After years of talking absolute rubbish, rent-a-quote Jason Akermanis has said something really logical. And all is now forgiven. Because someone needs to stop the AFL rule-changing machine, and we all know that once the season starts players and coaches will be gagged and bound if they mention anything negative about the Communist party. Oops... I mean the AFL. Akermanis, in a strangely thoughtful and non-controversial manner, has joined Rodney Eade in questioning the need for another new rule. (At least it's not a new 'interpretation')
"I don't understand why there is continually knee-jerk reactions to lots of stuff in the game today. Our game doesn't need to keep changing."
Nearly every person who enjoys football is thinking the exact same thing. Does anyone hear Geelong supporters complaining about Hawthorn rushing too many behinds in last years Grand Final? Is that why they lost the flag? If the game had have been closer, and Hawthorn had lost, then the behind rushing tactic would already have met its end.
Being a defender is hard enough these days with the push in the back interpretation. Giving away a free kick/goal for a rushed behind is much too harsh a punishment. Even worse, if the rule was to become permanent, we would introduce more umpire interpretation into the game (the LAST thing we need) where umpires would need to adjudicate on if a player 'rushed' a behind or not. Defenders would need to practice 'accidentally' rushing a behind in the same farcical way that players deliberately/accidentally lead the ball out of bounds. If the AFL's aim is to create controversy, confuse players and frustrate the public, then it should introduce the rule into the real season. Otherwise, leave it in the Ansett Cup with the nine pointer.
Finally, it could be argued that the rule changers created their own problem a few years ago when they allowed players to take the kick out immediately after a behind. This meant that teams that score the behind have no time to set up a zone or a tactic to hold in the kick out (any junior footballer knows that man-on-man led to the huddle which forced the creation of the now redundant zone). So a defender can happily rush a behind then kick out straight away. If there isn't an immediate option the defender can take their time to find one. Previously, when the full back (ah...designated kicker)had to wait for the goal umpires flag, a rushed behind was not nearly as attractive as it is today.
Which just goes to show that messing with the beautiful equilibrium of AFL rules is a dangerous practice. One that the AFL should refrain from.
PS. If you look back to a post in 2007 you can see Paul Roos first reaction to the push in the back rule. Interesting.
2 comments:
Dont necessarily think that all rule changes are bad. Take the relitively recent introduction of the centre circle which ruckman have to be inside. Geez it only took them 100 years to work out that the two biggest blokes on the field running full pace at each other with one knee cocked up to cause maximum damage wasn't exactly the best way to start a game...
Whoever came up with the idea of copying basketball and drawing a white line around the most underatted players of our game who make all those glamor midfielders look good, has done the sport much justice by extended the playing life of ruckman all over the globe.
You have to accept that no game is perfect, yes, even our beloved footy, and there is always room for improvement. Luddites like you and Akker need to pull your head out of the 1980's, stop your whinging and appreciate the dynamic new style of AFL footy on display that many of these rule changes have created.
Actually, as a dees fan I was a little bit disappointed with that rule. It affected the length of Jeff White's run-up and the height of his leap and therefore his ruckwork. At his peak he was the most attractive ruckman in the game (he was only 197 cms I think, quite small for a modern ruckmen). It also pushed ruckwork towards the wrestling version that is more prevalent in recent years. Not nearly as attractive, nor very effective.
But I suppose it has reduced ruck injuries. As for ruckman being the underrated players who make midfielders look good, I think Sam Mitchell would disagree. He takes many centre clearances from opposition taps。 Sometimes he takes more than from his own ruckman. Does this mean that the oppostion ruckman is making Sam look good?
Post a Comment