Body:
Many Victorians take pride in the contact element in Australian Rules, and bemoan decisions by umpires to reward "diving" or other theatrics by players. The mindset of certain players to look for a cheap freekick from the umpire is unhealthy for the conduct of the game. It is all too prevalent in soccer in Italy and Spain, where stoicism is rarely displayed on the soccer pitch. In contrast I think that a commendable aspect of Aussie Rules is its players value getting on with the game, and accept physical contact without undue complaint.
I now live in Asia and would like to see Aussie Rules grow in general acceptance. Right now its current status is similar to lacrosse or hurling - a quirky game played in a gladatiorial fashion by natives of a far away country.
Recently a local cable sports channel - I think it was Star Sports- ran an ad promoting its soccer coverage. The ad successively posted the names of various national soccer competitions, eg "English Premier league", then "la Liga" and so on...and then posted "Australian Rules", only to have the name split in two, with the "Rules" section hanging like it was broken, as the voice-over came on saying that Star Sports promises it will only cover "the football that matters".
I was, to say the least, furious. Australian Rules should garner a lot more respect in the world. It has potential to become a great world game.
For this to happen, kids outside of Victoria/WA/SA need to be open to the idea of playing the game. Rugby union is a contact sport that faces a similar problem, but this code is thriving in Asia and Eastern Europe. Why is this so?
I think that part of Union's success is that rules that govern tackling and other forms of contact are well designed. It inspires confidence that kids are not going to get too seriously injured. This has encouraged various PE teachers to expose their kids to the code. Aussie Rules will always struggle to move beyond its curio status unless it engenders similar confidence that the rules contain adequate protection against serious injury.
One area in Aussie Rules I think needs examining are rules pertaining to barging and charging.
After seeing a number of king-hits in the Cwood-Kanageroos & StKilda-Melb games I thought of the following adjustment
- If the player in possession of the football is IN THE ACT of kicking the ball (but not kicking the ball off the ground) I would like to make it illegal for that player to be barged or pushed, WHILE they are in their kicking stride. The kicker can still be tackled. The kick can still be smothered. The player in possession of the ball can still be bumped from the side if they are not in their kicking stride.
I offer two reasons to defend this adjustment - first, the kicker can't defend himself in this situation, often they don't see the hit coming and can't take defensive action.
Second, being in the kicking stride, the player is more vulnerable to serious lateral injuries involving the knee, ankle and hip, if they are barged from the side and then fall to ground, often with a 100+kg bloke crashing on top of them.
Now I anticipate that this proposal will generate a response of "you are taking away the manliness of the game".
This response that can be applied to justify just about any form of thuggery that take place on the field. This attitude, indiscriminately applied, will perpetuate the current situation of general irrelevance of the code. Let's be a bit more intelligent about it. The history of the code has seen numerous changes in the rules with the aim of reducing the incidence of serious injury or eliminating practices that bring the game into disrepute.
