TRADTION IS GREAT- BUT NOT ALWAYS
April 23rd 2008 07:59
It seems to me that it happens every year. Every year there will be at least one contentious decision. Every year there will be one deemed act of unfair game play. Directly after said contentious act the media will make their annual announcements of the need for rule changes and the rule race begins. This year, uneven bounces, a specialist goal kicker and a Barry Hall whack has seen the “I’m a Traditionalist” start earlier than usual.
Every year I become more and more of the view that the media itself has created a fictional character who calls for rule changes. A character, no parent would ever want his or her child to play with in the school yard. According to everyone in the football media, changing the rules of football is tantamount to anarchy or even worse, our game becoming, shock horror, like soccer or netball. Therefore, journalist after journalists and ex-champions all claim to be “Footy Traditionalists” who would carry swords into battle to keep the rules of the game just as they are right now. Which is an attitude that is problematic considering the effect it had on the Russian Tsar following his determination not to change the rules.
I personally have no problem with a traditionalist who wants to preserve the game, but I do think that more pragmatism is required to ensure the ongoing success and popularity of AFL. I also find myself wondering why all journalist are traditionalists? Surely there is an independent thought amongst them. I’m over the “I’m a traditionalist” claim, particularly when it may be detrimental to the game. Some of you may even be worried I am the “Footy Modernist”, perhaps a Football Australia mole trying to undermine the game. Not so.
Before I get painted with the footy modernist brush, I’ll think we should consider some silly questions. Are the rules of AFL the same as they were in the beginning? Could Buddy Franklin call for some sand for a place kick? Are the Melbourne Football Club still relying solely on Melbourne Grammar First XVIII used in our great game’s first outing? The answers are of course, no. The AFL’s game rules have changed with the nature of and for the benefit of the game”.
Anyone who thinks that I’m just arguing through extremes examples should watch the 1970 Grand Final. A family favourite in our household. The very game touted as responsible for the creation of AFL as we know it. The major highlights being Carlton using twenty or so handballs after half time to startle Collingwood, move the ball down the oval quickly and to come from behind and win. The fact that Carlton made a substitution in Teddy Hopkins’s, who would have kicked four goals, was unheard of. That’s because in those days you only made a substitution- if someone was basically dead.
Every year I become more and more of the view that the media itself has created a fictional character who calls for rule changes. A character, no parent would ever want his or her child to play with in the school yard. According to everyone in the football media, changing the rules of football is tantamount to anarchy or even worse, our game becoming, shock horror, like soccer or netball. Therefore, journalist after journalists and ex-champions all claim to be “Footy Traditionalists” who would carry swords into battle to keep the rules of the game just as they are right now. Which is an attitude that is problematic considering the effect it had on the Russian Tsar following his determination not to change the rules.
I personally have no problem with a traditionalist who wants to preserve the game, but I do think that more pragmatism is required to ensure the ongoing success and popularity of AFL. I also find myself wondering why all journalist are traditionalists? Surely there is an independent thought amongst them. I’m over the “I’m a traditionalist” claim, particularly when it may be detrimental to the game. Some of you may even be worried I am the “Footy Modernist”, perhaps a Football Australia mole trying to undermine the game. Not so.
Before I get painted with the footy modernist brush, I’ll think we should consider some silly questions. Are the rules of AFL the same as they were in the beginning? Could Buddy Franklin call for some sand for a place kick? Are the Melbourne Football Club still relying solely on Melbourne Grammar First XVIII used in our great game’s first outing? The answers are of course, no. The AFL’s game rules have changed with the nature of and for the benefit of the game”.
Anyone who thinks that I’m just arguing through extremes examples should watch the 1970 Grand Final. A family favourite in our household. The very game touted as responsible for the creation of AFL as we know it. The major highlights being Carlton using twenty or so handballs after half time to startle Collingwood, move the ball down the oval quickly and to come from behind and win. The fact that Carlton made a substitution in Teddy Hopkins’s, who would have kicked four goals, was unheard of. That’s because in those days you only made a substitution- if someone was basically dead.
| 101 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Tyronne
Sydney Fun
Melbourne DiaryStar
An evolving game is all part of the fun. It usually goes full circle anyway..