The Evolution of the “Last Disposal” Rule
The much-talked-about “last disposal” rule has undergone a significant transformation, evolving into what many now refer to as the “last touch” rule. This shift has sparked a wave of frustration, confusion, and even anger among fans, commentators, coaches, and players alike. The uncertainty surrounding umpires’ decisions has reached a level that surpasses the previous uncertainties experienced when “insufficient” was a common issue in recent years.
The introduction of the “last disposal” rule was initially intended to speed up the game and maintain the flow of play. AFL football boss Greg Swann supported the rule, citing its successful implementation in the SANFL and AFLW competitions. At first glance, it appeared to be a positive addition to the top-tier league.
In February, the rule was described as follows: “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 similarly 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.”
However, after five weeks of implementation, the rule has transformed into an unpredictable and confusing mechanism. Players are now being penalized for incidental contact, leaving them unsure whether to aggressively pursue the ball as it nears the boundary or to take it over and knock it back into play.
Addressing Loopholes
To address potential loopholes, the AFL has taken steps to prevent players from diving after a loose ball. This came in response to 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. Players have been advised that they must demonstrate genuine intent to keep the ball in play or risk being charged with insufficient intent.
This situation was highlighted in a recent game when Carlton’s Nick Haynes sprinted toward the boundary to retrieve the football before it trickled out of bounds, aiming to prevent Nic Newman from being penalized. Instead, Haynes was penalized for “insufficient intent,” despite clearly showing genuine intent.
AFL analyst David King succinctly captured the dilemma: “You get delisted if you throw that back in.”
Later in the same game, Crows forward Alex Neal-Bullen showcased exceptional football IQ by turning what should have been a boundary throw-in into a goal. He collected the ball deep inside 50 on the boundary and instead of taking it out, handballed it into the leg of Blues defender Ollie Florent. Initially deemed a throw-in, a pleading Neal-Bullen ensured the ARC (AFL Review Centre) intervened, ultimately awarding the Crows a shot at goal.
While this was a brilliant play from the former Demon, it goes against the spirit of the game. Such strategies are common in the NBA, but the new rules have led to these tactics being embraced by AFL players.
A Call for Reverting to “Last Disposal”
There is a growing sentiment that the rule should revert to the original “last disposal” concept. This would involve a clear kick or handball that has either missed the target or skewed off the player—essentially a blatant “last disposal.”
The Crows are still upset that Geelong’s Tom Atkins won a free kick despite accidentally kicking the ball to the boundary line. It should have been a throw-in, and the situation shouldn’t require the intervention of the ARC. The rule was introduced to speed up the game, yet it has had the opposite effect.
Conclusion
The evolution of the “last disposal” rule has raised more questions than answers. While the intention was to enhance the flow of the game, the current interpretation has led to confusion and strategic manipulation that detracts from the sport’s integrity. There is a clear need for clarity and consistency in how the rule is applied to ensure it serves its intended purpose.
