Players need a voice on rule changesDaniel Jackson
April 20, 2011MOST footballers prefer to do their talking on the field. However some of us can't help ourselves and, although that can occasionally get us in trouble, we are more regularly putting our opinions to good use.
Jobe Watson's view on the new substitute rule and the subsequent passionate debate he had with Adrian Anderson and the AFL at the captains' meeting in March is a case in point. Jobe's argument against the rule, which many players share, is two-fold.
First, there are the physical implications of reducing the number of players on the bench from four to three. Some concern relates to the effect it may have on player-injury rates, specifically those related to fatigue.
The second factor is an ongoing one. I think I can speak on behalf of the majority of players in saying we often feel that we are not sufficiently consulted on issues or decisions that directly affect us, especially when it comes to rule changes.
From the other point of view, the AFL has identified a number of key areas in which it thinks the new rule will benefit the game and its players.
These include more game time for the stars, less congestion, fewer high-impact injuries and an increased level of ''fairness'' in regards to losing players during a game.
So there are the two sides to the story. But who is right? At this stage, being only a month into the season, it is hard to measure the exact impact of the rule, but let's break it down issue by issue.
The idea of trying to curb the trend of collision injuries that occur due to the fast-paced, high-intensity nature of the game to me is well-intentioned but flawed. Over the last few years our game has become faster and faster and players have become fitter and fitter. How has this affected collision injuries such as concussions?
A faster game combined with fitter players means more potential for heavy clashes at speed. Think of the collision between Jordan Lewis and Jarrod Harbrow last year. But, as many would have noticed in the first two rounds of this year, there have still been numerous heavy hits resulting in concussions.
Players may tire at the end of games but they are always going to go in as hard as possible while they are fresh early in the game. There's not too much we can do about that because, like it or not, this aspect of our game has traditionally earned players respect and admiration from teammates and fans alike.
Now while the AFL has produced data to back up its argument of a reduction in injuries, the medical staff of many clubs have produced figures that demonstrate that by leaving fatigued players on the ground without rest greatly increases their chance of muscle strains and other fatigue-based injuries.
These are the injuries that keep stars off the field for long periods and could also lead to players needing to be rested more frequently throughout the season. As Sydney coach John Longmire said: "For some players, you have to wonder what they are going to be like later in the season."
Is that something we want to see or are willing to accept?
The other aim of the new rule is to reduce the disparity when one team loses a player during the game through injury. According to the AFL's statistics, if a team loses a player, its chance of winning is 7 per cent less. If it loses two players, that figure is 12 per cent. And if it loses three players, it is 25 per cent less likely to win.
But if fairness is such a concern, then why not add players to the bench rather than reduce? Could we not have four on the bench, plus one or even two subs?
The fact is the rule is in and we have to adapt as best and as quickly as possible.
Will we see a reduction or increase in injuries? Only time will tell. Will the issue of 'fairness'' be adequately addressed?
Retrospectively, could or should the AFL have trialled the rule first before implementing it? Was the due diligence adequate? Should the players have had more of a say before the decision was made?
I think so. When it comes down to it, the predominant stakeholders affected by the change are the players, so why not?
Daniel Jackson is the AFL Players Association Richmond delegate.http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/players-need-a-voice-on-rule-changes-20110419-1dnfk.html#ixzz1K191hriL
