2003 AFL Premiership Season

This coming Saturday night sees the unofficial beginning to the 2003 AFL Premiership Season, with the staging of the one-off exhibition match between Carlton and an ATSIC Aboriginal All Stars side in Darwin.

So around about now, all those diehard football fans around the country will dust off those old football jumpers and beanies, sign up for their membership tickets and be filled with a mixture of hope, optimism and excitement for the new season dawning upon us.

I used to be one of those people, but now I'm much more cynical. Rather than being excited at the new season coming, I'm fearful of how further down the drain this great game of ours may be dragged.

I attended my first game in 1988, and was mesmerised instantly. I've always felt, and still do, that we have the best sport in the world, the most attractive to both play and watch.

But I fear for the future of this game, which is now beginning to realise how difficult it will be to survive in an increasingly global sporting marketplace.

The game is only popular in one nation, and our nation isn't exactly hugely populated, which creates a huge quandry for the powers-that-be in Australian Rules football.

Do we try to alter the game even more, and push it internationally? Or, do we relax a little and be content just to be successful in our own backyard?

My fear is that we are now trying too hard to change that game in order to attract an audience far removed from the one that built the game.

In the 15 years since my first encounter, not all that long really, the number of rule changes which have taken place have been enormous. But, the real issue I have is that of those multitude of rule changes, probably 80 percent were unnecessary and actually have proven to be detrimental to the game.

One of the biggest attractions that games such as Australian Rules football and soccer have always had is their simplicity and their non-discriminatory nature.

Simplicity in the amount and type of equipment needed to play the game, and non-discriminatory in that all shapes and sizes, races and colors can play and be successful at both games.

But, for some reason way beyond my comprehension, the rule-makers in our game have decided to steer clear from the simplicity path in recent times, and have caused the game to be over-umpired and over-scrutinised, only serving to confuse both players and fans alike, while also serving to detract from the spectacle of the game.

How many major rule changes has soccer introduced in recent times? Not many at all. Players who played 20 years ago could still easily understand the modern game, it's doubtful that Ron Andrews or 'Crackers' Keenan could keep up with all the ridiculous rules that now plague our great game.

The amount of new rules being trialled in the upcoming Wizard Cup pre-season competition is absolutely ridiculous.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the multitude of new rules being trialled, please refer to the article in this section written by Andrew White.

It's these new rules which are serving to kill this great game, along with new philosophies to take the game away from the working class majority, and hand it to the upper class elites.

The changes in the game such as price hikes, the move to boutique stadiums designed more for the corporate elites than the working class, pie eating and beer swilling person who built the game.

But I feel one of the largest factors contributing to the continual decline in attendances in the past four seasons has been the unnecessary fiddling with the games rules.

The emotion of the moment is now being removed from the game, and the powers-that-be are almost expecting players to be like zombies or robots out on the field, all in the name of greater a better "image" for the game.

This is a contact sport for crying out loud! We should be making exceptions for emotion to pour out onto the field, not be taking it away!

But for me to stand up here and be critical, without scrutinising certain rules in particular would not be beneficial, nor would it be fair.

So, let me tackle the four rules which I have the most trouble comprehending as to their actual benefits to the game.

(i) The melee rule - this is by far the absolute worst rule ever invented by the rule-makers. This typifies the whole 'zombie creation' I spoke about earlier and most certainly adds nothing to the game. As I said, this is a contact sport, so why should a player be able to simply go in and show some aggression to protect a teammate. A melee is nothing more than a simple show of strength and intimidation. The AFL is worried about exposing children to such things, such things they'd see each day in the school playground. So should we now ban these same children from attending school, to stop their brains from being perverted? This rule is as ridiculous as that statement and must be ditched immediately;

(ii) The charging rule - this rule, I will concede, I do understand why it was actually introduced, unlike the melee rule. But that doesn't mean I agree with this rule by any measure. For it to be ok to hip-and-shoulder a player on their shoulder, but 2 inches higher it's deemed illegal, is getting far too technical for a contact game which must be allow to flow along naturally, with instinct and skill winning the day. No player on the receiving end of a head-high shirtfront ever complained, so why does it need to be removed? It needs to be brought back as it's one of the most unique and spectacular selling points of our great game;

(iii) Push-in-the-back - whilst not a new rule, the modern refining and interpreting of the rule is ridiculous. It's far too strict, and has gotten to the point where players deliberately take dives because they know nine times out of 10 they'll be awarded the free kick. I mean a player can no longer even put his hand on his opponent's back, for crying out loud! This is one of the key areas of over-umpiring, and the solution is simple: unless a player is pushed so forcefully that it's obvious to all and sundry, don't pay the free kick, whether a player gets a slight push in the back, or not. As Sam Newman continually says, it's not the free kicks that the umpires miss that we all get aggro about, it's the free kicks that aren't there, yet are still awarded by umpires that we totally flip out about; and

(iv) Holding-the-man - ditto the push-in-the-back rule. Again just far too stringently applied, creating staging and farcical free kicks. Again the solution is simple: only pay those where a player has blatantly been held, their movement actually impaired, and leave the little ones go, where a player's jumper may be slightly tugged or something, but their movement not really impaired.

What I must stress, though, is that the problem of over-umpiring in the game can't be blamed on the umpires themselves. They are simply doing the job that they are instructed to do. It's the rule-makers who are at fault, and are also quite happy to let the umpires become the public whipping boys for their erronous ways. The rule-makers are the ones the fans should be chasing.

Another thing which has to be the most obvious fault in all of this, is that the players, the performers themselves, have had little or no say on all these multitude of rule changes which have beleagured the game in recent times. This is probably the most saddening thing, as the majority of the players don't actually agree with many of the rules brought in. This is a diabolical situation which must immediately be redressed. If the actual performers, the people such rule changes affect, aren't allowed to have a say, then we've got serious problems as a sport. It's no wonder they struggle to comprehend such rules at times.

It's not only such rule changes to the game which have led to the ruining of it. Some other changes have also served to destroy the unique appeal of the game, and I will now list a few which I am particularly concerned about.

The continual calls for games to be shortened is understandable from coaches and players who are now running and working harder than ever in games. But for rule-makers to actually go through with the plan would be very hurtful to the sport. One of the unique qualities of our game is its length. It's just perfect at 120 minutes of playing time, and almost three hours all told. I find that at 80 and 90 minutes respectively, and two hours all told, rugby league and soccer games go too quickly, and at almost 4 hours, American football is dragged out for far, far too long. Our game is just right, I feel.

Next comes the blood rule, a rule which has served its purpose and was definitely necessary in its day, but with modern medical discoveries, no longer holds a place in our game, and will continue to be served as a ploy by opposition players to get a star player removed from the field to be treated for nothing more than a minor graze. The sooner this rule is ditched, the better for everyone.

Lastly, alternate uniforms is something that a traditionalist like me is definitely not in favor of, but something I'm prepared to accept for the greater good of the game. I just feel, though, that Collingwood played the Kangaroos in similar attire for almost 80 years, and there was no problems, so why all of a sudden are their uniform clashes a problem? If it's possible, let's stick with tradition, I know I'd rather see my mighty Bombers run on to the field week-in, week-out in our famous black with red sash, rather than some other color combination.

What must be remembered is that taking the game away from the working class, who are in favor of the physicality and traditionalism, the suburban grounds, beer in cans and pie on sauce, and tailoring it more to the upper class chardonnay-sipping elites may bring in a little more money, but it also means empty stadiums. The working class is the majority of the population, not the minority, and maybe, after four successive seasons of attendance drops, the powers-that-be might begin to realise that.

If we keep on mucking with our game at the rate we have been, soon it will be simply a shadow of its former self, barely recognisable to the halcyon days of the 1970s. We have a unique and exciting game that we can be very proud of, but we must ensure we do not sell its soul, this is our game, and may it continue to be great for eons yet.

Good luck to your team for 2003, and may the mighty Bombers take the flag and make it Sweeter 17!!

AJ Brady.