Ever since the formation of the AFL’s competition committee, footy fans around the country have been holding their collective breaths wondering about the future of their game. Given the fiasco surrounding the AFLW memo in March (requiring a “five-six-five” set-up at all ball ups and a protected area around stoppages – and imposed one week into the season) the fear amongst fans is that nothing is sacred.

The lavish, hyper-stylised AFLX series that diluted or removed the best parts of the game likewise did little to restore stalwarts’ faith in the sanctity of footy’s fundamentals. The lead-up to this week, with rumours flying about what changes would accompany Wednesday’s meeting, had prompted AFL football chief Steve Hocking to urge calm.

There were 45 rule changes under consideration, according to Hocking, which have been narrowed to six recommendations for “game adjustments”, as he described them. All the proposals focus on combatting congestion around stoppages, attempting to redress a complaint ­– driven largely by broadcasters, and fuelled at times by media commentators – that there are not enough goals being scored, and the game is too slow.

One of the key proposals calls for starting positions for players at centre bounces, or the “six-six-six rule” which requires teams to have six players at both ends inside the 50 metre arcs, four players in the centre square, and the remaining two players outside the square, between the arcs. Despite predictions, the committee did not recommend any change to the interchange rotation limit. However, they did propose restrictions to how runners are used. The possibility of an expanded goal square for kick-ins was also mooted.

The aim is for these changes to be introduced in time for the 2019 season, although there is still some work to do. The proposals have to be endorsed by the AFL commission and approved by the executive before the October draft.

In a more controversial statement, however, McLachlan suggested on SEN that the new rules could be trialled towards the end of the season between teams no longer in finals contention, and indicated there were at least three matches that had been earmarked to suit that purpose. The AFL later clarified that trial games would also not affect ladder position.

The proposal to trial the rules during the premiership season has incurred the wrath of some high profile critics. Matthew Lloyd told 3AW: “This is the same Gillon McLachlan who introduced a bye because he was so disappointed teams were resting players before finals. Yet he’s happy to toy with the rules and integrity of the game himself?”

Likewise, although AFL great Leigh Matthews is generally in favour of starting positions for centre bounces, he expressed dismay at the idea of trialling during the season proper. On Wednesday he told Macquarie radio: “I kind of thought when I played myself and coached my players, every game was like a grand final, that was my philosophy to competing… It seems demeaning to me, a bit like it’s demeaning the game.”

Cameron Ling then added his voice to mix, raising the spectre of the contradiction inherent in the AFL’s previous crackdown on tanking: “In regards to trialling rule changes in [the] current season – every game matters for fans, draft picks and integrity. If it happens I hope Melbourne FC are refunded $500,000 and apologies are issued. Every game’s integrity mattered then, why not now?”

There is also potential for the trial games to affect gambling odds and other popular betting games, such as SuperCoach, Fantasy Football, and their ilk. The fallout for the industry and for punters might be the one factor that gives the AFL pause. Certainly, when fans raised the alarm over the AFL’s tinkering with the AFLW, their voices were ignored, as were the protests of players. It remains to be seen what it will take for the AFL to take heed of its own most vested stakeholders.

Regardless of when trials are conducted, these proposals are designed to shape the aesthetic of the game, which has proved the AFL’s key concern in recent times. The glaring omission in the competition committee’s remit to date is player welfare and safety. In a season that has already seen 50 players suffer concussion or concussion-like symptoms, resulting in a brain bleed for Harris Andrews and Koby Stevens’ early retirement, the committee’s priorities might be better served focusing on reducing high hits and illegal tackles, rather than how many goals are kicked.