YOU NEED a very long memory to be able to recall the days when the type of bump better described as a shoulder charge was the old-fashioned destructive weapon it once was.

And if you have any sort of emotional attachment to the old shoulder charge to the opponent's head, I’d lock it away for good because it will not be around too much longer.

It will soon be officiated completely out of the game as an illegal and reportable action.

As much as it dates me a little (or a lot), I recall the days when, as long as you tucked your shoulder in, you could pretty much shoulder charge an opponent in any fashion.

It didn’t matter whether they had their head over the footy or what - it was anything goes in an era when, in the days before trial by video, the only time you would really get reported was for a punch or a kick.

But bit by bit the shoulder charge has been cut out of our game.

The current and latest version of the shoulder charge rule is all about choice. If you are in a position to attack the footy and choose not to, and instead elect to shoulder charge an opponent, you'll be pinged every time if you hit him high.

It's why St Kilda's Justin Koschitzke got the treatment he did from the match review panel this week.

The one remaining grey area is if a teammate has the ball and you are in a position to lay a shepherd.

Then, because there is no option of going after the ball and no tackle option, you are entitled to put on a good, strong shoulder charge to protect your teammate from the opposition chaser.

This last remaining anomaly is why in a pre- season game the Eagles' Josh Kennedy was able to shoulder charge Melbourne's Colin Sylvia, who got his jaw broken by what was an extremely heavy and high shepherd.

I'm tipping that pretty soon even that will be gone, and there will be no circumstances under which a player can shoulder charge an opponent and make head high contact.

He will be held liable no matter what the circumstances, and fair enough. I've always thought there wasn't a lot of difference between using a shoulder charge as a high speed weapon or using a fist, a forearm or an elbow.

IF THE shoulder charge to the head becoming illegal is inevitable, the continued goodwill among the existing 16 clubs and their fans which presently exists for the expansion clubs is anything but.

As footy people, I think we generally like the idea that there will be an extra team in Queensland and NSW in the next couple of years, but the reality is it will come at a big price to the existing teams.

When the new teams start pinching your players with inflated offers the good vibes will quickly disappear. That time is rapidly approaching. 

When we sit back and look at the big picture, it becomes clear that the AFL is placing itself in a position of enormous conflict of interest.

The same body is already running the 16 team national competition as well as being responsible for the sport's growth strategy and development.

Those two objectives are already intertwined because the national competition provides the funding for all the AFL's many programs and initiatives.

Now we are entering a lengthy period where footy’s head office will heavily subsidise the two expansion clubs.

In effect we will have the new clubs, funded by the AFL, causing a major inflationary effect by offering players anything up to 50 per cent more than they might otherwise earn at their existing teams.

In a nutshell - given that each of the existing clubs owns 1/16 of the AFL - clubs are funding the rival start-ups trying to recruit their players … a strange and conflicting situation indeed.

It is an unavoidable fact that in every football era there will be struggling clubs. Right now it is Richmond and Melbourne.

Yet at a time when they need help from the AFL's equalisation policy, their pathway to recovery is being made more difficult because of concessions given to the new clubs in the name of developing the game.

And all that while Richmond and Melbourne are indirectly helping to fund the 'enemy'.

While I believe the success of the two expansion teams is critically important for the AFL's long-term growth, I find it a little uncomfortable that the two new AFL-funded clubs will have such a potent effect on existing clubs.

I guess it comes under the umbrella of: one, the ends justifying the means and, two, team sport's basic underlying principle that the team comes before the individual. The extension of that is the sport comes before the individual clubs.

FINALLY, if I can close on one of my pet gripes, could we please ensure that in every AFL game there is one team wearing predominantly dark colours, and one team in predominantly light colors.

And before I am attacked by Collingwood supporters who are so vehemently opposed to any mention of a clash jumper, let me concede that a Collingwood jumper with white shorts does have a light look about it, and a Collingwood jumper with black shorts does have a dark look about it.

But last Saturday night's Gabba clash between the Brisbane Lions, in maroon, and the West Coast Eagles, in white, showed perfectly how the spectacle of AFL should be presented on TV.

It was certainly a vast improvement on the NAB Cup grand final when St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs, each wearing dark shorts, presented a diabolical viewing experience, especially when the cameras were shooting from a wider angle.

The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.