The much talked about "last disposal" rule has quickly mutated into a distasteful "last touch" rule.
It is creating angst, anger and confusion, with fans, commentators, coaches and players more unsure what the umpire's call will be. Even more unsure than when insufficient was a thing in recent years.
In a bid to speed up the contest and keep the ball in flow, AFL football boss Greg Swann welcomed the "last disposal" rule which worked in the SANFL and AFLW competitions.
For all intents and purposes, it looked a good addition to the top-flight league.
In February, it was described as: "A free kick will now be awarded when the ball crosses the line from a disposal between the arcs, bringing the men's game in line with the AFLW's 'lasso' rule.
"It will operate similar to SANFL in the sense that if a player blocks an opponent or doesn't play the ball before it crosses the line, a normal boundary throw-in will occur instead of a last disposal free kick."
After five weeks, it has morphed into an unknown beast of its own.
Players are now being penalised for incidental contact; they don't know whether to attack the football as it nears the boundary line or whether to take it over or knock it back into play.
The AFL closed loopholes for players diving after a loose ball, following "attempts" by Carlton's Will Hayward and Adelaide's Izak Rankine earlier in the season to touch the ball before it went out of bounds. They've been told they need to show genuine intent to keep the ball alive, or be subject to an insufficient intent charge.
On Thursday, Carlton's Nick Haynes sprinted toward the boundary to rein in the football before it trickled out of bounds to prevent Nic Newman from being penalised. Instead, Haynes was penalised for "insufficient intent" despite showing genuine intent.
'DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE' 😠
Nick Haynes was punished for 'insufficient intent' in this play, despite his best efforts to get control over the ball before it went over the boundary line for last disposal.#AFLCrowsBlues pic.twitter.com/Ln4kD33IGm
— Fox Footy (@FOXFOOTY) April 9, 2026
What is Haynes meant to do? Spike the ball back into play, into the waiting arms of an Adelaide opponent?
AFL analyst David King put it perfectly: "You get delisted if you throw that back in".
Later in the same game, brilliant smarts and football IQ from Crows forward Alex Neal-Bullen turned what should've been a boundary throw-in into a goal.
Neal-Bullen collected the ball deep inside 50 on the boundary, and instead of taking it out, allowing his team to prepare for another stoppage, handballed into the leg of Blues defender Ollie Florent. Initially it was deemed a throw-in, but a pleading Neal-Bullen ensured the ARC (AFL Review Centre) intervened, ultimately awarding the Crows a shot at goal.
Admittedly, a brilliant play from the former Demon. But it's against the spirit of the game. It's done in the NBA, but the new rules have resulted in the distasteful strategy being embraced by players in the AFL.
It should return to "last disposal". A clear kick or handball that has either missed the target or skewed off the player. A blatant "last disposal".
The Crows are still kicking themselves that Geelong's Tom Atkins won a free kick, despite he accidentally kicking the ball to the boundary line. It should've been a throw in. It shouldn't need the ARC's intervention or assistance. It slows down the game, which the rule was brought in to do the opposite.
