What's remotely good about completely removing a player out of the play?
It's not netball.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
7 new rules - AFL Rule Changes for 2026
- Thread starter crows dude
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
What's remotely good about completely removing a player out of the play?
It's not netball.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
It’s not removing any player you just can’t go towards the line. Simple go through the corridor. It won’t stop free flowing footy
The player on the mark can't move a muscle to defend his opponent even when they are right on top of them.
They literally have to let them run past them without being able to stop them.
How is that not taking them out of the play?
Way too much advantage now for taking a mark or getting a free kick.
The advantage was always about being able to take a kick/handpass without the opponent impacting that action.
Not let the opponent have a free run up the ground with the man on the mark stuck in the one spot.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
They need to eliminate the umpire saying it t665566665555 times after a mark.
If they don't, we will adjust so they do.
hawkman
Hall of Famer
I have no problem with the stand rule in general. If though it is a 2 on 1 marking contest does the defender have to stand and not follow the player releasing into space? If they have to stand in that situation it is a bad rule.
Im going to take a guess here and say you've never watched a game of footy.
Umpires are really hot on calling play on as soon as the player runs off his line. They are instructed to call play on as quickly as they can warranted because the bloke on the mark is always going to run off as soon as they see that deviation. It is drummed into umpires that a 50 for a standing infringement is the umpires fault for not calling play on quick enough 9 times out of 10 under the current rules.
Yes the man on the mark gets stuck and loses a crucial second or two when chasing but play on is always called before they get past the mark.
Excellent situation to consider! Currently if you are in the contest you can back out without issue as long as you are in continual motion.
It needs to be clarified. The rule that allows you to follow an attacking opponent through the protected zone appears to clash with this new interpretation where the defender must stand within 5m of the mark. I'd guess and say it will be tough luck for the defender and stand to avoid doubt.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,470
- 3,280
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
Every bit as hare-brained as rule changes usually are for this sport. Can't call it a surprise at this point, but still disappointing that lessons are somehow never learnt...
The last disposal OOB free kick is entrenching the trend of the last 10-15 years towards a broader interpretation of deliberate/insufficient intent, where miskicks, unlucky bounces and rushed disposals under pressure are made into enforced turnovers to the other team. I think that's mostly been a bad trend in general, and would prefer they just narrowed the interpretation back to a proper 'deliberate' rule, but I can understand the argument that it needed standardising if it was going to be this broad. But the thing is... they aren't standardising it? They're introducing a whole new shade of grey to the rule, where the other team won't receive a free kick if it's deemed they "didn't play the ball" - which is far more of a fuzzy judgement call than whether the player actively disposing of the ball deliberately put it out of play (or didn't try hard enough to keep it in or whatever). I can't see how shifting the subjective 'intent' assessment to the opposing team is an improvement - and not to mention, insufficient intent is still a rule (for tap-overs etc., and anything inside 50 either end), so does the 'defender could've done something' principle apply to that rule too? It just feels like the usual endless tail-chasing from the AFL.
The ruck changes are just more daft updates to a set of rules they haven't got right for a long time. Not waiting for nominated rucks to arrive for the ball-up is obviously sensible, but it was never a problem before ruck nominations were a thing, and the alternative they're explicitly endorsing if no nominees are nearby is... the ball just has to hit the ground before anyone can do anything. Whose idea of a good outcome is that? Likewise the ban on crossing the line at centre ball-ups, it's all in service of a hyper-sanitised version of the game where the umpire must throw the ball up in a predictably equidistant way, and only the two designated players can jump at it, and they must jump in the prescribed manner... it all misses the point of what the ruck contest was meant to be, which is a neutral restart to play - the ball bounces and goes wherever the oval ball deigns to go, and players contest it freely. Instead we have a league tediously obsessed with everyone playing only in the prescribed way - speaking of which...
Forcing the stand rule, why?! The stand rule is awful as a matter of principle - there's nothing 'exciting' and 'free-flowing' about working around a defender who's prohibited by the rules from meaningfully contesting that play (you can see in the AFL's own video explaining the change that the 'problems' they're addressing are that the defending team is still sometimes able to defend, clearly we can't have that in a contested sport...). But now the position is, if you happen to be near a mark or free kick, you must stand, you can't vacate the protected area - so, what if multiple players are in the area, are we going to see 50m penalties paid because they both stand, or both try to vacate and leave the other there? What if you're 3m to the side of the mark when it's paid - you can't stand there, but you'll be made to move onto the mark, on pain of a 50m penalty... how is this a positive development to anyone?
The other changes are a bit more of a wait-and-see:
Shrugging as prior - I'm okay with the examples shown in the video being treated that way, because, like with a fend-off, the obvious use of a free arm to do something other than try and dispose of the ball should rightly be considered either prior or not making a genuine attempt to dispose, but interpretation is going to be critical and we've seen who gets considered 'taken high' vs. ducking/shrugging to be quite contentious often before.
Shorter kick-in time - not overly fussed but I do wonder how it will be handled if the shorter time means opposing players are more likely to still be in the process of leaving the 25m area when 'play on' gets called. There's rightly no offside rule in AFL, and that means those players can immediately switch directions and apply pressure on the kicker; will they be allowed to wait longer if those players are slow vacating the zone?
No goalsquare in the 6-6-6 - the only one that I think is clearly a positive; 6-6-6 is still a dreadful idea, just like every other time the AFL tries to shunt play into its sole preferred form, and if their focus is on saving dead time then they could do a lot worse than just scrapping it entirely, but dismantling a small part of it is at least a start.
The last disposal OOB free kick is entrenching the trend of the last 10-15 years towards a broader interpretation of deliberate/insufficient intent, where miskicks, unlucky bounces and rushed disposals under pressure are made into enforced turnovers to the other team. I think that's mostly been a bad trend in general, and would prefer they just narrowed the interpretation back to a proper 'deliberate' rule, but I can understand the argument that it needed standardising if it was going to be this broad. But the thing is... they aren't standardising it? They're introducing a whole new shade of grey to the rule, where the other team won't receive a free kick if it's deemed they "didn't play the ball" - which is far more of a fuzzy judgement call than whether the player actively disposing of the ball deliberately put it out of play (or didn't try hard enough to keep it in or whatever). I can't see how shifting the subjective 'intent' assessment to the opposing team is an improvement - and not to mention, insufficient intent is still a rule (for tap-overs etc., and anything inside 50 either end), so does the 'defender could've done something' principle apply to that rule too? It just feels like the usual endless tail-chasing from the AFL.
The ruck changes are just more daft updates to a set of rules they haven't got right for a long time. Not waiting for nominated rucks to arrive for the ball-up is obviously sensible, but it was never a problem before ruck nominations were a thing, and the alternative they're explicitly endorsing if no nominees are nearby is... the ball just has to hit the ground before anyone can do anything. Whose idea of a good outcome is that? Likewise the ban on crossing the line at centre ball-ups, it's all in service of a hyper-sanitised version of the game where the umpire must throw the ball up in a predictably equidistant way, and only the two designated players can jump at it, and they must jump in the prescribed manner... it all misses the point of what the ruck contest was meant to be, which is a neutral restart to play - the ball bounces and goes wherever the oval ball deigns to go, and players contest it freely. Instead we have a league tediously obsessed with everyone playing only in the prescribed way - speaking of which...
Forcing the stand rule, why?! The stand rule is awful as a matter of principle - there's nothing 'exciting' and 'free-flowing' about working around a defender who's prohibited by the rules from meaningfully contesting that play (you can see in the AFL's own video explaining the change that the 'problems' they're addressing are that the defending team is still sometimes able to defend, clearly we can't have that in a contested sport...). But now the position is, if you happen to be near a mark or free kick, you must stand, you can't vacate the protected area - so, what if multiple players are in the area, are we going to see 50m penalties paid because they both stand, or both try to vacate and leave the other there? What if you're 3m to the side of the mark when it's paid - you can't stand there, but you'll be made to move onto the mark, on pain of a 50m penalty... how is this a positive development to anyone?
The other changes are a bit more of a wait-and-see:
Shrugging as prior - I'm okay with the examples shown in the video being treated that way, because, like with a fend-off, the obvious use of a free arm to do something other than try and dispose of the ball should rightly be considered either prior or not making a genuine attempt to dispose, but interpretation is going to be critical and we've seen who gets considered 'taken high' vs. ducking/shrugging to be quite contentious often before.
Shorter kick-in time - not overly fussed but I do wonder how it will be handled if the shorter time means opposing players are more likely to still be in the process of leaving the 25m area when 'play on' gets called. There's rightly no offside rule in AFL, and that means those players can immediately switch directions and apply pressure on the kicker; will they be allowed to wait longer if those players are slow vacating the zone?
No goalsquare in the 6-6-6 - the only one that I think is clearly a positive; 6-6-6 is still a dreadful idea, just like every other time the AFL tries to shunt play into its sole preferred form, and if their focus is on saving dead time then they could do a lot worse than just scrapping it entirely, but dismantling a small part of it is at least a start.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
6-6-6 change - Good. That rule needs a slow death as it is
Last possession - Ok. Needed to do it for the full ground not just midzone.
Centre Ruck - I mean, it was already in the rule book under 18.4.3 (e)...........
Ball ups - This is just fixing a symptom of a stupid decision. Should've just reversed the original decision to begin with.
Shrug - Good, About 20 years too late. Though, I wonder if the Peatling recruitment is about to backfire for Adelaide
Stand - F*** off. That rule needs a quick death. Don't double down on it
Kick-ins - Who the hell cares. No one will notice.
That's all you needed to admit to highlight what a garbage rule it is.
You also left out the part when a player with the ball is next to the player on the mark they also can't move an inch to try and stop a hand pass being given off to a player running past. Not moving their feet, just sticking a hand out.
Thus rendering the player on the mark useless.
Do you watch football?
- Jul 16, 2013
- 18,243
- 24,788
- AFL Club
- Essendon
They had the a great version of last disposal in the SANFL with a lot of these things included and then they choose to do something different.
Morons.
SANFL is cut and dried last clean disposal out of bounds without being touched. Anywhere on the ground.
Only real thinking the umps had to do was if a player tried to block somebody else from getting the ball and then it would be a throw in.
- Jul 16, 2013
- 18,243
- 24,788
- AFL Club
- Essendon
They call play on quickly if a player moves quickly off the mark. They never call it when the player slowly sidesteps left or right to open up the kicking or running lane.
I reckon Bryan from essendon benefits with the ruck change. He's fairly light and has a huge leap on him. I hated so the wrestling shit so that's a positive
The Educator
Club Legend
- Jan 23, 2023
- 1,062
- 1,078
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
A player forced to stay on the mark and not move thus unable to take part in the play around them?
No advantage there?
- Apr 27, 2014
- 7,682
- 12,040
- AFL Club
- Richmond
yessssss
it is a complete farce, especially on the wings of an oval-shaped ground. The defender gets frozen, and the attacker can back away, not straight back mind, but curving around the boundary as they go. They end up so far off the line of the mark, it's a joke.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Could also be a good thing to get CDT if he’s there at your selection too.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
So why do them?
Slight improvements are better than no improvement?
The Educator
Club Legend
- Jan 23, 2023
- 1,062
- 1,078
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
There's clearly an advantage there. That's the point. The team that received the free kick or took the mark get an advantage.
But you asserted there is "way too much advantage" and you have offered nothing in support of it.
Greg Swan et al have clearly determined that the current interpretation gives insufficient advantage
- Apr 27, 2014
- 7,682
- 12,040
- AFL Club
- Richmond
do you watch footy?
chip-chip-chip
stand-stand-stand
completely the wrong way to go, scoring has stagnated as a result
need to encourage risk, not zonal safety bubbles that teams don't want to leave
They already have the advantage, why are they giving them more of an advantage?
Hawthorn
Similar threads
