AFL - Good Ideas, Terrible Ideas, Too Many Ideas, No Idea


6-6 won’t change anything. It will just mean the half forwards sprint into the square just like they always do, except it will only be from a couple of metres back than what they are used to. Except Sydney where the 50 arc touches the square.

If you are going to change the rules (i don’t see a need to), do not involved the players or coaches at all. They are only interested in serving their best interests.


So what happens there? Do they have to run back and reset? That’s going to be fun to watch.


But, but, but… Danger is one of the players. He’s a good bloke


And that’s one reason why it’s guaranteed to be a bad idea. This is the guy who thinks that there should be a free kick every time the ball goes out of bounds.

And the proposed rule doesn’t even purport to address the “rolling maul” problem that is the greatest blight on the game at the moment.


3 metres plus 25 for the square minus 5 for the circle - 3 seconds for an average player - 2 seconds for the bounce.
Wingmen are closer.


The centre square hasn’t been 50 yards for a long time. 50 metres, so add 2.5 to the above.

It infuriates me when umpires don’t know the various dimensions, and therefore are incapable of doing things like giving an actual 50 metre penalty.

EDIT: damn you, editing your post before I finished writing my correction.



Don’t worry, ol’ Boiled Egg Eyes is on the case!


Shower thought

AFL couldn’t appease Ch7 with rules that generate more goals, so have proposed a rule that turns 30sec ad breaks into 45sec ad breaks as a compromise.



Matthew Guy is involved??


As seen by buckley, pendelbury, tony shaw and hardwick being most outspoken against change. Imagine bucks, 6 years in finally gets his team playing modern footy towards the top of the ladder and next year will likely come back to the pack if it’s more based on talent which spreading the field should assist in. Hardwick for obvious reasons want’s no changes too. These guys should keep their opinions to themselves they are so compromised.


Neither of them are on the committee though are they?
I’d rather a mix of people who have strong opinions and think for themselves, rather than some of the AFL yes men that are in there. I think a guy like Dangerfield would be a yes man.


Nuh not on the committee but doing the media rounds as much as possible.

Danger is likely out for himself too, he wants space to move and show off his explosive pace he is all for reducing congestion.

I wouldn’t have any current players or coaches on there to be honest.


I’d want their feedback/input about possible impacts. But i wouldn’t give them a vote on the final decision.
Having said that, I wouldn’t give anyone on the AFL commission a vote either. They haven’t got the best interests of the game at heart


That double goal square thing can’t be real, can it?

Essendon legend Dustin Fletcher thinks doubling length of goalsquare could help congestion

JON RALPH, Herald Sun
June 13, 2018 8:03pm

KICK-OUT specialist Dustin Fletcher says an 18m goalsquare being seriously considered by the AFL could be a congestion-busting solution.

The AFL has narrowed down nine possibilities from over 30 potential rule changes and tweaks it believes could free up a game mired in 18-man zones and 30-man packs around the ball.

AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan said there would be “change” by October so clubs could plan for the 2019 season.

Champion Data stats show in the past decade it is twice has hard to move the ball from end to end given the 18-man zones now on show at kick-ins.

Some who have been consulted on the potential changes to the rules believe an 18m goalsquare will be introduced to help defences clear zones.

It would allow players to kick torpedoes to the centre square, kick to a wider part of the field and potentially push zones further back down the ground, relieving congestion.

Fletcher was one of the best kick-out exponents in the league in 400 AFL games, able to use finesse or his long levers to turn defence into attack.

He told the Herald Sun a longer goal square would allow players to become more aggressive with ball movement.

“There is no doubt it would give you more options as the person kicking in,’’ Fletcher said.

“You would feel like you are out in the actual playing field rather than back with the cheer squad.

“If you were that far up and could kick the ball 55m-60m you would be hitting it nearly to the centre square.

“Having a really good think about it, the coach would have to push his zone deeper and they might have to play a defender back inside 50.

“If you get it over the zone you would need a forward to kick it to and so you might leave a forward back deeper as well.”

In modern football teams often concede a short kick to the pocket then attempt to turn the ball over with 18 men pushing up to defend.

GWS forward Jeremy Cameron’s dam-busting goal to beat Richmond last year is a rarity, with sides going from defensive 50 to attacking 50 only 20 per cent of the time.

From 1859 to 1876 football had an 18-metre goal square which went all the way across what were rectangular grounds played on fields.

Football eventually was invited to play in cricket fields, with the nine metre (10 yard) goal square coming into play from 1877 onwards.

McLachlan said yesterday he wanted changes made to free up the game without making it obvious for the football fan.

“He (football operations manager Steve Hocking) will look as widely as possibly as he can, I think he’s looking at 30-odd different things and he’ll work through that and if it’s zero it’s zero, if it’s 10 it’s 10, if it’s 30 it’s 30, and I’ll be clearly prosecuting where they land but I know he’s going to have a really strong set of recommendations,’’ he told SEN.

“I think that Steve will come up with change, yes, I don’t think we’re going to be in the status quo. What that looks like I don’t know yet.”


Nah there’s one about two goal squares and one is a ‘slow kick’ square and one’s a ‘fast kick’ square.



AFL - thinking outside the square


W T F ??!! So tanking is bad but using a different set of rules in ok??


“We told Steve what rule changes his committee is going to suggest, just before he started picking guys for the committee”