Enough with protected zones and starting zones, if we don’t stop soon, football is headed towards the danger zone.

The danger zone as in the dreaded mid-season, post-bye, ‘my team is out of the finals race, state of the game, time for a rule change’, lull.

And in 2018, it’s here with a vengeance.

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Reddit Email Share

Introduced in 2016, the protected area of ten metres around a player who had taken a mark or received a free kick was designed to increase the flow and speed of ball movement. The rule was meant to encourage a spread of players away from the ball carrier and decrease congestion.

Come the start of the 2018 season, and the AFL announced the rule would be enforced strictly by their team of umpires, who had been encouraged to keep a keen eye out for anyone who ventured within the precious area around the kicker.

They didn’t disappoint, with five 50-metre penalties awarded to the Blues in the first match of the season, as the Tigers found themselves too close to the man with the ball. Not one of the penalties came about as a result of a Richmond player pressuring, bumping, or even influencing the ball-carrier, but under strict interpretation of and adherence to the rule, they were all there.

In a perfect world, after taking a mark or receiving a free kick, the only reason an opposition player would come close to the kicker would be if they were unnecessarily exerting pressure, or waiting for a ‘play on’ call from the umpire in order to pounce quickly to tackle.

Fortunately, Australian rules is not so predictable or straightforward, and there is a consistent movement of players in the general direction of play. It is necessary, therefore, that opponents run close to the ball carrier, without any intention of influencing them, in order to stay in position.

With this in mind, the rigid application of protected area rule is completely incongruous with a game that prides itself on a natural sense of flow and movement.



Maybe a 50-metre penalty is the best way to get the ball moving quickly, though?

[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]

Fast forward 15 rounds, and confusion and frustration reign.

On Thursday night, both Geelong and Sydney were penalised as players followed their opponents or ran hard to get into position, only to be pinged, and concede 50 metres.

The Swans were granted a shot at goal after Zach Tuohy infringed on the wing, while Joel Selwood was helped out of defence as Dan Hannebery, who had been near Selwood as he took the mark, was still within ten metres as the Geelong captain went to take his kick.

The rule and its application are ridiculous.

Last week, Melbourne were victims of the bemusing penalty at different times, and the crowd, coaches and players alike took a moment to realise what was going on before booing, complaining and arguing respectively.

Supporters of the team who benefit can often be found with a wry smile, shyly happy that their key forward has been moved from a 50-50 shot at goal to a certain six-pointer.



That a team can be granted a free pass out of a well-structured zone defence, moved downfield into a scoring position, or granted a certain goal when the infringement has no meaningful impact on the play whatsoever is beyond reason.

Indeed, the application of the rule is a consistent source of confusion, and at times it’s hard to feel for the umpires, because it’s they who calmly and coolly wave the grateful recipient of the 50-metre penalty downfield, so it’s the umpires we boo, berate and criticise.

But as we learnt earlier, it’s the umpires who are under strict instruction to enforce the rule. A rule with no wriggle room, the most severe of penalties, and a distinct lack of common sense.

At a time when the (ready for it?) state of the game (sorry), is being bashed from pillar to point post, the knee-jerk reaction has been the serious consideration of the introduction of zoning. Met with mixed reactions from a number of coaches, including Luke Beveridge – who harbours concern for continued engagement and interest further down the ranks – the proposal would rob football of its cherished versatility and flair, making it sterile and overcomplicated.

The positivity and freedom that characterised Round 15 made it the most engaging weekend of the season to date. The unshackled aggression from 16th placed St Kilda to burst through the middle of the ground, or the struggling Bulldogs to pounce and pressure and then move the ball quickly. No coincidence both teams emerged victorious.

So, before we consider introducing more rules to further restrict the players whose instinct, style and creativity we marvel at on a weekly basis, let’s consider a rule we already have in place that hamstrings the natural movement and progression of the game, before we head too far into the danger zone.