The more things change
The modern footy fan, at least those of us who think we're modern, but have actually been around since before the digital age, will argue fervently that those in charge of the rules meddle too much. That much-failed doctrine "if it ain't broke…" carries much weight with the ageing baby boomer.
The "ain't broke…" argument has never worked for me, and I suspect it has no merit with those who are fluent in Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and the rest of 'em. Everything improves with careful nurturing. Experience shows that what was once great can no longer be considered so (the works of Mozart and Picasso and their ilk the exceptions), unless allowed to be massaged by the hands of careful tweakers. Even that great genius Steve Jobs was considered more a tweaker of the ideas of others than a genuine inventor.
So, footy is a game of tweaking, and more so in this totally professional era. What worked yesterday is tweaked for tomorrow. As footy departments grow, so too do the ideas that change the way the game is played. As the game becomes more commercial, more manipulated, more scientific, so too must those who control it, as custodians of something so important to past, present and future generations. I can imagine the AFL's Football Department growing exponentially over the next decade, working furiously to keep up with the game and the way the coaching panels rip it to shreds and rebuild it. There will be a team of AFL boffins applying scientific analysis to what they see, utilising data mining as much as the instinct that has driven many changes in past era. Adrian Anderson's successor will be as much a head of Research & Development as a manager of day-to-day events.
Nothing in the AFL clubs is left to chance these days. Ideas are tossed forward, debated, analysed, applied, re-analysed, re-applied—until the coaching staff and the players have it down as second nature, able to be applied under all conditions. The white-coated brigade in the AFL must keep pace, tweaking the rules to maintain the integrity of the game.
I was alerted to the potential of change, and how we love/hate rule changes, when I came across a typically quaint essay from a Grand Final Record of 1934. The topic: the necessity of reducing the high rate of scoring.
It's worth mulling over:
"On all hands surprise and some consternation has been aroused this season by the phenomenally high scoring that has become the rule in Victorian League Football, and also in other states.
"Goals have been easy to obtain, scores of 20 goals and better have been registered with unceasing regularity, and forwards in each of the three major States have exceeded the 100-goal mark—Bob Pratt and Gordon Coventry in Victoria, George Doig and Ted Tyson in West Australia and Ken Farmer in South Australia.
"Last year, Mr G. Cathie, a life member of the League (Cathie was the founding editor of the Football Record—GS), suggested that the distance between the goal and behind posts should be narrowed to make scoring more difficult, and thus to eliminate to a certain extent a new phase of the game that seems likely to prove detrimental to football as a spectacle.
"Alternatively, Mr Cathie suggested the total abolition of behinds or the introduction of a cross-bar placed at a certain height between the goal posts.
"Now from West Australia comes a similar suggestion. In the WA "Footballer", the official organ of the WA National Football League the following appears: 'Certainly this is the day of the goal getter, and quite a big following think that the time has come when these big figures should be less frequent. This might be done by decreasing the goal line, which is now seven yards in width, to five yards, making consequent alterations to the behind line, on each side of the goal posts, from seven yards to five yards, thus giving a scoring width of fifteen yards instead of the twenty-one now in existence.'
"How the ease of scoring appeals to an overseas visitor is apparent from the reported remarks of Mr C.J.Palmer, a South African member of the London crew of oarsmen now in Melbourne for the big Centenary rowing carnival. Mr Palmer considered that a cross-bar would improve our scoring, as a goal 'toed gently through a yard from the posts did not have as much merit as another scored from a 50-yard punt from a difficult angle.'"
100 Years Of Grand Final Records, a boxed set of all Grand Final Records (1912-2011), is available at http://www.slatterymedia.com/store/viewItem/100-years-of-grand-final-records. This collector's edition includes 11 volumes, and more than 7000 pages.
Comments
John Truslove 2 November 2012
Being a lover of high-scoring football matches, I'm left to wonder why on earth scores of 20 goals or more would ever be considered a BAD thing? If they thought 1934 was bad, then I'd hate to think what they thought of the 1937 WAFL season, where no fewer than five players all scored 100 goals or more, or the 1981 season where each of the eight WAFL teams averaged 100 points or more each game.
Geoff Slattery 2 November 2012
Agree absolutely. One can only report what was discussed at the time. You might recall a couple of years ago the AFL considered the concept of awarding a goal if the ball skimmed the post and went inside the seven yards—perhaps the reverse thinking. Then, in 2008 I remember Neale Daniher's presentation to the seminar discussing the ins and outs of the game, as part of the 150th celebrations. He spoke with fervour (this was his "the reverend" phase) about what's sacred in our game. Michael Gleeson wrote of it in The Age (you can read it here: http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=8254.0). Interesting Michael's lead to the story included the line "if it ain't broke..."! Daniher's points are still not enshrined into the non-negotiable parts of our game. What's also interesting are his first two untouchables: the four posts, and the ball.
Jeff Dowsing 2 November 2012
That the urge to tinker with the game dates back so many decades is an interesting point Geoff. Also worth noting is that none of those proposed changes came to pass (though you might be interested to know Melbourne have just requested their goal posts be brought closer together at Gosch's Paddock for training purposes!).
I'm not so sure the AFL are always the greatest arbiters of the so-called 'integrity of the game' when they often appear at cross purposes with its primary stakeholders - the clubs, the players and rusted on fans. And some of this more recent tweaking, such as the substitute rule, was rushed in on the flimsiest evidence and dubious rationale. Add to that the ham fisted incorporation of video technology.
Really, is there any other football code in the world that treats their game and its rules as if it was a 12 speed bike? And some of the rule changes are so minor and pointless that you'd think the rules committee was merely justifying their positions. We'd like to think our game is the greatest game, but if it needs so much constant repair, isn't that a major flaw?
I'd hate to be an umpire, that's for sure.
Adam Cardosi 4 November 2012
Good points Geoff. There is no doubt some rule changes have had a beneficial effect on the game , and none more so than the introduction in 1925 of the original 'out of bounds' rule (which awarded a free kick against the last player that touched the ball). This rule ushered in the era of open direct football that led to the high scores and great goalkickers of the late 20s and 1930s lamented by Mr Cathie. The rescinding of the rule in 1939 ended the reign of the spearheads (with the notable exceptions of John Coleman and Bernie Naylor) and congested the game again until a modified 'out of bounds on full' rule was reintroduced in late 1960s - and with it a glut of great goalkickers.
But I think the lament of many fans these days is not rule changes per se (as most acknowledge the need to modify rules as the game evolves), but the way in which the AFL makes so many changes from one season to the next and appears to do so without a great deal of research or forethought, as per Jeff's point above. Change for the sake of change is characteristic of overly bureaucratic organisations (officials justifying their own existence by seeking to be seen to be doing something, albeit usually with the best of intentions) and I'm afraid that is what I see happening with the AFL at present.
Geoff Slattery 5 November 2012
Your comments on how things work at the AFL are overstated. The appointment of a dedicated football person (initially Andrew McKay) allowed the AFL to discuss these issues with the broad community at the same level. There is lots of research taking place behind the scenes, and the clubs also contribute in more ways than may be expected. The use of the pre-season competition as a testing ground has been well and truly worthwhile. Without that testing we would have that outside 50 9-pointer, which would be against all things that represent the essence of our game. My point above is that within the decade, there will be dozens of people working in AFL House on how the game is played, and how it is being manipulated, and how to retain its essential values.
Jeff Dowsing 7 November 2012
I read with interest there's 9 rule changes for next season. There are 3 around the holding the ball rule alone! A few years back Nathan Buckley, who's no goose, quite the rules review panel out of frustration. Yes, some rules are well tested in the NAB Cup, but too many are not. And no matter what supposed research is conducted, the flow on effect of changes cannot be predicted with any certainty until put into practice. If these conversations the AFL are having with the community are taking place, it's either a one sided discussion or it's a community I am not privy to!
Jim McBride 26 November 2012
I remember reading 16 does not go into 22 a few years ago - at the rate things are going the old round robin competition will turn into a single robin.
that isn't such a ridiculous thought anymore. only three more teams and they play each other once a season.
Login to leave a comment.