The furore this week over free kicks for tackles over the shoulders need not have happened. That it has is down to the AFL's long-standing tradition of using a wrecking ball to remove a mosquito.

Years ago, in response to increasing instances of head injuries, the game's lawmakers declared players' heads sacrosanct. No action that involved contact above the shoulders would be tolerated, not even accidental, unintentional contact. That, we were assured, would protect the players from themselves — except that it didn't.

Players, being competitive beasts, began to devise ways of 'drawing' free kicks for contact over the shoulder.

Famously, the Selwood brothers seemed to patent a muscular shrug that saw a tackler's arms pushed up so that contact above the particular Selwood's shoulder was all but inevitable. Some others devised a sagging of the knees at the critical moment that thwarted a tackler's aim and drew the free kick.

Others, and Selwood J. too for that matter, discovered they could bend down while picking the ball up and drive their heads into opponents and draw a free kick for high contact.

More recently, and demonstrated with extreme panache on Friday night against the Swans, Kangaroo Lindsay Thomas — a past master of the aforementioned strategies — showed that he could back into a trailing tackler and position himself such as to, almost inevitably, draw the free kick for high contact.

Let's start by agreeing that the AFL's intent in reducing the number of head injuries for players at all levels of the sport is a most laudable motive. It's just the way they've gone about it that is dumb.

And let's also agree that the umpires are the not the bad guys here. They're umpiring to the rules they've been given. And it will surprise many readers to read that the umpires are much, much closer than we are in the stands and they can see things that we in the stands can't. It's a shock, right? Most of the time, the slo-mo close-up replays show that the umpires have officiated the rule that they're charged with enforcing. We may not like the decisions they make, but they're doing what they're coached to do.

Remember the wrecking ball and the mosquito? The mosquito is the problem: head injuries to players. The wrecking ball? A zero tolerance approach.

Zero tolerance approaches, especially in Aussie Rules, generally don't work*. Well, they work for a short time, and then the inventive, innovative players and coaches devise strategies to eke an advantage out of the situation.

In contrast to zero tolerance, a nuanced approach gives an umpire, in the case of Aussie Rules, scope to make a decision that suits the context of the situation facing them. A ruck leaps into the air and a free arm accidentally brushes lightly across the opponent's shoulder. In a zero tolerance world, it's a free kick despite it not impeding the opponent. In a nuanced world, the umpire can make an informed, close-up judgement of the contact and whether it actually impeded the opponent.

A couple of years ago we had the same zealous, zero-tolerance approach to hands in the back — which has now, thankfully, downgraded to a more nuanced approach.

It is time for the AFL, its Rules Committee and the umpiring department to come up with an approach that protects players' heads to a reasonable degree, but doesn't provide a source of cheap free kicks for players to farm. A nuanced approach will give us that result, because umpires will be empowered to ignore the players who intentionally draw head-high tackles.

Whatever solution is decided upon, it will only be temporary. The game is in an arms race — teams versus the rules and officials. As one gains a temporary ascendancy, the other finds a way to fight back. Zero tolerance virtually hands players and coaches a manual on how to thwart the intent of a rule.


* We will admit that a zero tolerance approach to the non-wearing of seat belts in cars worked to save lives and change a social norm.

The now-infamous Mason Wood shot clock wait has forced the AFL to make a change to shot clock arrangements for the balance of the season. The shot clock will not be seen on the large screens at AFL grounds during the final two minutes of each quarter, according to AFL operations boss Mark Evans.

AussieRulesBlog has mixed feelings about these issues.

The Mason Wood scenario, with the player clearly wasting time to give his team a better chance to win is ugly. But, as many have noted, he didn't contravene the Laws of the Game.

Evans, citing Nick Riewoldt as an example, noted that some players were exhausted when they got the ball and deserved as much time as was available to compose themselves before kicking. Well, yes — and no.

Clearly goals are important, both for winning the game, and for providing a spectacle for fans. Pity the poor exhausted defender or midfielder who has a bare six seconds to compose himself and take his kick. A poor kick from defence is tantamount to giving a goal away.

Thirty seconds seems too long for a shot for goal. As an Essendon fan, I grew used to seeing Matthew Lloyd go through his routine — and it didn't seem anywhere near as long as Mason Wood waited! Can we split the difference and make it 15 seconds for all kicks?

It was an ugly way to finish an otherwise fantastic game of Aussie Rules tonight, with a Kangaroos player waiting for the countdown clock to expire at the end of the game.

AussieRulesBlog has never liked countdown clocks being available at the game to competing teams. Putting the goalkicking countdown clock on the screen for players to see removes much of the tension in a game, and could, possibly, have deprived the Saints of a chance to snatch a victory.

Revelations from Neil Balme late in the week that football “journalist” Mark Robinson had manufactured his story about Barcode players testing positive for illicit drugs in off-season didn't surprise AussieRulesBlog. But it’s good to see a move toward holding journalists to account for their stories.

Following Balme's statement, it emerged that the Barcodes’ playing group had decided to “ban” Robinson. On SEN radio’s Crunch Time preview show on Saturday morning, Robinson was required to not participate when the rest of the SEN panel interviewed Taylor Adams.

The evening before, again on SEN’s Crunch Time, Saints coach Alan Richardson emphatically denied a media report that recruit Jake Carlisle’s hip injury was much worse that the Saints had understood when recruiting him.

What has emerged from these two instances is that some “journalists” are deciding the stories they will write and then looking for ways to support their position. And it's about time this sort of grubby behaviour was exposed.

Last week’s story by Mark Robinson on out-of-season hair testing for illicit drug use is, unwittingly, shining the spotlight on the AFL’s confidentiality problem.

Under the agreement struck between the AFL and the AFLPA, the results of the testing are treated as confidential individual health information. As such, the results, and presumably names, are available to club doctors, and, presumably de-identified, to club CEOs. How these officers treat the information within their club is their decision.

Robinson’s story claims that “up to eleven” Collingwood players tested positive to illicit drug use in out-of-season testing.

How would that information have found its way to the Herald-Sun? It’s reasonable to assume that Collingwood didn't pass it on, notwithstanding that they are probably angry at “up to eleven” of their players. It’s also reasonable to assume that Collingwood’s results wouldn't have been passed on to other club CEOs who could then leak them for competitive advantage. So, there are only two possible sources remaining: the organisation doing the actual testing, and the AFL.

Robinson has been copping flak on social media and from clubs, and so he should. Having access to the information doesn’t mean a story has to be written. In yet another indication of mainstream media’s clickbait mentality, Robinson and his editors demonstrate their amoral approach to news. But that’s not where the real blame resides.

This leaking of confidential information from the AFL, or a closely-linked organisation, isn't an isolated case. Anyone who cast a disinterested eye over the Essendon supplements furore will recall consistent, sustained leaking of confidential information to journalists.

This is Gillon McLachlan’s problem.

We watched the Richmond-Port Adelaide pre-season practice game on Foxtel last night and couldn't believe our ears near the end.

It was a spirited affair throughout, with the Tigers’ abysmal skills — and, it must be said, a mounting in-game injury toll — contributing to their inability to compete with Port.

Halfway through the last quarter, with Port well ahead, Tigers coach Damien Hardwick began ushering his best players from the field. It wasn't immediately clear whether he feared injury or exhaustion, but at the end of the game the Tigers only had about 15 players on the field. Apparently, Richmond asked for the game to be called off during the last quarter.

There's plenty of grist for controversy in what’s been described, but that wasn't what stunned us.

As AFL football operations chief Mark Evans consulted with Richmond officials on the sidelines, Foxtel caller Eddie “Everywhere” Maguire remarked that Hardwick’s actions could have wider implications, including the betting markets.

There was also a question to Carlton coach Brendan Bolton after the Blues fielded an inexperienced line-up against the Bombers. The questioner implied that Bolton should have considered the betting markets in choosing his squad for the game.

We had been aware that online bookmakers were framing markets on the pre-season “challenge” games. Maguire’s comment  brought the issue to our attention again.

People are wagering money on practice games? That’s tragic on so many levels. Despite the hyper-inflated hyperbole of callers like Dwayne Russell, these are practice games. The football public has only the barest idea of what each club’s objectives for each practice game may be. In these circumstances, does the AFL condone betting markets being framed on these “contests”?

AussieRulesBlog can imagine a relatively-sane rationale for gambling on home and away matches, or finals. At the very least, on most occasions, both teams go onto the field with a scoreboard victory as a primary motivation. Particularly down-trodden teams might go into games against more-fancied opponents with the objective of limiting the scoreboard humiliation, but there’s a genuine contest.

As we’ve seen in recent weeks, practice games are quite another matter. West Coast, for instance, fielded a veritable ‘seconds’ team in their first pre-season hitout and were trounced by the Crows — on the scoreboard. In their second game, against the Suns, West Coast fielded a far more experienced lineup, running out three-point ‘winners’ over a similarly experienced Suns group. Even on these basic facts, it’s abundantly clear that West Coast’s objectives in these two games were, at the very least, dissimilar.

The tissue of respectability the gambling industry hides behind is the now-ubiquitous “gamble responsibly” message that accompanies gambling advertising. Do Mike Fitzpatrick, Gill McLachlan and Mark Evans know how many children will go without this week because a parent gambled on an AFL practice game? And to what extent would consideration of betting markets influence a decision to suspend a game?

The link between the AFL competition and gambling is troubling.

We're watching the Cats and Barcodes going around on the second weekend of preseason, and it just occurred to us that something is missing.

The concept of having every scoring decision correct  isn't a bad one, but when it means a minute or more of slow motion replay it becomes a needless distraction.

It has been noticeable (eventually) that the game is not being interrupted to check every close goal line decision. It took time to notice it was missing because it's rarely really necessary through the home and away season.

Let's just get rid of the distraction and let the goal umpires make their decision.

According to The Age's chief football writer, "The embarrassing oversight that has seen Alastair Clarkson not once named the AFL's coach of the year has led to a policy change by the games's coaching body."

Why is it embarrassing? Sure, his team has won three AFL Premierships on the trot — a not insignificant achievement — but should a premiership automatically qualify Clarkson to win the award? Should Clarkson get the gong if the Hawks finish ninth this year, as some sort of compensation?

We checked on the AFLCA website and here is the current basis for coaches voting on their peers for this award:

Allan Jeans Senior Coach of the Year AwardThis award is in recognition of the best performed Senior Coach throughout the home and away season, having regard for current season's performance, available resources, player talent and team management.