This has created a never-ending conflict between the forces that guard the game and those who exploit it.
It is a common and conservative theme that we should leave the rules alone.
Just for a moment imagine footy with the same rules as 40 years ago. No centre square, no deliberate out of bounds, no interchange, no tightening of the physical contact rules; these are just a few of the big changes.
Personally, I love the speed and frenetic action of the modern game. However, I hate the patches we see far too often where it looks like the ground has shrunk in size.
Instead of the 36 players being spread over the full length of the field they are often squashed into a 100-metre corridor and the play gets stuck in this congestion. High-possession, go sideways, go backwards, low-scoring footy.
The ability of players to push up and get behind the football has been aided by the constant rotation of players through the interchange bench. The 20 or 30 rotations of a few years ago has quickly become 80-plus.
Every action has a consequence and this massive increase in interchange rotations is being closely monitored by the AFL with the question of is it good or bad for the game still being considered.
I am coming to the belief that an interchange limitation, possibly with the addition of a substitute or two for emergencies, would keep the best players on the ground and force, through fatigue, players to be spread more equally over the field.
In its role as the guardians of the game the AFL, through its administration and various sub-committees, has the important task of monitoring and adjusting the rules to protect and enhance the spectacle.
Over my time in footy I think they have done a great job.
Coaches and players will exploit the rules wherever possible to increase their chances of winning. How a game looks is not high on the agenda.
So the reviewing and adjusting of rules and rule interpretations is necessary.
One of this season’s new rules is the free kick awarded against a team for deliberately conceding a behind. It has worked extremely well because the umpires are quite lenient and will only penalise a player when it is blatantly obvious. It has eradicated a player handballing or kicking the ball through the opposition goal, which was the main concern in the first place.
I can’t say the same for the automatic 50-metre penalty for deliberately preventing an opponent from continuing onto the next phase of play. The trend of tackling or blocking to impede has been coached into the game recently so the logic in this rule was quite clear.
However this one has often not been umpired with the same commonsense as a deliberate rushed behind.
Surely hanging on to the tackle a split second too long does not warrant a 50-metre penalty. Hopefully this interpretation will be treated with a more lenient approach and kept for only the extreme examples.
One of the downsides of adding to the rules - none ever seem to be removed - is that footy is harder to umpire.
It is amazing to think that we expect umpires to have the endurance of a marathon runner, the skill to bounce an oval shaped ball straight and high, the ability to make good decisions under extreme fatigue and of course x-ray vision and eyes in the back of their head to accurately see every incident.
The umpires have a tough job and often suffer from a 'shoot the messenger' attitude. Nothing will ever change that.
Leadership is so often about making decisions that are unpopular at the time but are so very often correct with the benefit of hindsight.
Everything in footy will be hotly debated and not all decisions will be correct.
As the guardians of football, the AFL must continue its ongoing monitoring of the game to maintain its attraction. This will require great vigilance and the courage to adjust the rules where necessary, very few of which will be popular at the time.
The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.
