The AFL has written to clubs seeking input for several proposed rule changes, but do they really listen to their stakeholders?

With the AFL seeking input on several proposed rule changes, Graham Cornes asks does the AFL really listen to its stakeholders. Or are they another example of the belligerent corporate entity?

So, the AFL has written to the clubs seeking their input for several proposed rule changes.

“Not again,” you can hear the long-suffering fans sighing in frustration.

Is there any other sport that revises and rewrites its rules more than the AFL? Rules that are intended to make the game better and hopefully more watchable end up creating more problems.

One wonders, however, when they send these letters out, do they really intend to listen to their stakeholders? Or have they already decided on the new rules and this is just a feigned exercise in due diligence so no one can accuse them of not consulting the clubs?

Is there any other sport that revises and rewrites its rules more than the AFL? Asks Graham Cornes. Photo by Jason McCawley/AFL Photos/via Getty Images.

But the stakeholders are more than just the clubs and players. There are fans to consider. There are the broadcast partners who want exciting, spectacular content. Additionally, there also is the other mainstream media. Without all of these stakeholders the game would not be the most popular sport in the country. And that is in spite of the frustration of fans, coaches and players with some of the ridiculous rules and interpretations.

The prospective new rules, or adjustment to existing rules, for 2025 are these:

1. No warning if there is a breach of the 6-6-6 rule.

2. Reduce the shot clock when a player is having a shot for goal, from 30 to 20 seconds.

3. Reduce the time a player is given to play on after a mark or free kick.

4. Reduce the time a defender is given to bring the ball into play after a behind is scored.

5. If there is an infringement after a goal is scored, the subsequent free kick is taken from the centre of the ground and not the goalsquare.

Did any of these issues create serious problems or controversy during last season? Did anyone at any stage think, why he taking so long to have his shot for goal?

Is a technical breach of the 6-6-6 rule if a player ventures over a line too soon, or does not get into position quickly enough as they are running from the bench, worthy of a vital centre clearance?

Reducing further the time a player is given to play on after a mark or free kick seems totally unnecessary when most coaches are encouraging their players to move the ball as quickly as possible anyway.

It’s a similar situation with bringing the ball back into play after a behind is scored. Besides, there are other issues with the defender bringing the ball back into play that need addressing. One, it’s too big an advantage for the team with the ball, unless for some stupid reason the defender kicks it short and wide to the back pocket. Two, they invariably run too far before they kick it without being penalised. And three, they are rewarded with a statistic when they have done nothing to deserve it.

Did any of these issues create serious problems or controversy during last season? Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images.

Awarding another free kick after a goal has been scored and before the next centre bounce has always been contentious. Often it is such a minor infringement it seems the umpires are trying to insert themselves unnecessarily into the game. Almost always it is unworthy of a bonus goal which is always scored.

Taking the subsequent free kick from the centre of the ground seems fairer but it happens so infrequently there doesn’t needto be a change. Besides, if time lost and time wasting is such an issue, it will take longer to organise a kick from the centre than awarding a simple free kick from the goalsquare.

Most surprisingly, however, there was no mention of any impending change to the much-despised substitute rule.

Remember the rule changes of 2024? The sub rule was modified so that the clubs could name five players on the bench and not confirm the sub until 60 minutes before the game. It did not make the sub rule any less ridiculous. Coaches and players alike hate it. What is the point of having a player sitting impotent on the bench for most of the game? If there is a need for that extra player, either because of injury or tactical reasons, five players on the bench should cover it.

Does the AFL really listen to its stakeholders. Or are they another example of the belligerent corporate entity? Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images.

In 2024 the AFL brought in changes to the tribunal guidelines in relation to the adjudication of smothers, run-down tackles and striking. The most important of those was the punishing of the run-down tackle which often saw the player with the ball projected head-first into the turf, even if it was accidental.

It was always a push in the back but now requires an extra duty-of-care by the tackling player. But the intent to penalise someone for attempting to smother the ball was an unnecessary over-reaction to the Brayden Maynard collision with Angus Brayshaw in the qualifying final in 2023. You shouldn’t need to legislate against accidents.

Then there was the change when a push would now be adjudicated as a strike. A definite overreaction.

But there was one other rule change that was snuck, almost imperceptibly, into the rulebook. The AFL release said: “There will also be a change in interpretation of the Laws of the Game to permit straight arm blocks in a ruck contest, provided the player still contests the ball.”

It didn’t seem much of a change at the time but it has resulted in football’s ugliest images. Always we see the two giants clashing together, wrestling, often holding and generally scragging each other. Occasionally the umpire will pluck a freekick from nowhere when it could have gone either way.

It is a ridiculous rule and it is being applied in an inconsistent and perplexing manner. There is a lot to be said for bringing back the third-man-up rule where a third player can contest the ruck. It certainly would help clearances and reduce congested play. Besides, using a straight arm to prevent the opposing ruckman from contesting the ball is decidedly against the spirit of the game. There has been no mention in this year’s changes to rectify this blight on the game.

Cynical or not, this approach to the clubs does give them a chance to express their concerns which should reflect the concerns of the fan.

And there are several laws the AFL should change if it has the interests of the fans at heart.

The most frustrating rule in football is the 50m penalty, which is now being randomly meted out for the most tiggy-touchwood of transgressions, if there is one at all. It has to be reduced to 25m.

The ‘stand’ rule is a waste of time and another opportunity for the umpire to impose his ego on the game. It hasn’t increased scoring because players can still take their time to move the ball on.

Anyway, the great teams move the ball on quickly without waiting for the ‘stand’ call.

And what about the now omni-present, arbitrarily applied “insufficient intent” to keep the ball in play? How can the AFL be so pigheaded as to not apply our SANFL rule of last touch? It’s fairer and it makes more sense. Besides, they use it in AFLWgames.

It is true the game is constantly evolving but in its attempt to keep pace by arbitrarily adapting or introducing rules, the AFL creates more problems than it solves.

So, the question has to be asked: Does the AFL really listen to its stakeholders. Or are they another example of the belligerent corporate entity?