When a player like former St Kilda tagger Steven Baker criticises rule changes in the game you know the AFL must be doing something right.
In an interview with Mike Sheahan to be aired on Monday night, Baker bemoans the softening of the “man’s game”. If the kidney punches, elbows and backward headbutts dished out by Baker during his career are part of that game, than good riddance to it.
The AFL’s success in killing off thuggish acts have transformed the game for the better. The age of neanderthals strutting around looking for a soft target or seeking retribution are over. The real men now are those who run hard, tackle hard and execute skills under extreme pressure and fatigue. Pain is still an intrinsic part of the game.
The rule that making unnecessary or unreasonable contact with an injured player was a positive response to some unseemly incidents, most notably Mal Michael and Chris Scott’s treatment of Nick Riewoldt in 2005.
Joel Selwood’s reprimand under that rule for “rolling” his older brother Adam confirmed for many people the belief that the AFL has transformed the grand contact sport it governs into a nanny pursuit. I don’t agree.
Selwood’s reaction was a response to a hard bump and his response was relatively slight – hence the minimum sanction – but it still had the potential to exacerbate any serious injuries his brother may have sustained.
It was cowardly too, taking a shot at a player clearly in pain. One commentator ridiculed the decision on the grounds Adam was only winded – a fact only learned after the incident. Another mocked the possibility of an injury: “He could have hurt his neck, damaged his back…. really?”
There was also the absurd claim that because the protagonists were brothers the incident should have been ignored: “This was 24 years in the making. Brothers is one thing. You don’t need the AFL to come in” .
“Where has the theatre in football gone?”, bemoaned another correspondent. Perhaps we should put Steven Baker on him and let the show begin!
Anyone questioning the hardness of the modern game should look at the number of concussions. The speed of the game and emphasis on contested balls has seen an increase in player collisions and heads impacting the ground.
Adelaide star Kurt Tippett has had three concussions in five weeks and Geelong’s Allen Christensen has suffered five so far this season.
The players themselves are reticent to miss games despite feeling unwell. Steve Johnson was permitted to play the week after being concussed because he passed all cognitive tests. But clearly his brain wasn’t right: ” I wasn’t feeling 100 per cent, I thought, well, I’ve passed it, so I may as well get out there”.
Dr Hugh Seward, Executive Officer of the AFL Medical Officers Association would be interested in what Johnson had to say next:
“Once you get a few No-Doz in the system and those types of things and the game comes around, you really don’t think about it.”
When Sharrod Wellingham cleaned up Kade Simpson earlier in the year concern centred around the damage done to Simpson’s jaw.
OK, he had to feed himself through a straw for a month, but his real worry should have been for the brain that slapped against the inside of his skull.
If Simpson – who couldn’t perform basic motor functions immediately after sustaining the blow and was seen being dragged from the ground by medical staff, with a petrified leg – hadn’t broken his jaw, I’m sure he would have insisted on playing the following week.
These players need to read the statement made by former England international and Melbourne Rebels rugby player Michael Lipman who retired recently after insistent headaches, fatigue and loss of memory resulting from multiple concussions:
“Everyone’s getting bigger, stronger and faster, but the brain’s the brain, if you drop a computer that many times, eventually it’s not going to turn back on.”
The AFL clearly has to implement stricter regulations on concussion management as the players need to be saved from themselves. But you can’t deny their bravery, or the hardness of their game.
Floyd Calhoun
Guest
Steven Baker is retired?!
Andrew Sutherland
Roar Guru
deebhoy, I think most of the changes - in response to overly defensive and thuggish styles of play - have made the game a better spectacle. However,I must admit there is an awful lot of soft, over technical and inconsistent interpretations which wouldn't happen if ex players (not Steven Baker and Chris Scott though!) were doing the umpiring.
Davo
Guest
This is a joke of an article. The AFL is making the game appealing to soccer mums these days and no one else. People like the person who wrote this rubbish are the ones promoting the new direction of soft football. If you can't handle contact then go get involved in another sport.
Andrew Sutherland
Roar Guru
M'old mate Roger, I didn't make a link between the Selwood incident and concussion. I stated that Joel's reprimand was a correct enforcement of the rule that prevents a player taking a cheap shot at an injured player unable to defend himself. Adam injured himself but that's not the point. I mentioned the increase in concussion and players reluctance to report it ,and miss games b/c of it, to suggest the players and the game are tougher now than in the past when an element of thuggery was permitted. Jeff Gieschen admitted the O'Brien free was incorrect but I do agree with you on some of the soft free kicks given in front of goal for 'mark interference' etc. When I played as a forward you had to get your head ripped off to earn a free kick.
M'old mate Roger
Guest
This article is a joke right? "..still had the potential to exacerbate any serious injuries his brother may have sustained." Serious injuries that he would have caused himself by running flat out at his brother to hit him hard. You say Joel's push may have exacerbated injuries so his sanction was justified by trying to claim that there is a link between hardness and concussion. I'm not sure that Joel's push would've caused his brother to suffer concussion? Maybe Adam's hit may have? The sanction was apparently to prevent injuries but which part of the incident was more likely to cause injury or concussion? People claiming the game is soft aren't calling for more concussions. We liked the Selwood incident. What we don't like is when the rules protect the players who aren't real men. "The real men now are those who run hard, tackle hard and execute skills under extreme pressure and fatigue." Our current rules protect players like Harry O'Brien who didn't show any of those real men traits against St Kilda 2 weeks ago yet still ends up with the ball. Apparently the chopping hands rule is also a free kick designed to reduce injuries. Who's to say that the players who are getting knocked out more and more these days never learned to protect themselves playing football as a junior because the rules were changed so that they didn't have to. In the old days if you weren't tough enough or smart enough you would be weeded out. Not so anymore. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
me, I like football
Guest
No-one is saying that the AFL shouldn't go hard on those that take cheap shots. But it goes against the spirit of football when a players soul objective is to win the football, but can give away not only a free or 50m penalty but be sidelined for a few weeks due to suspension. You now see players now putting their heads into places they normally wouldn't to win a free kick so how is that safer? It's gone too far. BTW why have Scott Selwood in the Picture with the caption about the clash between Adam and Joel.
deebhoy
Guest
why was it cowardly Andrew? Adam tried to take Joel out and came off second best and Joel just let him know it.This sort of decision is just one of many baffling decisions made by the afl.its got nothing to do with hardnes or how tough the game is.the afl are custodians of the game,i thought there job was to administer the running of the game? instead demetriou,anderson and co are changing the very game itself.the challenges to the afls position at the top of australian sports doesnt come from other sports but from themselves.how much longer will the fans put up with the game being changed infront of there eyes with condesending explanations from geischen and anderson each monday on how nothings has changed at all?
Andrew Sutherland
Roar Guru
Yes Kasey, the Four Corners programme Hard Knocks aired in May ended with:“And incidentally for those who might look to headgear for protection that might prevent some injury but it doesn’t do much to stop the movement of the brain inside the skull which is what causes concussion”.
Andrew Sutherland
Roar Guru
"Clatter"? You wouldn't be Scottish would you Steve?
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
Ziebell was unlucky, but it was a completely different situation. He took his eyes off the ball and jumped in the air. Not saying he deserved to be suspended, but that incident is not comparable to today's one.
gordon smith
Guest
I thought Ziebel was going for the ball - am I mistaken
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
They were both going for the ball. Even if they were on different sides neither would have been suspended.
gordon smith
Guest
Have a look at the clash between the two eagles players that resulted in Selwood being concussed and subed off. Brennan jumped off the ground and hit Selwood in the head which is the 'protected area" - Jack Ziebel, Luke McFarlane etc. If they were in opposite teams would Brennan have been suspended given that it is not only intent but the responsibility of the player to ensure that others are safe. I am not suggesting Brennan being suspended but to highlight that by taking the intent out of it there is a random nature to who gets suspended.
brendan
Guest
You are right there Brewski.Every Sunday morning Ch7 shows an old replay sometimes up to 20 yrs ago and its amazing to notice the difference.
Kasey
Guest
IIRC some Adelaide Uni academic was quoted in the press within the last 5 years as saying 90% of AFL players will be wearing headgear by 2020. From my reading of NFL concussion issue, helmets do little to protect the head of their players though, because the concussion is caused by the brains inertia in a collision. when the the head stopssuddenly, the brain still impacts the inside of the skull. I suppose helmets would/could prevent bruising and soft tissue injuries. Re - Helmets A quick net search only raised this from Legal-Eagle Greg Griffin http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/leading-sports-lawyer-says-afl-players-will-soon-be-forced-to-wear-helmets-as-concussion-debate-rages/story-e6frf3e3-1226079775067 and a prominent Neurosurgeon: http://www.fiveaa.com.au/article_should-afl-players-wear-helmets_108912
John D
Guest
Are helmets effective? (I genuinely don't know the answer to this question, but trust that someone out there will). If they are why not make them mandatory?
Brewski
Guest
Agree with your post, however IMO, limiting the amount of interchanges will slow the game and congestion down.
brendan
Guest
The great irony is that whilst acts of thuggery and a general clean up of violent acts on the field the general speed of the game has resulted in probably as many clashes most of those split second decisions.Yes its still a mans game and there is no place for the behaviour of the likes of Steven Baker however the concussion examples you cite makes me wonder whether the game is actually safer.To mininize clashes the rules have to be altered so there is not so much congestion and a good way to start is to insist that three players from each team stay in the respective 50 metre arcs leaving at most a 12 player press.
Dingo
Guest
Good article Andrew, there is no denying the toughness of todays game. Players are continually getting crunched while desperately trying to win the ball and for most viewers that is how it should be. I guess there will always be those who define toughness by how many fists, elbows or headbutts there are.
Lux
Guest
Actually, women's footy is growing quite rapidly right around the country.