The Middle Aged Spectator considers the AFL's proposed rule changes

The Middle Aged Spectator considers the AFL’s proposed rule changes

As the Coodabeen Champions’ character, Digger, was known to say, “I’ve been following football for a very long time.” While never having played the game at anything but a very minor level, I have coached and managed teams, and been a club administrator, over many years. I do know a bit about the game.

And I’m going to sound like an old reactionary – but rules shouldn’t be changed without good reason.

The AFL’s Competition Committee will present to the Commission a number of suggested rule changes to be implemented in 2019. I fear that each of the rule changes could have serious, unintended consequences, and I am puzzled as to why there seems to be the need to implement them so soon, and without adequate trialling.

Quite frankly, the game is in pretty good shape, but certain people in the AFL fold believe the game has become too congested. This leads to lower scoring, and consequently, the fans are losing interest. Or so we are told. It might have more to do with commercial television interests and their reduced opportunities to sell advertising space (due to the lower scores), but no one in an official position has said that.

The two main rule changes (discussed below as 6-6-6 and 18m Goal Square) were trialled in a handful of VFL (second level competition) games between lower ranked teams. Seriously, that is not good enough. Two better ways to trial these rules would be: 1) during a pre-season competition. That way all AFL teams get to play with them, and we would all get a clearer idea of how they would affect the game. 2) a whole season trial in a second-level competition (VFL, SANFL, NEAFL etc). That way, good teams as well as strugglers have to use them. A season-long trial would produce a far better picture of what is going on.

Here is what concerns me about three proposed changes specifically:

6-6-6

The game of Australian Football has never before had an offside rule, and this effectively introduces one. The 18 players for each team must set up before every centre bounce with 6 defenders, 6 midfielders (4 in the square plus two on the wings) and 6 forwards. Players are permitted to move after play begins.

The biggest change here is that teams will not be able to set up with an extra player in defence. There are two main times this happens. One is when a team is being soundly beaten, and this is an attempt to stem the flow of opposition scoring. This rule may well result in more one-sided blow-out games, as weaker teams will find it impossible to quickly double team dangerous opponents. Higher scoring matches are theoretically a good thing, and an aggregate score of 200 points where one team has 110 to the other’s 90 makes for exciting footy, but when the split is 150-50, not so much. The other time this tactic is regularly used is late in a game when a team is trying to protect a narrow lead. If my team is in front by a goal or so with only a couple of minutes to play, I expect them to defend that lead in every possible way. Extra man back? Yes please!

In recent times, both Collingwood and Melbourne have set up with a player beginning at the back of the centre square, effectively giving the team the option of a player entering the centre clearance play at full speed, and running goalward. Considering that Melbourne was the highest scoring team in 2018, that is a tactic which will vanish under the proposed change.

A question that hasn’t been answered yet is how infractions will be managed. Will there be a free kick awarded if a player is out of position, or will the umpires simply wait for the correct structure before the ball-up? Please, please, not a free kick.

The 18metre goal oblong

For a start, it sounds a lot worse than the “goal square” (which we knew wasn’t a square, but at least it is more squarish than the weird abomination that has been proposed).

The thinking behind this one is that when kicking out after a behind has been scored, the ball will end up in the centre. Firstly, why is that necessarily a good thing? An instant turnover to the opposition who have placed their talls strategically is likely, which means the ball will come straight back at twice the speed. I don’t see the point.

There is of course no reason why the fullback would not kick short anyway, as they do more often than not now, so as to maintain possession. So, apart from possibly pushing the defensive line back towards the centre by 9m, probably not much will change. It really seems like an ugly solution in search of a problem.

Runners and Water Carriers only after a goal is scored

Regarding the water carriers, this is pretty much what happens now, but they are permitted to be on the field at other times away from play. However, with many forward-line players pushing up the field to defend under a team structure, there might not be anyone to give a drink to. I suppose the 6-6-6 rule will mean the water carriers can access at least some of their players in the 30 seconds or so after a goal is scored and before the next bounce. There is potentially a problem on warmer days. Let’s say, for example, that Carlton and Gold Coast are playing on a warm afternoon at Carrara. Neither of these teams have been heavy scorers over the past couple of seasons. What happens if only 2 or 3 goals are scored during a quarter? Might there not be a WHS issue if players are not hydrating in this situation? It seems a fairly pointless exercise to change this rule. I can’t think of any situation where water carriers have influenced the result of a game negatively, or caused more congestion to occur.

The use of runners to relay the coach’s message is, I think, unique to Australian Football. But, you would think that with players understanding their team’s structures and setups that a runner on the field during play is largely unnecessary. Senior players can redirect team-mates in the time between goals being scored. So with this change, I don’t have a problem.

Missed opportunities

If the Competition Committee want to tighten up a few things, they could start with rules where the umpires have to decide what a player was thinking. Get rid of the “deliberate” rules – out of bounds and rushed behind. In the case of the out of bounds rule, just adopt the rule used by AFLW: if the ball is kicked, handballed or carried over the line it’s a free kick to the opponent. If the ball is spilled out of play from a marking contest, or other event, the ball is thrown in. It works well in AFLW, and quite possibly would ease congestion, because most on most occasions there will not be a stoppage.

The “protected zone” rule that has recently been introduced is umpired poorly and in a confusing manner. Clear it up, or get rid of it.

I have never understood why a fullback waiting to kick the ball in after a behind is called to “play on”. The clock has stopped, so they cannot be wasting time. But if he can be called to play on, he should be allowed to simply run out of the goal square (or oblong) without that dicky little kick to himself.

Be clearer on what constitutes a good tackle, and either pay a free kick one way or the other, or ball it up quickly. And stop with the nomination process for the ruck – it doesn’t matter who goes up as long as it’s only one from each team.

I could go on (and on) but I’ll finish with the hopelessly compromised draw and scheduling that afflicts the AFL. The first problem is that teams don’t play each other an equal number of times in a season, so overall results are skewed. The second is that while all teams have 11 home and 11 away games in the season, those teams based anywhere except Victoria have to travel for 10 of their away games, while the Victorian teams travel only 7 or 8 times (and complain about it) and play up to 14 times on the MCG. What an extraordinary advantage that is! It could be resolved, of course, if there were fewer teams in Victoria.