Gerard Whateley has proposed an AFL rule he thinks should be scrapped ahead of the 2025 season.

In response to a report messenger of the sun Saying that the AFL has asked for feedback from the clubs on the list of possible rule changes, Whateley stated that the decision he thinks should be changed is related to the ‘double target’.

Currently, if a defender awards a free kick after a goal has been scored, the ball is returned to where the infringement occurred and teams are usually given two shot chances at goal in two possessions of football.

The report noted that the league had asked whether all free kicks after goals should be taken from the middle of the field, regardless of where the infringement occurred, and Whateley thought the definitive change should be made ‘with the stroke of a pen’.

“The change that is absolutely necessary and should be made with the stroke of a pen is an end to ‘double targeting,'” Whateley said. YOU Mornings.

“This free kick owes its debt to a bygone era of kings and thuggery and has nothing to do with the modern game.

“When the ball enters the goal, its natural place is not where the goal is kicked, but in the middle of the field.

“This is completely illogical. Consider the opposing free kick against Jordan Clark.

“The goal is scored, it continues like a ball, so a free kick is taken. It should be in the middle of the ground, not the castle square.

“This must be done with the stroke of a pen. No more double goals.

“That’s really easy, it’s time to eliminate an anachronism from the game.”

Other rule changes being discussed include ending the 6-6-6 warning, starting play more quickly after a free kick or signal, and whether the designated shot clock should be shortened.

Whateley is against accelerating play-on talk but agrees to cancel the 6-6-6 warning.

“As for the idea of ​​rushing players with the ball with a faster game – I totally disagree with that – if you’ve won the ball, you control the game,” Whateley said.

“The idea of ​​being thrown into chaos is not the place for rules, it’s the place for dissent.

“I say yes to the 6-6-6 warning all the way. Let’s eliminate the anachronism of the double goal. “I leave the shot clock discussion to the shooters, and I am strongly opposed to rushing the game on a call.”