By Peter Ryan and Jon Pierik
The 2024 AFL season has been alive from the controversial opening round in the northern states to the final super Sunday, with top-eight positions debated for months and tight games keeping everyone guessing.
But this season has also raised a multitude of issues for the AFL to address ahead of 2025 so that the fans’ focus stays on the skill and courage of players as their clubs battle for an elusive premiership, rather than the league leaving problems to fester in the too-hard basket.
Fixturing, the bounce and questions about the Brownlow Medal: Some of the things that should be on the agenda for the AFL in 2025.Credit: Artwork: Stephen Kiprillis
We look at what should be on the agenda at headquarters in the off-season.
And, have your say in our polls below.
Fixture integrity is vital
There has already been plenty of feedback about opening round. Carlton CEO Brian Cook said there should be a rotating cast of clubs involved,while Collingwood president Jeff Browne voiced the Magpies’ reluctance to be part of the special round unless all clubs were involved because of the preparation issues it created. Meanwhile, several clubs not involved in 2024’s run thought it unfair that eight clubs had an extra in-season bye.
The AFL is determined to push on though, with CEO Andrew Dillon declaring it a success. However, the support it has in the northern states is not universal. Despite misgivings, the issue was not discussed at the CEOs’ meeting in Perth in July.
It’s one of many issues that left multiple clubs disappointed with the 2024 fixture.
Gather round caused issues. Collingwood had a “home” game in South Australia as part of a month without a game in Victoria and the Saints were cruelled by a shocking fixture that resulted in them travelling five times in the first 12 rounds, as well as a trip to Geelong. In that period, Gold Coast played six games outside Queensland, with two of those matches home games in Darwin. Every team seemed to have a gripe at some point, with commercial imperatives threatening to override competitive balance and integrity.
This cycle, under a new broadcast agreement, kicks off with opening round, Gather round, Thursday night football, a potential wildcard weekend and the pre-finals bye all adding to fixture complexity and competing priorities. A plan is needed.
What can be done to improve umpiring?
Dissatisfaction with umpiring dominated headlines for too long this season, as critical decisions affected more than one result and poor explanations from headquarters only added fuel to the fire.
There are some short-term fixes being suggested as new umpiring boss Stephen McBurney works on developing a vision for officiators.
Umpires would benefit from having all rules and interpretations finalised by November so players and officials can practise and then refine during pre-season match simulations. If the four field-umpire system is to continue then, agreed two industry sources who preferred to remain anonymous, the same system needs to be coached for several consecutive seasons to bed down umpire positioning and co-ordination. There should also be a push for the best umpires to double up during rounds.
Crows players react with frustration after a holding-the-ball decision was not paid against Essendon’s Sam Draper in the dying seconds of their round-six match.Credit: Fox Footy
The centre bounce must go
Ray Chamberlain and Chris Donlon’s retirements will remove 824 matches of umpiring experience and challenges will remain in 2025. Technology continues to be integrated into decision-making, and the positives and negatives will continue as umpires use earpieces to help each other with decisions. The latest technological advance is ball-tracking via a chip in the footy, which will be used throughout the upcoming AFLW season.
Bouncing the ball is taking a toll on AFL umpires.Credit: AFL Photos
Then there is the bounce, with umpires leading the charge to scrap it because of the potential for injury, and the tradition acting as a barrier to umpires moving into the ranks. Chamberlain was permitted by the league this year not to bounce the ball because of back injuries.
The AFL’s early season delay in backing officials when lengthy score reviews were being criticised can’t be repeated. What is needed is a better way to meet the worthy objective of defending umpires, rather than merely saying that the standard is better than ever.
Dissatisfaction with the match review officer’s rigid table of penalties, which spilled into July’s CEOs’ meeting after Charlie Cameron and Toby Bedford were initially suspended for dangerous tackles, should also be reviewed.
Should the tactical substitute rule remain?
Despite what has been an overall success since its implementation, initially as a medical substitute before morphing into a tactical substitute, the sub – in addition to four men on the bench – still divides coaches and players.
Essendon coach Brad Scott has been vocal in calling for the substitute to be scrapped, arguing a five-man bench with no sub would take pressure off club doctors when assessing head knocks.
Patrick Lipinski was the sub in last year’s grand final.Credit: Getty Images
“Have five on the bench, and then clubs don’t get disadvantaged. Pressure is off the doctors, they can take the time to make the assessment, and then you’re not making these decisions on subbing players in or out,” Scott said.
There is merit in that thinking, but the bigger question is whether play should be stopped when a player is taken from the ground after a head knock. We think so.
Scott’s argument would also have repercussions.
A five-man bench would only add to fears that with players now having more rest on the bench, there would be greater ferocity in body – and head – clashes, leading to more injuries, unless, say, the maximum number of rotations, currently 75 per team, was dropped. And, as we know with coaches, five on the bench would, no doubt, lead to calls for six. A five-man bench would only bring about more list management decisions. We like the sub as it is.
Is it time to rethink Brownlow Medal and Rising Star eligibility?
This is one of the great debates, and it’s time for tinkering, certainly with Rising Star eligibility.
Laura Kane, the AFL’s operations boss, in June ruled out any change to the rules, but it doesn’t make sense that teenage prodigy Harley Reid is overlooked for the award as the best first-year player because of a rough-conduct charge that led to a two-match ban. Bulldogs young gun Sam Darcy is also ineligible this year because of a late hit, also resulting in a two-match suspension.
Is there a way of tinkering with the criteria, perhaps with bans of three games or more ruling a player out of contention for the award? The system is even more frustrating when there is such a thin line between a one-game ban and a fine under the current grading system.
For the Brownlow, similarly awarded to not just the best but also the fairest player, is there value in allowing players with one-game suspensions to still be eligible? If such a winner emerged, would that player really be undeserving? Isn’t it contradictory that players who are fined multiple times in a season can still win the award?
“The ‘fairest’ is a great aspect of the Brownlow, but it hasn’t moved with the times,” Lions great Jonathan Brown argued after Swans star Isaac Heeney was handed a one-game ban for striking earlier this season.
“If we went through it retrospectively, I’m sure there would be about 30 of the Brownlow winners who wouldn’t have won their Brownlow Medal under today’s current rules. Surely, we have to move with the times as well.”
Isaac Heeney is ineligible for this year’s Brownlow Medal after copping a one-match suspensionCredit: AFL Photos
Does a red card need to be introduced?
The blanket “no” from the AFL in response to calls to introduce a red card feels as reactive as the demands that it become part of the game every time a major incident occurs.
Finding the right balance would be difficult, but often things worth doing are tough.
With the technology now available to support umpires in their adjudication, there are few reasons it can’t be applied to scenarios such as the Dan Houston bump on Izak Rankine in last weekend’s Showdown, or the Rankine/Brandon Starcevich, Callum Brown/Tom McCartin, Tom Stewart/Dion Prestia type incidents.
Sydney coach John Longmire has been an advocate for players to be sent off for blatant incidents that leave one team disadvantaged. “Is there a way that can be evened up on match day? Maybe that’s a consideration for the experts down the track,” Longmire said in May.
Adelaide’s Izak Rankine was concussed after Dan Houston elected to bump him.Credit: AFL Photos
The AFL will have a catalogue of incidents to determine where the line is, starting from Mark Yeates on Dermott Brereton in the 1989 grand final, to Barry Hall on Brent Staker, to Houston on Rankine. They may have a soft approach by only declaring non-football acts such as Hall’s or Andrew Gaff’s hit on Andrew Brayshaw earning a red card to get the idea moving.
Those opposing the move should recall that when former Demon Rod Grinter was sent to the tribunal for striking Terry Wallace based on video evidence, there was scepticism. The Bulldogs’ Chris Grant lost a Brownlow when then head of football Ian Collins sent him to the tribunal due to video evidence.
Times change. A red card system is now necessary in such a tight competition and with concussion a huge issue.
Keep up to date with the best AFL coverage. Sign up for the Real Footy newsletter.