just let teams do what they want and allow coaches to adapt to naturally break down opposition tactics.
• Get rid of the ruck nom altogether. If players are really worried about injuries, just pay a free against any third man up. If professionals can't work out who is going to jump at the ball, then they shouldn't be paid as much as they are.

 

[Chuckie357]

Watching the ‘14 PF between Hawthorn and Port Adelaide, not once centre bounce that I’ve seen has been recalled - not one has been wayward. It’s obviously due to no paint in the middle of the circle. Trading tradition for $$$ - what a shit show

 

[GroggSquad]

The stand change is well overdue. As it was umpired the stand rule was pretty much at the discretion of the player, either choose to stand or slowly back out 5m...as long as you were continuously moving the umpire couldn't pin you as you never stood still. Players were coached to back out and never really gave the bloke who won the mark any advantage to move the ball quickly. This will catch a few out early but honestly players have adapted to every iteration of the stand rule quite quickly so I don't see this being an issue past round three.

What game are you watching?

Most games have been littered with 50 metre penalties due to slight stand rule infringements since the rule came in.

It's genuinely a blight on the sport - what reasonable neutral enjoys seeing a player pulled from outside 50 to the goal square for a certain goal because the guy on the mark moved a toenail?

 

[UltraEgo]

What game are you watching?

Most games have been littered with 50 metre penalties due to slight stand rule infringements since the rule came in.

It's genuinely a blight on the sport - what reasonable neutral enjoys seeing a player pulled from outside 50 to the goal square for a certain goal because the guy on the mark moved a toenail?

This

 

[aCunningPlan]

What game are you watching?

Most games have been littered with 50 metre penalties due to slight stand rule infringements since the rule came in.

It's genuinely a blight on the sport - what reasonable neutral enjoys seeing a player pulled from outside 50 to the goal square for a certain goal because the guy on the mark moved a toenail?

There really aren't that many 50 metre penalties for the stand rule, the players figured it out very quickly. There would be at least three times as many 50's for running through the protected zone.

Over the course of the year locally in seniors and juniors I think I would have paid two 50's for not standing when told.

 

[GroggSquad]

There really aren't that many 50 metre penalties for the stand rule, the players figured it out very quickly. There would be at least three times as many 50's for running through the protected zone.

Over the course of the year locally in seniors and juniors I think I would have paid two 50's for not standing when told.

Aren't the protected zone & stand rule both intertwined?

Protective zone 50 metre penalties seem to have increased tenfold since the stand rule came in.

 

[aCunningPlan]

Aren't the protected zone & stand rule both intertwined?

Protective zone 50 metre penalties seem to have increased tenfold since the stand rule came in.

Great question. No, they are two distinct rules.

Most commonly, a protected zone infringement is a defending player running parallel with the mark within the protected zone (intentionally or not) blocking kick. Even these frees have dropped off in the last few years with defending players able to run through the protected zone if they are tagging their opponent...hence why you will see them point to the player they are following to make it clear to the umpire they are allowed to be there.

An infringement with the stand rule up until this year is only paid when an umpire sees the defender come to a complete stand still within five metres of the mark and then calls stand. It's the directive to wait until players come to a stop that players have exploited, backing out as soon as a mark is paid knowing the umpire cannot call stand until they stop. Once the call of stand is made the player cannot significantly move off the mark...they can jump up and down on the spot, they can plant one foot and reach out within reason but they can't move back or forth or side to side.

 

[Shane Heard]

The ball-up nomination pantomime garbage is finally over.

No other rule change has grinded my gears so much for so long and now we can just get the game moving without a pointless pause in the play and let 15 players jog into the area.

A lot of you numbnuts complain for the sake of complaining ..I swear.

This is a good bunch of changes that almost all revert back to how the original game is played.

Sanity prevails.

 

[Do the Dew]

The ball-up nomination pantomime garbage is finally over.

No other rule change has grinded my gears so much for so long and now we can just get the game moving without a pointless pause in the play and let 15 players jog into the area.

A lot of you numbnuts complain for sake of complaining swear. This is a good bunch of changes that almost all revert back to how the original game is played.

Sanity prevails.

I especially like the part of the revised rule that if no-one nominates, then both teams just have to let the ball hit the ground...

Oh wait, that sounds like a piece of shit. Similar to other rule changes, Swann did half the job and then stopped to admire his pay packet. Would've been miles better if they just scrapped the nomination altogether, threw the ball up, and pay a free against any third man up. Players are professional athletes and should very much be able to work out in a couple of seconds who on their team is competing in the ruck.

 

[Billy ray]

I especially like the part of the revised rule that if no-one nominates, then both teams just have to let the ball hit the ground...

Oh wait, that sounds like a piece of shit. Similar to other rule changes, Swann did half the job and then stopped to admire his pay packet. Would've been miles better if they just scrapped the nomination altogether, threw the ball up, and pay a free against any third man up. Players are professional athletes and should very much be able to work out in a couple of seconds who on their team is competing in the ruck.

What if both teams do a third man up simultaneously? How do you determine who is 3rd and 4th?

 

[Do the Dew]

What if both teams do a third man up simultaneously? How do you determine who is 3rd and 4th?

Call play on if it's an even amount of players from opposing teams going up. The odds that 4 players all go up for the same ball would maybe happen once a season, let's be honest.

Scrapping the nom and paying a free against a 3rd man (or 5th, 7th etc.) is such an easy fix in line with what the AFL has stated their intention is. It reduces stoppage time, and also protects rucks or others going for the ball (which is the main reason the ruck nom rule was brought in originally to protect rucks from other players coming in from weird angles).

I'm doing Swann's job for free.

 

[Billy ray]

Call play on if it's an even amount of players from opposing teams going up. The odds that 4 players all go up for the same ball would maybe happen once a season, let's be honest.

Scrapping the nom and paying a free against a 3rd man (or 5th, 7th etc.) is such an easy fix in line with what the AFL has stated their intention is. It reduces stoppage time, and also protects rucks or others going for the ball (which is the main reason the ruck nom rule was brought in originally to protect rucks from other players coming in from weird angles).

I'm doing Swann's job for free.

i think it could be quite often that each team independently decides to do a 3rd man up, coincidentally at the same time making it 4 men up

but yeh, if that means play on, then sure play on

 

[Do the Dew]

i think it could be quite often that each team independently decides to do a 3rd man up, coincidentally at the same time making it 4 men up

but yeh, if that means play on, then sure play on

That doesn't make sense. No team would willingly do a third man up if it's an automatic free kick against. Only time it would happen is if there's miscommunication, and considering the players are on 500k plus a year, there's no excuse for them not being able to work it out.

 

[Toump Ass]

Penalising the third man up is the most basic and obvious rule fix
Afl is run by clowns.

 

[Shane Heard]

I especially like the part of the revised rule that if no-one nominates, then both teams just have to let the ball hit the ground...

Oh wait, that sounds like a piece of shit. Similar to other rule changes, Swann did half the job and then stopped to admire his pay packet. Would've been miles better if they just scrapped the nomination altogether, threw the ball up, and pay a free against any third man up. Players are professional athletes and should very much be able to work out in a couple of seconds who on their team is competing in the ruck.

See the sunshine and put the shadows behind you. This will evolve quickly and players will be straight onto it.

The tallest player in the vicinity will jump for it. Someone like Bont or Cripps will go for the ball up. Instead of watching Gawn jog in from friggin 40mtrs away while the stupid umpire patiently waits for his imminent arrival.


Get the f in ball moving …throw the god damn ball up and get on with it ffs.

 

[Shane Heard]

Penalising the third man up is the most basic and obvious rule fix
Afl is run by clowns.

As long as one human from the side jumps …it’s all good. It’s not hard to fathom.

Players will adapt quickly.

 

[Shane Heard]

What if both teams do a third man up simultaneously? How do you determine who is 3rd and 4th?

They will train for the situation.

Modern day training and coaching will assure that they are ready for it.

 

[CanuckSuns]

Dang, I was hoping there'd be a new rule that would just delete Collingwood from existence. There's always next year

 

[smasha]

Is the meaning of mark to catch a football an Australian word?

Noone else uses the word mark for a catch only us.

Wonder when we first used the word and why?

You can even go to other very Australian words for meanings of "catches".

Speccy,hanger.

Another others?