Is the AFL Fair Dinkum?

Seriously, what have we done as footy supporters to deserve the ridiculous Commission that is currently the custodian of what was once a great game?

What crimes against humanity have we perpertrated as a group that gives Andrew Demetriou, Adrian Andersen and Mike Fitzpatrick at Head Office the unquestioned right to mess with OUR game?

The scary and ludicrous Rule Changes that have permeated the game over the past 10 years have only served to sanitise the game to an extent that is is barely recognisable from the halcyon days of footy.    Where did we sign a petition or even vote in a referendum that states we give full power to the AFL to make silly little ‘adjustments’ to the game we love based upon an over-reaction to something that has happened on any weekend.

Are Demetriou et al so scared of the potential for soccer to take over as the number one footy code in Australia that they have to sanitise our game to such an extent that the very fabric of the game is being destroyed for you, me and all those who have grown up loving the game?

What is happening is, in reality, actually doing the opposite of making footy impervious to soccer.  By dumbing down the game, the AFL is turning off its grass roots supporters and making OUR game a sad shadow of what footy used to be.  By making the game ‘softer’, all it is doing is turning more and more people towards soccer – not the other way around.  It’s about time that someone puts a stop to this ridiculous tinkering of the rules and the ‘feminisation’ of our game.

I talk of course of todays report in the mainstream Medja that the AFL head honchos are currently considering changing the scoring system in footy which would then allow any ball that hits the post and goes through for a goal to be given as a goal.  Fair dinkum you clowns.  What is the justification for this?  Are they serious?  WHY???  Why would you stuff around with a scoring system that works and where there is NO CONFUSION to add another element of doubt, interpretation and confusion to what is one of the only ‘definite’ decisions in our game.

As it stands, the ball hits the post and is a point. FULL STOP!!  As it should be.

The AFL are now considering, according to Mark Stevens in the Bostonian, the following aspects of the ball hitting the posts.

“if the ball hits the inside of the goalpost and goes through for a goal it will be worth six points.

Likewise, a ball could hit the inside of the behind post and travel throught the behinds and be worth a point.

Under the proposal, if the ball hits the goal post and bounces back into play it will be called a behind.

If the ball rebounds into play after hitting the behind post it would be ruled out of bounds”

Now seriously.  How damn confusing is that for the goal umpires.   And how many more decisions do they have to make in their minds before determining just what has gone on.  This proposed rule does not ‘clear up the issue’, it confuses it even more.

There are too many ‘if’s’ in this.  Umpires and players alike are going to have even more concern and reason for argument if this rule is passed.  Lets hope that the clubs can this proposal and just rely on the rule that has served us well for eons.

There are two simple plans to combat any confusion the goal umpires may have if there are doubts of their decisions and both have been bandied about the medja since the 3 glaring errors on the wweekend.

The first one is the use of two goal umpires.  This is something that Ron Barassi was heralding about 30 years ago and I cannot understand why the AFL has not gone down this path in the three decades since.  It’s pure and simple. Two umps, both with the ability to confirm or deny a result based upon standing at each goal post.   Imagine  – one ump being totally responsible for ONLY 6.4 metres (being what happens in the points area Obviously if it is a goal, there is no problem) instead of the current situation where one person is responsible for  approximately 20 metres.  It makes sense.

The second ‘fix’ is the use of technology.  Cameras on goal posts and reviews happening are things that Footytalk.com.au has been promoting for 6 years.  IT can’t be that damn hard or expensive, given that there are limited grounds that need the technology.

However I hear you ask, what about the time taken to review the decision.  Again, there is a simple fix and it is something that the AFL had made difficult a few years ago off their own bat.  They decided some years ago to listen to the braying of the ignorant crowd behind the goals (read Cheer Squads) and decided to make a rule that meant players did not have to wait for the umpire to wave their flags before kicking in after a point.

We all know the problems this has had but the AFL were ‘reactive’ and obnoxious rather than being responsible.  Put simply, if players were forced to wait for  a flag to be waved before kicking in after a point, this stops the game.  It stops the clock and it stops everything.  This then allows time for a team to request a review of a decision (which could take 30 seconds).  Big deal.

At least the result will be RIGHT and isn’t that what we need.  Ask St. Kilda supporters if they would have preferred a 30 second video review by Hawkeye in last years GF as opposed to a goal given to Tom Hawkins when it hit the post.  I know which one I would have preferred!!!!!!

IF the AFL was fair dinkum about ‘reacting’ to what happened on the weekend, they should rescind the kick in rule immediately and employ a video review system, or they should employ two goal umpires to adjudicate and to fix it a problem.  Of course, if the coloured-cretins actually opened their eyes, problem solved.

Give it up AFL.  Stop f*#&’ing around with the game and leave it alone.  There is no reason to give a goal for a kick that hits the post.  IT does not add anything at all to the game.  It only serves to stuff around even more with the fabric of the game we love – the game you are trying hard to destroy.

Articles

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments are closed.