Releasing the AFL Draft rules seven months out from November's intake is akin to changing a game of AFL to touch footy at half-time.
Expecting the players to adapt to a different set of rules when their coaches have selected a team and set up systems and structures according to the rules given at the start of the game is ludicrous.
That's how much the rule changes have shifted the goal posts for recruiters and list managers.
Clubs now have just one trade period to get their points in order after tracking this crop from as early as 2023.
Port Adelaide and Carlton are the most affected with consensus top-three picks in the pipeline - and both are furious.
Last year the AFL introduced the trading of draft picks two years in advance - with the benefit of foresight, would Port Adelaide or Carlton have done different manoeuvring in last year's trade period to be better covered? Granted, at the time the Power did not have guarantee that Cochrane would be accepted into their Next Generation Academy - which itself is a separate issue.
SEE MORE: FULL AFL DRAFT RULE CHANGES
The Power will require two top 10 picks to match a bid for Dougie Cochrane, if a club bids at Pick 1, which is a distinct possibility.
Only because of the Charlie Curnow trade does Carlton have the capital to match a likely early bid.
It should not have been introduced until close to the turn of the decade to give recruiters a decent runway.
The November intake has become as much of a maths equation as an indicator of talent as the AFL has continually attempted to solve a systemic problem with a band-aid solution.
It's as though the AFL have attempted to stem the bloating of Brisbane and Gold Coast, in particular, thieving talent, but by the time they have arrived at the party, the lights are out and everyone has left.
Neither Brisbane nor Gold Coast have an Academy prospect in first round contention this year, so hastily introducing the changes serves to punish the sides the rule changes are trying to help.
In theory, keeping clubs more accountable is a positive step and will help sides rebuild through the draft, which has become a near impossible task in recent years - but it is hard to stomach that a club looking at a long period in the lower reaches of the ladder will be the first club affected by it.
A potential compromise could have been not introducing the allowable draft deficit for another 12-24 months to at least give those clubs another moving piece.
Balancing competing interests and managing fairness and equity would have been at the forefront of the league's thinking - but the immediate introduction is a clear example of zigging when they needed to zag.
While the changes themselves will attract different viewpoints and much will be editorialised in the coming days and months from stakeholders across the industry, the greatest outcry should be that they have been introduced in 2026.
The tightening of the Draft Value Index (DVI) is a positive change which will prevent a repeat of clubs being gifted the core of premiership sides as has occurred with Brisbane and Gold Coast in recent years.
Clubs will need to match the points of the selection where the bid has come with their next two picks, preventing the stockpiling of later selections.
Brisbane famously acquired dual Norm Smith Medallist Will Ashcroft for picks 34, 35, 38, 40 and 41 - but he is one of a litany of discounts afforded to clubs which the industry has reflected upon with disdain in the light of day.
A tiered loading applying so that stronger clubs are forced to pay more is also a positive step as it makes it harder for premiership-contenders to stockpile talent - as the Queensland clubs have been allowed to do.
Long time AFL coach Alastair Clarkson has been a critic of the incumbent system, with his North Melbourne stuck in the lower reaches of the ladder and struggling to rebuild.
These two changes give clubs struggling a seat at the table even if they do not have club-tied talent.
Providing clubs who hold their own top five picks with a compensation pick at the end of the first round if their initial pick is pushed back by a bid feels like the Band-Aid solution which has the potential to be exploited.
While it strongly incentivises clubs to bid on the best players - which has not occurred consistently in recent years - providing them with an extra pick feels an amateurish overreach.
It has the potential to encourage tanking; finishing 13th rather than 14th not only robs a club of the opportunity to get an end-of-first round pick, but it also pushes back your second-round selection up to five picks due to the compensation.
And there is no evidence to suggest top five picks perform better than sixth, seventh of eighth selections, highlighting the perennial issue of an arbitrary cut-off for bonuses.
Dan Annable, Ryley Sanders, Harvey Langford and Bailey Humphrey are the recent pick sixes.
An unfortunate flow-on of the changes is it could heap more pressure on teenagers.
Undoubtedly, it is fair that clubs are held accountable if they want access to the best talent, but putting all the eggs in the basket of a talented 18-year-old has the potential to weigh even more heavily than the top-five pick tag itself.
Another frustration of the rule changes is that it provides a barrier for fans to follow.
For the sixth time in the last 10 years, the AFL Draft will be changed.
The league has worked hard in recent years to stage the AFL Draft as an event, extending the event across two nights in recent years and November has become a month where there are more draft power ranking floating around than hot dinners as fans attack themselves to prospects and closely follow the storylines and machinations of the draft.
Taking another step away from a pure draft makes it harder for fans to follow at a time where interest is proliferating year on year. Good luck following the AFL Draft for the first time in 2026.
Clubs will continue to find loopholes to game the system and benefit themselves.
The real test of the AFL Draft rule changes will be when clubs benefit from it in some way and find a loophole.
Will the AFL hold its nerve, confident that this is the best system - or wilt under the pressure of more frustration and further compromise a system that is already a language in itself?
