Remove this Banner Ad

What rule changes would you make if you had all control of the LoAF?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I'd change the high free. Unless it's a clothesline or punch in the head probably doesn't need to be paid. Would stop ducking as well

Sent from my motorola edge 30 pro using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
“Dangerous tackles” should not result in giving away a free kick when the tackle would have otherwise resulted in a holding the ball decision - the two infractions should cancel each other out and result in a ball up.

Sick of seeing players dead HTB and not only getting away with it but also getting a free kick because their head accidentally clips the turf during the tackle.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I am watching the under 16 championships and they have brought the boundary umpire in about 10 meters.
I would love this to be brought in to the AFL, with so many falling short and it pushing it to the boundary line to much, It would open up the game if the ball was landing about 25-30 meters plus inside the boundary line. It would help quicken the transition in the game as well with more space to work with off a ball in.

What are other peoples thoughts.
 
Three major ones.

1). Bring in the last possession SANFL rule for balls put of bounds.

2). Make any head high contact due to a player leading with their head play on and automatically pay holding the ball if a player leads with the head and does not dispose of the ball.

3). Bring back third man up in the ruck contests.
 
Three major ones.

1). Bring in the last possession SANFL rule for balls put of bounds.

2). Make any head high contact due to a player leading with their head play on and automatically pay holding the ball if a player leads with the head and does not dispose of the ball.

3). Bring back third man up in the ruck contests.
1)Is the last possession rule just for kicks? Works pretty well for junior footy so I don’t mind it.

2) I though ducking was you’d prior. Seems like umpires don’t always think they ducked when they did.

3) I don’t like this, takes away ruckman’s job and allows teams with weaker rucks to compete more. The game would change more if that rule came back in my opinion.
 
I would change the sub rule and allowed subbed players to come back on if there was a new injury. The caveat being that the 2nd subbed players injury has to be significant and they don’t play the following week. This is to prevent the rule change be tactical and just as injury cover.

This would allow for earlier subs being made, WC made their sub with 3 minutes to go last week which isn’t the best of the game or the sub.

Last night Erasmus was subbed with Fyfe with about 10 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter. Switta did his hamstring after that point so Freo were a man down with a perfectly fit player not able to take his place.
 
1)Is the last possession rule just for kicks? Works pretty well for junior footy so I don’t mind it.

2) I though ducking was you’d prior. Seems like umpires don’t always think they ducked when they did.

3) I don’t like this, takes away ruckman’s job and allows teams with weaker rucks to compete more. The game would change more if that rule came back in my opinion.

Last possession includes handballs as well. If there is a clean possession and it goes out of bounds then free kick. If it comes off hands, etc. then throw it in.
 
In making changes I think you need to ensure you try to avoid unintended consequences or make changes that create more grey areas or are open to interpretation.

Using vindicators example above the first is fairly easy to interpret so no grey are. The second point however is open to interpretation (i.e. does the player lead with the head or not). it's already hard to interpret so making a change here will make very little difference).

For me an easy one to fix is the hands in the back of marking contest.

At the moment it is open to interpretation on whether the players pushes or not. Just make it simple for the umpires and say no hands in the back in the marking contest.
 
1)Is the last possession rule just for kicks? Works pretty well for junior footy so I don’t mind it.

2) I though ducking was you’d prior. Seems like umpires don’t always think they ducked when they did.

3) I don’t like this, takes away ruckman’s job and allows teams with weaker rucks to compete more. The game would change more if that rule came back in my opinion.
Ducking is always tricky in local footy. Most of the time players screamed their opponent ducked when he just bent down to collect the footy which he has a right to do. The best you can look for is when the player theatrically throws their head back coupled with an over the top 'ow!', or the old arm lift.
If you want to get right into the nuance of ducking, umpires are directed that lowering the body is not prior opportunity, but ducking is. Then there is the grey area of a tackle slipping up the shoulders, needs to be absolutely clear the player contributed to it to call play on. At the end of the day umpires protect the ball carrier and the head is sacrosanct so there will always be a call in high contact if there is any doubt.
 
I would change the sub rule and allowed subbed players to come back on if there was a new injury. The caveat being that the 2nd subbed players injury has to be significant and they don’t play the following week. This is to prevent the rule change be tactical and just as injury cover.

This would allow for earlier subs being made, WC made their sub with 3 minutes to go last week which isn’t the best of the game or the sub.

Last night Erasmus was subbed with Fyfe with about 10 minutes to go in the 3rd quarter. Switta did his hamstring after that point so Freo were a man down with a perfectly fit player not able to take his place.
Just make it 5 on the bench
 
Just make it 5 on the bench
Seems too easy a move from the AFL, they love to complicate everything.

A good thing about the sub is it gives a role for the flexible player, burst player or old gun who is on his last legs. If it is just 5 on the bench, they probably get overlooked for a 4 quarter player. Also harder to bring players back from injury a bit underdone.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I reject the OP's premise entirely.

Don't change the rules, change the rulemakers. A sitting committee always looking at rules, will keep changing the rules. I want the game to stop changing the rules every damned year. Let the committee convene every 5 years, if there is something needing urgent attention (legal challenges such as concussion), the AFL and Players association can jointly agree for an emergency reconvening of the rules committee.

And damn the "look of the game", this is a sport played by thousands and thousands of people at lower levels. The rules should be for the sake of the sport, not about the entertainment that the top tier of the game is - though sure, let the AFL and broadcasters cash in on the underlying sport.
 
Stand rule : gone. Players can move sideways on the mark, still 50 for going over it.
Related, protected area, a player needs to be able to run from behind to get to the mark without going very wide. However, this isn't easy to make clear-cut; as the area does need to be protected when the player with the ball is ready to dispose of it.


Insufficient intent to keep the ball in play : this is an improvement over delibetrate out of bounds, imo. But its still asking umpires to be mind readers.
A change to "last touch" could just result in players not attempting to take the ball near the line, or effeectively narrowing the ground with teams wanting to avoid sending the ball to the outer ten metres or so to avoid accidenbtal out of bounds. - resulting in more congestion.
Even last disposal, or my preferred "last control" which would cover ruck taps, getting tavkled or walking over the line, etc might do that second one. However, I would trial that for out-of-competition games (pre-season etc) while trying to come up with less interpretative measures in case that fails.
Even with no other change, if you're good enough to find the line and deliver the ball a certain distance (e.g. 30 metres) allow it. The downside, we all know umpires can't judge distance.

High tackles : if it would have been high had the player not ducked, dropped the keens, dropped a shoulder, etc, then sure,. its high. And if the ball holder slipped, bad lucl, that's high. Drawing high contact by ducking, free against the ball carrier.

Seriously consider only allowing taps, spoils, knocking the ball on, with clenched fist. No open palm slap on, that should make a "throw" easier to interpret. An exemption for getting a hand on it in the goal square if it then goes for a point; but not if it comes back into play.
The potential downsides : the few ruck contests that mean something with hit-out to advantage might be even rarer; a player hitting a pack hard, getting hands on it trying to mark, might get paid as illegal spoil if the ball comes off hard. It should be obvious what the player is attempting, but does come abck into the umpire trying to judge intent again (something that should be avoided when practical, the same issue as with insufficient intent above).

Blocking : its just good team based field position, get rid of the rule. Running off the line to take a player is sheperding off the ball anyway; but if all a player does is hold a position that stops an opponent's run, well played. This one is so inconsistent anyway. Keep it for ruck contests only.

Holding the man : not paid nearly enough, so often the little jumper holds or one arm across from behind before even arrivbing at the contest is let go. Let the ball winners win the ball. No rule change needed, just a dreaded "interpretation" instruction.

Advantage : not sure what to do on this, but so often everybody except the ball carrier stops at the whistle (could give up 50 if the opponents don't) and advantage is allowed when its too much and really should come back.


The big one nobody will agree with, and would need to a couple of years notice for clubs to overhaul parts of the playing list.
Get rid of interchange. Five subs, maximum three a quarter, subs reset each quarter.
With an exception for umpire ordered blood rule send offs - whioch would be more like an interchange but when that player comes back on, the player who came on for them must be the one who comes off again or it counts as a sub used.
This way the sub does its job of covering for injury, gets rid of the hybrid system, and movement off the bench means something again.
If there is an early injury a team isn't down rotations. Players would have to better at energy management, which might lead to less large ground level packs and congestion. Skills might drop with fatigue for many athlete first, footballer second type players; but the pure footballer can showcase football skills.


A lot of these are simply reversing changes to either rule or interpetaion in the last couple of decades. Others clearly are big changes.
 
3 and 3 on the bench/sub. Less players on the bench so players will play longer and tire quicker. 3 Subs will allow tactical subs as well as injury cover.
Either that or scrap sub altogether and just have 5 on the bench.
 
Get rid of the stand rule, pleaseeee, as well as the over the top protected area bollocks.

F off the 6-6-6.

F off the deliberate OOB, or aware free kick against any possession that goes OOB.

Play on for all attempts by ball carrier to draw high contact (AFL said they'd do this anyway lmao), including knee drops, shoulder lifts, throwing the head back or ducking it.

Fines for players who exaggerate high contact, followed by a 1 game suspension for repeat offence within 12 months.

Increase bench to 5 players, no sub.

Get rid of prior opportunity. Either you pick up the ball and dispose of it or don't pick it up at all.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Remove this Banner Ad

What rule changes would you make if you had all control of the LoAF?


Write your reply...

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top