Rule Improvements For 2012 | Thebigtip

With less than 25% of fans still supporting their team this year, it’s time to look towards the future for the majority.

In 2011, the AFL introduced two major rule changes; the sub and the modification of the advantage rule. Have these changes worked and how can they be improved for 2012?

When the sub rule was announced, I was against it, thinking it wasn't necessary at all. As the year has progressed I have started to see the benefits. The main thing has been the football played in the last quarter. Players have been tired and the play has opened up, creating some exciting finishes. Players that have worked on their fitness have stood up as others around them suffered. Another plus has been when teams that lost players to injury early in a match, they found they were able to cope, unless another injury occurred.

I see room for improvement with the sub rule. Coaches needed to have the psychic ability of Nostradamus to work out the best player to have for the sub. If you named a running midfielder and your ruck goes down injured, you are a tall down. If you name a player who can play as a key defender or key forward and a midfielder gets injured, you are a runner down. The answer is quite simple; have four players to choose from to bring in as your sub. This allows a team to have a defender, midfielder, forward and ruck to choose from to allow for greater cover in positions and increases options if you choose to use the sub tactically. This wouldn’t be a major change to what happens now, you just allow clubs to have the three emergencies sitting on the bench ready to go instead of in suits sitting in the stand.

If the AFL decides to stick with one player as a sub then the least they could do is force the team to choose one of the four players from the interchange bench to start as the sub. Maybe it is the Dream Team manager or gambler inside me, but this seems common sense to me and allows the public to know which players may be starting in the green vest.

The adjustment to the advantage rule has been a disaster and will surely be changed as quickly as possible. Do we go back to the old rule and give umpires full responsibility or do we continue down the path of giving the players the choice to play on or not? Let me explain why I believe the latter option is the best.

The theory of the new rule was sound, the practicality was flawed. The first thing umpires need to do is alert players of which team is receiving the free kick.  Currently the first thing an umpire will do is alert everyone what rule has been broken and then signals which team is getting the free kick. Swap it around, blow the whistle and point in the correct direction whilst yelling the name of the team who is getting the free kick. Then you can signal as to what the free kick was paid for. This gives players an extra half of a second to know what is going on and to not be forced to guess and hope they aren’t giving away a 50m penalty.

The second thing (which I need to give credit to my brother for) is that the player must signal to the umpire they are taking the advantage. Too many times this year the player kicks the ball as the whistle is being blown, only to be told they have taken the advantage they never knew they had. Alternatively, they start to take the advantage, realise their error and only then hold the ball above their head trying to say “I didn’t play on!” All the player would need to do is a quick wave of their arm over their head; similar to what the umpire does now to signal advantage, acknowledging that they are aware that they are ‘playing on’ on behalf of their team.  
With these additions, the player would be given a greater time period to make their decision and a responsibility to do what is best for their team, what the 2011 rule change was designed to do in the first place.

Mr Demetriou, give these rule changes a chance in the 2012 pre-season and hopefully then we can see the theory of these rules coming to fruition in practice.