Simplicity overlooked in new interchange laws

It's been a few weeks since my last post, but not much has changed. Geelong and Hawthorn are still undefeated, as are the Western Bulldogs, who I like, but not as much as the other two. Hawthorn's Mark Williams this week made a bold attempt to become less likeable than his Port Adelaide namesake, and we had another controversial draw, this time between North Melbourne and Sydney. This time it wasn't the timekeepers' fault, but instead the blame rested on the shoulders of whoever was Sydney's 19th man on the field, as Darren Jolly failed to go off when he was supposed to.

A disaster like this was bound to cause some outrage, and after fining Sydney for what could perhaps have stolen them two points from 0, the AFL came up with a Die Hard 2-esque (How did they manage to come up with that plot?) rule change. Now, instead of the traditional one off-one on rule, the coach must go through more hurdles than customs to get a new player on the field, while the 70 year old interchange steward is told he has to do something. That's right, instead of watching the players go on and off, he has to actually watch what they're doing, and organise all the paperwork before a player can even scratch his ass let alone leave the bench. Apologies for all the hyperbole, but it seems easier to get on the line on those post-midnight quiz shows where the answers are as obvious as the fact that no one is getting through until they make back the money they paid the "actors" at 55c a call.

Now as comical as it is watching 5 people sit on the bench and the Collingwood steward warding off players attempting to get back onto the ground, surely the easiest solution would simply be to get the steward to watch very carefully and give him the power, should there ever be 19 on the ground, to actually do something about it, like tell the umpires. As for the penalties too, with a goal at risk should the team offend, do we really want to throw six points at a team for something that, frankly, has very little to do with the actual game? Do we really care that much about
interchanging properly that we are willing to giveaway goals for things happening off the field? Even a headcount seems less silly!

More rule tampering? No thanks Tadhg!

A simple solution for the recent bickering about last minute bad decisions costing Sydney 2 points and Fremantle 4 points - don't let it end up that way!

Sydney's Tadhg Kennelly became the second AFL player in as many weeks to call for an end to the draw in the AFL, the first being outspoken Bulldog Jason Akermanis. It followed a week of controversy in which Sydney and North Melbourne drew due to a last gasp disallowed goal, when the goal umpire (perhaps incorrectly) ruled that Brett Kirk's kick had been touched before the line by North defender Michael Firrito. Only two days earlier, Fremantle lost to Geelong by a solitary point, a match which was also marred by controversy when the umpire called back a kick in (after Joel Selwood kicked the ball out on the full) in the dying moments and lost several crucial seconds from the clock. This of course had Dockers fans up in arms over the result.

Now far be it for me to question the efforts of a professional AFL side, but when you've had 80 minutes to decide a match, and you can't get in front, why should you get another 10 to do so? And what if you lose? The losers would feel cheated, and rightly so. One of Kennelly's more interesting points was that North was down an injured player, and that the Swans were coming back, which underlines the very point that Sydney had 4 quarters to work its way in front, and could only start to do so when North had a player down, but could not even complete such an act. Does that sound like a team that deserves another 10 minutes to do so?

Akermanis' point was that football was a game of results, and that it was more fitting to end the game in with one team winning and the other losing. Football is also a game of four quarters however, and it's one where surely the most fitting result is the one where the game ends when the final siren rings? Draws are part of almost every sport. Only knockout matches need a result and rules are modified as such. The dejection that players feel after a draw is natural, but that's the way that both sides played the game. If you want to blame it on the umpires, fine, but just remember to magnify every single incorrect decision throughout the match, and see if you were as robbed as you thought you once were.

The same applies to the Fremantle match. The Dockers squandered a 39 point lead late in the second quarter to find themselves 2 in front at half time. They then messed up another comfortable buffer after a good third quarter, to lose by a solitary point. One might think that in an entire match they'd find something other than the timekeeper to blame. Even that ignores the fact that Harry Taylor had marked the ball when the siren rang, would have held the ball for the full allowed time, then proceeded to kick it as long as he could towards a large pack. The chances of a Fremantle player then getting clean possession, booting it not only as long as Taylor but getting it further and through the goals, in less time, are all incredibly unlikely. This all must happen in 9 seconds by the way.

The fact is, the draw is part of the game, and so are incorrect umpiring decisions (going both ways) and if Sydney, Freo and the Dogs don't like it, well how about not letting it happen or come down to that in the first place?