7 new rules - AFL Rule Changes for 2026

[Sully111]

Generally speaking, I like the changes.

 

[Bostonian]

Kicking the ball over the boundary line does not actually help the game move faster, because it results in a boundary throw in and gives time for 80% of the players to group up around the congestion. Is that really that hard to follow?

If players are so poorly skilled they can't stop kicking the ball out of bounds then they'll be punished by immediately giving the opposition control of the ball and chances to score, so their only other option is to go through the corridor which also creates exciting positive football

Faster doesn't make it better. Is that really that hard to follow?

We don't need rules for anything like that.

That's up to the teams to decide what game plans they want to implement and the opposition to counter that.

 

[Kappa]

Faster doesn't make it better. Is that really that hard to follow?

We don't need rules for anything like that.

That's up to the teams to decide what game plans they want to implement and the opposition to counter that.

Faster more positive ball movement actually does make the game better.

You can't seriously think that chipping the ball sideways, backwards, or kicking it to the boundary line for 4 boundary throw ins in a row is the best version of AFL football... right?

 

[Elixuh]

Magnificent changes Mr Swann.

 

[No SPIN]

A handful of extra free kicks instead of throw ins doesn't really make footy less watchable imo. If players avoid the boundary line as a result of this rule it will make for better viewing.

And I suspects game plans hugging the boundaries will also need tweaking.

 

[NetworkNerd]

I havent looked them up but I am guessing they all favour Geelong?

 

[Bostonian]

Faster more positive ball movement actually does make the game better.

You can't seriously think that chipping the ball sideways, backwards, or kicking it to the boundary line for 4 boundary throw ins in a row is the best version of AFL football... right?

I think a combination of all works perfectly fine.

If all the teams do the same thing it's boring as ****.

If you have a netball rule where a player is completely taken out of a passage of play it's a garbage rule.

There was nothing wrong with the stand behind the mark rule.

 

[Xtreme]

Just bring in AFLX and be done with it

Will Ashcroft can be the next Alex Rance and skateboard through the carport. Meanwhile Vailey Smith can be a Nick Kyrgios clone and enter the ground wearing oversized Beatz by Dr Dre headphones

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Have no issues with any of the rule changes other than the stand rule. Doubling down on this insanity is wild to me. AFL executives need to go.

Stand is a brilliant rule brought in. One of their few W's.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There was nothing wrong with the stand behind the mark rule.

If the umps actually paid it every time sure. They were not

 

[Bluelegs]

Stand is a brilliant rule brought in. One of their few W's.

Yep. Absolutely the key to getting out of the boring slogfest of the 2010's

 

[nineteen eighty]

I think most of the changes make sense. Prepare for more rucks doing their knees. They need to make sure jumping rucks don't raise their knees in the contest, to stop the situation they introduced the circle for in the first place.

I’m an ex ruck and the issue wasn’t the rucks jumping and raising knees. It was all to do with jumping technique. Maybe the clubs can get some of the old great tap rucks of the past like Newman (if his mind is holding up…he was a great jumping tap ruckman) and Simon Madden.

If a ruck has poor technique and gets injured, that’s on them.

 

[jwikked]

Have no issues with any of the rule changes other than the stand rule. Doubling down on this insanity is wild to me. AFL executives need to go.

Stand rule would only make sense if they actually lined the player with the ball on the mark in line with the goals, as they're supposed to. Since they don't, it makes zero sense. Just takes one player out of the game.

It's a farce, I hate hearing "Stand" 70 times per game, and I hate the inevitable wussy 50 meter penalties that come from the slightest infringement.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I havent looked them up but I am guessing they all favour Geelong?

So you're completely uninformed but still ready and willing to complain about favourtism?

That's just ridiculous

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I havent looked them up but I am guessing they all favour Geelong?

Funny thing. We actually have a rule introduced purely to the detriment of Geelong as the club that had a genuine advantage over the competition.

3rd man up in ruck contests.

 

[Fabab]

Only sport that changes rules every year and even during the season there are weeks that specifically make a point of over umpiring one particular rule.
Fed up with the boys club too that is the Afl .

 

[docko911]

Have you actually watched it in the SANFL? It works well.

SANFL average score per game is 79 points.

This rule is not going to increase scoring and takes away from a key component of the game. If anything, I’d prefer we go back to the old deliberate out of bounds rules to allow more kicking for touch.

I can’t stand rule changes for the sake of someone wanting to appear like they are doing something positive for the game. This new guy is a ****wit and hasn’t even bothered to ask the fans what they want.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Changes to rules are designed to stop Richmond

 

[damochandler]

Reducing the interpretations for every rule should’ve been the priority

 

[LukeParkerno1]

SANFL average score per game is 79 points.

This rule is not going to increase scoring and takes away from a key component of the game. If anything, I’d prefer we go back to the old deliberate out of bounds rules to allow more kicking for touch.

I can’t stand rule changes for the sake of someone wanting to appear like they are doing something positive for the game. This new guy is a ****wit and hasn’t even bothered to ask the fans what they want.

Where did anyone say increase scoring? All we have said is it reduces inconsistency between decisions. Good

 

[docko911]

Deliberately kicking the ball out of bounds is an important strategy that we want to preserve, why?

If you kick the ball up the wing 50m and it goes out of bounds it will more than likely be called deliberate these days.

Now it will always be a free + any other time you dispose of it out of play. It sounds great that a player gets a kick and that will open up the game BUT it won’t.

The deliberate rule is poorly thought out. Teams flood back more than ever now so a free kick in a position where almost every player on the field is ahead of you is a key cause of congestion, low scoring and boring football. A boundary throw-in in this situation opens the game up more as players move forward to join the contest, spreading the players out.

The same thing will happen now as players will flood back as soon as they realise it is going out off their disposal. The contest will be taken from the game and we’ll see more
Kick to kick nonsense.

 

[docko911]

Where did anyone say increase scoring? All we have said is it reduces inconsistency between decisions. Good

Which should not be a reason to completely alter the fabric of the sport for the last however many years. If they wanted less inconsistency go back to almost nothing being paid, the game was better then.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I havent looked them up but I am guessing they all favour Geelong?

Nope, exact opposite actually (geelong were the best at blocking in the middle, hense why they didnt need a ruck)

 

[Bostonian]

If the umps actually paid it every time sure. They were not

So all that needed to be done was tighten that rule up then.

Not come up with a completely stupid rule to rectify that one.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

So all that needed to be done was tighten that rule up then.

Not come up with a completely stupid rule to rectify that one.

It’s a good change as it’s paid EVERY time. Get the ball moving which is a good thing