Not sure how Jonathan Brown is swamped in the pic given it's 3 vs 2 but here's Damian Drum's article on footy and how it is umpired.
Three on one: Jonathan Brown is swamped by Richmond defenders on Saturday night. Picture: Wayne LudbeyA sinking feeling
04 June 2007 Herald-Sun
Damian Drum
THE great game of Australian rules football is under threat. Not from soccer, rugby or basketball, not even from computers or Xboxes. No, our game is under threat from itself.
It can be seen every time we go to the footy, and it's called flooding.
We have been seeing coaches putting extra numbers in defence for four or five years now, and we all hate what it does to the game.
Modern football dictates that players can't play on quickly if they are going to simply kick the ball directly to a forward line that is outnumbered by defenders.
Players stream down the ground bouncing the ball in full flight, raise their vision and simply stop dead, and then kick sideways to a player who in turn kicks sideways again and perhaps even backwards.
This is the scenario that is driving football lovers from our game.
I know this view is shared by most football fans, and even the occasional AFL club president.
While it's common knowledge that everyone hates flooding and the indirect stop-start style it promotes, no one has yet been able to pinpoint the cause of the disease, let alone develop a cure that might one day restore our game to full health.
Why do coaches need to put a seventh, eighth, and even a ninth defender in the backline, when this job has historically been handled by six defenders with the occasional bit of help from a ruckman playing a kick behind the play.
This is where the rules revision committee needs to accept a large portion of responsibility.
In the past few years there have been some subtle, but significant, changes to the way defenders can actually defend.
We have tightened up dramatically on a defender's ability to get the ball out of bounds or in a ball-up situation, with umpires red-hot to ping any defender who doesn't make every effort to keep the ball in play and keep it alive.
These changes were incorporated by changes in the interpretation of existing rules. While they may have made life more difficult for defenders, most people would acknowledge they are positive changes to our game.
The next significant change to the art of defending was the outlawing of hitting an opponent's arms or hands in an attempt to spoil a mark.
A skill that had been taught through generations, which enabled a shorter, slower defender to hold his own against a more athletic, taller forward, was suddenly taken away.
This was done without trial and was introduced by an actual rule change - chopping of the arms.
This rule now places us in exactly the same bracket as basketball, in that if you hit the arms you commit a foul.
This year, just to tip the balance even further in favour of the forwards, we introduce another interpretation change by taking the push-in-the-back rule and making it one that prohibits a hand in a player's back, irrespective of any force that may, or may not, have been imparted.
Why change a rule that has stood the test of time? If you push someone in the back, it's a free kick; if there is no push, there is no free kick.
On top of all of these changes in favour of forwards, we have to acknowledge they have been introduced in an era when delivery to leading forwards has never been better.
The foot skills of the modern footballer are expected to be precise, and they usually are, especially when the midfielder is kicking without pressure.
The rules revision committee has made it nearly impossible for defenders to defend in a one-on-one situation. It is no wonder coaches have been forced to put additional players in defence, behind the ball, in an attempt to even up the contest.
It is no surprise coaches have instilled into players the need to push into defence every chance they get.
It is the law-makers of our game who have the ability to fix flooding - not by putting netball lines across the field, not by limiting the amount of players who may start in the defensive 50m.
They can "help" the flooding situation by rescinding these ridiculous rules that prohibit contact to arms, hands, and unforced contact with a player's back.
By giving defenders an opportunity to defend, maybe we will see a return to some of the great one-on-one battles that have littered history: Stephen Silvagni v Tony Lockett or Gary Ablett, Peter Knights v Paul Vander Haar, Glen Jakovich v Wayne Carey and so on. In all of these great duels, physical contact was a legitimate part of the contest.
If the AFL, the rules revision committee, the umpires' department or anyone else in the game thinks flooding is good for the game, then I urge them to do absolutely nothing.
If the same group thinks the balance between forwards and defenders is fairly spread, then again I urge them to do nothing.
If those in charge of our great game have genuine concerns for the on-field direction it's heading, then I urge them to take appropriate action.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21841973%255E19742,00.html
