Are we sacrificing hard footy in the name of false safety?

Watching the Collingwood versus Carlton match seemed a pleasant way to spend a couple of hours on a rare Saturday afternoon to myself in the winter. My local side, coincidentally also the Magpies, had a bye meaning that my services were not required.

As someone in my early thirties who is still actively involved in the game I find myself old enough to remember a different, somewhat simpler game, but young enough to still be playing and contending with the revolving door that is the current rules of the game.

(I’ll try to stay as impartial as possible here and avoid turning this into another ‘back in my day’ rant, as my Collingwood-supporting wife fears this may end up.)

I feel incredibly sorry for AFL umpires these days. The laws of the game now seem to exist in an increasing shade of grey, in no small part due to new rules (or revisions to the interpretation of existing rules) that have been introduced to the game. In the space of five minutes in the first quarter of the Pies and Blues game I saw two, seemingly identical incidents result in opposite outcomes – specifically this relates to the new ‘sling tackle’ rule.

With three officiating umpires there is always the potential for differences in interpretation, a phenomenon that has existed since the introduction of the second field umpire in 1976, but new rules are making this source of frustration more apparent.

Recent amendments to the laws of the game have, in general, been introduced to either reduce the risk of injury to players or improve the flow/appearance/appeal of the game. But players are still getting injured and there is constant discussion about what further changes are required to improve the spectacle of the game.

Footballers have suffered injuries since the game was created in the 19th century. No one gains any satisfaction in seeing a player writhing in pain but the harsh reality is that as long as the game exists injuries of varying degree will exist with it. The rules relating to contact below the knees and sling tackles were introduced in incidents that saw players suffer serious injuries.

Gary Rohan’s injury was one of the catalysts for the introduction of the leg contact rule. It was a freak, seemingly isolated incident. While some would argue that the fact we have not seen another player suffer a similar fate is justification enough for the change, all this really shows is that it was a highly unusual situation. Players now have to approach certain contests with a sense of caution that they previously did not, and in some cases go against their natural instinct to attack the footy at all costs. Spectators and players alike are continually left scratching their head when trying to determine what does and does not constitute an infringement under the law.

Admittedly I learnt the game many years ago, but one of the things that was ingrained into me from a very young age is that when you tackle you should always tackle with intent and make sure that your opponent ends up on the ground. If the player with the ball is on the ground their ability to effectively dispose of the ball is reduced, and by putting them on the ground with a degree of force you are asserting your physical presence on them, which may pay dividends later in the game. I would like to think that this ethos is still instilled in young players today.

From time to time this desire to tackle with intent results in injury. My poor wife watched on in horror one day as I was tackled to the ground with both of my arms pinned to my body. The evening that I spent in the emergency department of the Royal Melbourne Hospital from the ensuing concussion was unpleasant but I held no grudge against the player who put me in that predicament. In fact if the roles were reversed I would have approached it exactly the same way!

The point of this trip down memory lane is to highlight that as footballers we thrive on the physical aspects of the game and are acutely aware of the repercussions. It is admirable that the AFL feels they need to protect players from the unlikely but real chance of suffering a head injury from this type of incident, however we risk not only depriving players of the ability to impose themselves physically (granted this is only one example of a way this can be achieved) but also depriving the game of one of its great attractions: brute, physical contests.

Another source of frustration as a player who also watches the game is the requirement for the modern player to make a ‘genuine’ attempt to dispose of the ball if they are tackled immediately upon taking possession of it.

Once again the intent of this interpretation appears well founded, by forcing players to try and dispose of the ball in this situation the ball should stay in motion for longer and free the game up. In reality we see a player tackled, the ball is pinned to their body and we have to wait the obligatory three to four seconds as the umpire watches on and implores him to get rid of it.

I have seen players penalised for failing to genuinely attempt to dispose of the ball when it has been trapped under their prone body, with the tackler sitting on top of them doing their best impression of a rodeo rider. During the time that the umpire allows for this to all occur, players continue to be drawn to the contest and the congestion becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The rule also causes doubt in the player’s mind about whether he should take possession of the ball. In some cases it is actually better to wait for your opponent to grab the ball, then swoop in with a tackle which may result in the ball being released as the ball carrier attempts to avoid penalty.

Wouldn’t a better solution be to call for a bounce as soon as it is apparent that the ball has little to no chance of coming free and get the ball back in the air as quickly as possible to stop players converging on the scene?

Am I advocating for the abolition of any rules introduced post 1985? Of course not. What I would like to see is a simplification of the current set of rules, with a focus on ensuring that gratuitous violence continues to be outlawed and that players are encouraged to get the football as their first priority.

You never know, this may actually achieve what the AFL are seeking to do anyway!