A deep dive on the new ruck rules

This featured on Vams’ X profile on Saturday 10 January. He has taken a look at what the new ruck rules may mean for Fantasy coaches in 2026. Follow @fantasynut_afl on X for more insight this season.

– – – – – –

The AFL’s 2026 rule and interpretation changes are clearly oriented toward one macro objective: more ball in play, fewer stoppages, and faster restarts. For us Fantasy coaches, that immediately puts the ruck line under the microscope. Rucks are structurally tied to stoppages, so the instinctive conclusion is straightforward: fewer stoppages means fewer ruck points.

That conclusion is plausible, but incomplete. Ruck scoring is not a single stream, it is a portfolio. A ruck’s total fantasy score is built from two primary engines:

1. Stoppage scoring: hitout related production and the broader contest ecosystem (possessions, tackles, free kicks around the ball).
2. Transition scoring: marks, uncontested possessions, handball receives, link chains, and getting forward for a goal.

The 2026 question is not simply, “Will stoppages decrease?” It is the more nuanced set of uncertainties that actually drive projections:

• How much will stoppages be reduced by, and which category specifically? Throw-Ins? Bull Ups? Centre Bounces?
• How much will stoppage fantasy scoring be reduced?
• To what extent can rucks compensate by increasing their transition scoring?

And most importantly, we have to be cautious about assuming a ruck’s 2025 score build will hold constant in 2026. Coaches may intuitively look at a player’s 2025 split (for eg, “Nearly 82% of Xerri’s scoring comes from stoppages”) and apply a mechanical haircut if they expect fewer stoppages. That model assumes that stoppage scoring falls in isolation while everything else stays fixed. I don’t think things will behave that neatly. Tactical adaptation, role tweaks, and opponent/game scenario effects can shift the mix in ways that are not symmetric or linear.

Why the 2026 rule changes point to less stoppage density and more transition

Several changes appear designed either to convert potential stoppages into free kicks/restarts, or to reduce the amount of time spent setting up stoppage events. The most strategically important is the “last disposal out of bounds” adjustment between the 50m arcs. In practical terms, it reduces the boundary throw-in as a tactical release valve in general play. Historically, teams have used the boundary as a low risk corridor alternative. An area where you could play “safe,” force territory, and if necessary accept a throw-in and reset shape. If that same action risks a free kick against, the incentive structure changes. Teams may be pushed toward:

• more inboard use rather than boundary use,
• less deliberate “kick to the line” territory play, and
• more continuous movement sequences; one plausible downstream effect is an uplift in link possessions and handball receives for players in the right roles.

That matters because between the arcs boundary throw-ins are a substantial, tactically influenced general play stoppage type. The AFL measured this to be about 20 per game in 2025 and the new rule is designed to convert a portion of those into free kicks instead. If that stoppage subtype reduces, the game might become less repeat stoppage and more chain based the environment where transition scoring tends to rise, and where a ruck with mobility and aerial involvement can add points outside the stoppage bubble.

Having said all that, we do not actually know the size of the effect yet. The AFL may be trying to reduce stoppages, but teams will adapt. Some stoppage types may reduce while others persist or even increase if teams manufacture contests through pressure. The distribution of stoppages (location and type) may change as much as the raw count.

The major projection trap: treating 2025 score build as fixed

A ruck who scored 75-80% of points from stoppages in 2025 did not do so in a vacuum. That split reflects:

• team style and ability (their ability to get the clearance, how quickly they move the ball, whether they use boundary, how often they reset for a repeat stoppage),
• role (how often the ruck spreads, sits behind play, goes forward, or is asked to contest repeatedly),
• opponent’s style (low stoppage vs high stoppage), and
• physical capacity (can the ruck cover ground and get to link positions).

If we see reduced stoppages in 2026, it does not follow that stoppage scoring simply drops while transition remains unchanged. A ruck might replace some stoppage value with transition involvement. Alternatively, a ruck might lose stoppage opportunities and still fail to regain transition because their role remains anchored, their team doesn’t generate chain possessions, or their opponents/fixtures produce fewer “open”(high transition scoring) games.

This is why the following Marshall and Xerri examples are so instructive: both show that a change in stoppage environment can shift a ruck’s scoring mix substantially, primarily through transition, often without large changes to stoppage scoring itself.

Case study 1: Rowan Marshall and St Kilda (2024 vs 2025)

St Kilda’s team stoppage environment changed sharply from 2024 to 2025:

• Team stoppages per game: 88.8 (2024) → 100.2 (2025)

That is a material swing. If a simplistic model were correct, you would expect Marshall’s stoppage scoring to surge alongside that increase. But what happened is more revealing:

• Marshall transition points: 48.8 (2024) → 35.5 (2025)
• Marshall stoppage points: 68 (2024) → 70 (2025)

The headline is not “Marshall scored less.” The headline is that the mix moved. St Kilda became more stoppage heavy, and Marshall’s transition engine materially declined, while his stoppage production stayed broadly steady.

This suggests a reweighting effect. As the match environment shifts toward repeated contest, the ruck’s capacity to spread, mark, and participate in link chains can be throttled. More stoppages did not automatically create more stoppage points; instead, it appears to have compressed the opportunities that drove his prior higher transition scoring year.

This is perhaps the cleanest example of how team stoppage profile can shape a ruck score build. It is not a theoretical argument; it is a demonstrated rebalancing in a high usage premium fantasy ruck.

If a stoppage heavy environment can suppress transition scoring without boosting stoppage scoring much, could the reverse happen in 2026? If stoppages reduce and the game opens up, is it possible that some rucks re-expand their transition engine, more marks, more uncontested link points, more possessions in open play while keeping stoppage scoring relatively resilient?

The answer, I think, is that yes it’s possible, but only for the right ruck archetype. Marshall 2024 demonstrates the ceiling that a top ruck can reach in transition when conditions allow. The mistake would be to assume that every ruck has that “gear,” or that it will appear simply because stoppages are down.

Case study 2: Tristan Xerri and North Melbourne (2024 vs 2025)

North Melbourne also increased stoppages year on year:

• Team stoppages per game: 96 (2024) → 103 (2025)

Xerri’s scoring build shows a similar pattern to Marshall’s, but with a particularly useful detail: the transition ceiling was meaningfully lower in 2025.

• Xerri 2024 average:
  – Stoppage: 84.1 pts/game
  – Transition: 30.3 pts/game
  – Total: 114.4 pts/game
• Xerri 2025 average:
  – Stoppage: 86.0 pts/game
  – Transition: 19.0 pts/game
  – Total: 105.0 pts/game

Again, stoppage scoring is stable (even slightly higher), while transition scoring dropped substantially.

A lot of coaches are approaching Tristan Xerri’s 2026 outlook with an overly mechanical model. They look at his 2025 scoring build and see the headline figure: around 82% of his scoring coming from stoppages, which is among the most stoppage heavy profiles of any ruck. From there, they simply haircut his stoppage scoring on the assumption that the 2026 rules reduce stoppage volume, and conclude that Xerri must come down, perhaps by a lot.

The problem is that this approach implicitly assumes his 2025 mix is “structural” and will hold constant. It treats transition scoring as a fixed residual, rather than a lever that can move materially depending on environment, role, opponent, and physical capacity. But Xerri’s own history shows why that assumption is fragile.

In 2024, Xerri repeatedly demonstrated a genuine transition ceiling, not just a slightly higher average, but multiple spike games where transition scoring lifted into the 45–60 range. In 2025, that spike distribution largely disappeared and transition averaged much lower, which is exactly what you would expect if either (a) North’s increased stoppage density anchored him more to contest work, and/or (b) any physical constraint (for eg, his early season hamstring issue) reduced his ability to spread and accumulate the marks and link possessions that drive transition points.

This is why using the 2025 split as a fixed template is risky. If the 2026 environment does reduce stoppage numbers and produces more continuous play, Xerri is one of the few rucks who has already shown he can turn on a second scoring engine in transition. That doesn’t guarantee he will do it. Team tactics and opponent profile still matter, but it does mean the simplistic “reduce stoppage points and hold everything else flat” model systematically underestimates his upside in a more open game.

The more disciplined way to project him is to treat his 2025 stoppage heavy mix as partly situational, and to ask a sharper question: if stoppage opportunities soften, does Xerri regain some of the transition involvement he displayed in 2024, and does that offset part of the stoppage haircut? That is the core uncertainty coaches should be pricing, rather than assuming the 2025 split is destiny.

One reason coaches misproject rucks is that they treat transition scoring as a stable trait. It is not. Transition production is often a function of:

• whether the game is played in chains or in contests,
• whether teams can exit cleanly,
• whether the ball lives on the boundary or in the corridor, and
• whether the ruck is used as an aerial outlet or stays anchored to contest.

A ruck can be the same player with the same fitness and still swing from a high transition week to a low transition week if the opponent forces a different style of game. This is part of why rule change forecasting is hard. Rules shift incentives, but matchups and tactical adaptation determine the realised style.

So what should AFL Fantasy coaches do with this in 2026?

The most robust framing is not “rucks must go down.” It is:

1. Expect a shift in the scoring mix risk profile.
   If stoppages reduce, contest based scoring may become slightly less bankable at the league level. But it is not guaranteed to fall materially for every ruck, and it may be partially offset by role/efficiency changes.
2. Treat transition capable rucks as structurally more resilient.
   The Marshall and Xerri examples both show that transition can move materially year on year while stoppage scoring stays steady. That means the rucks who have demonstrated strong transition engines (or spike ceilings) have an additional buffer in a more open game environment.
3. Do not project 2026 by freezing 2025 score builds.
   The entire lesson of these examples is that the “portfolio weights” can change. A ruck with a 2025 stoppage heavy split is not destined to remain stoppage heavy if the game environment shifts and equally, a ruck may fail to regain transition if their role or team style does not permit it.
4. Watch early season indicators that reveal team adaptation.
   The key will not be the rules themselves; it will be what teams do in response. In the first month, monitor:

• boundary usage between arcs (do teams actually stop using it as a safety valve?),
• ruck positioning in transition (are rucks being used as outlets more often?),
• ruck marks and uncontested possessions (a direct window into transition scoring),
• and whether stoppage points per contest become more concentrated among elite rucks.

In 2026, the key is not predicting whether rucks go up or down in aggregate. The edge is identifying which rucks have a credible second engine in transition, and which are so contest anchored that any reduction in stoppage density cannot be offset. Marshall 2024 and Xerri 2024 show that the transition ceiling is real. Marshall 2025 and Xerri 2025 show it can disappear when the environment or role constrains it. That is why freezing 2025 scoring splits is the projection trap.

Follow @fantasynut_afl on X.

Vams

car or bust 🛻