For an organisation which has veered from blunder to embarrassment to another blunder too frequently of late, the AFL has at least started to kick a few goals again over the last couple of weeks.
Its appointment of former Brisbane chief executive Greg Swann as general manager of football performance was perfect, appeasing the clubs and giving the game an affable and media-friendly frontman for football issues.
Tom Harley as newly-installed chief operating officer is another winning move, the former Geelong skipper, media commentator and Sydney boss again universally respected and popular.
Now chief executive Andrew Dillon has announced the return of the AFL's Competition Committee, last seen in 2022, as a sounding board of AFL and club officials, coaches and players on all major issues affecting the game.
It's another winner. Smart public relations, sure, but also a direct link to the game's coalface for the AFL Commission and executive. Given the multitude of debates and controversies emerging surrounding the game in recent times, it should also waste no time convening its first meeting.
We're here to help, too. So here's what they should be focusing on before anything else.
Loosen up the MRO criteria
It's been 20-odd years now since the grading system was introduced primarily to simplify the AFL's disciplinary process and spare all parties unnecessary time and tribunal hearings adjudicating on relatively trivial incidents. To that end, it's worked well. But for the more serious indiscretions? Not so much. As we've seen time and again, one size can never fit all in a high velocity game of which physical contact is a major part.
There's little doubt that fear about potential concussion lawsuits is behind some heavier penalties, but that should never be second-guessed in a pre-emptive crackdown. And there simply has to be a greater degree of flexibility in a game with so many variables. So how about stripping the whole thing back and starting again with two simple but important premises.
Firstly, that the intent of an action is as important as its consequences. And second, that an action occurring organically within an act of play and within the spirit of the game is decidedly different, and less punishable, than an act which cannot be rationalized as part of the game. Would that help? I think it would.
Clarify 'insufficient intent out of bounds' free kicks
We've moved a long way from when free kicks were awarded for "deliberately" putting the ball out of bounds. Too far, in my view. While it's noble enough to "encourage" players to keep the ball in play, as the "spirit and intention" part of the rule says, the hard-line interpretation of intent means we now far more frequently see players allowing the ball to dribble out of bounds from the boot or hand of an opposition player in order to win a free kick, contrary to that aim. The rule also supposedly allows latitude for skill errors, but we still see too many of those punished. And the greater scope for out of bounds free kicks now has created another instance of inconsistent application where previously none applied.
We could simply apply the "last touch" rule used with effect in the SANFL, and remove any doubt. Or we could dial back what is deemed insufficient. Either would do me. But philosophically, I believe a player kicking the ball forward 30-40 metres and vaguely parallel with the boundary should never be penalized. Which is why I'd prefer the latter option.
Lock in a day Grand Final, for good
Media executives and attention-seeking commentators with less feel for either the cultural nuances of the game or the mood of the football public than most of us can stamp their feet all they like, but time after time after time, surveys show that a vast majority of fans and the players who present the product like the tradition of a 2.30pm Grand Final start time. So lock it in and let's stop this tedious annual debate and belated announcement that at least something in football remains sacred
Apart from the rubbery figures suggesting (insert made-up number) more people would watch half-interestedly because it was at night (and are they likely to be converted to genuine fans anyway?) what about the goodwill generated by the AFL for once being seen by the genuine fan base as listening to what it wants? As the ad says ... priceless.
Do something about the lack of free-to-air coverage
Hasn't the horse already bolted on this one? Perhaps. But the fact not of one of four Saturday games in a regular round are covered by free-to-air television in a deal which we're stuck with until 2031 has proved a public relations disaster for the AFL, reinforcing the popular view that the league is a sneaky and tricky organisation which doesn't really give a toss about its rank-and-file fans. It's actually far more likely the backlash wasn't even considered, as last year when Thursday games were played, a similar "exclusive to pay TV" situation existed on Sundays.
Saturdays host four games rather than three, however, and as still the more traditional football day, the situation has awoken the public at large unhappily to the fact it now must pay to watch AFL on TV at all on a Saturday. So at least attempt to get TV networks Seven and Fox Footy around a table to talk about potentially brokering a solution, as unfamiliar as many of those involved are with concept of goodwill. And if not? Ensure it's never allowed to happen again.
The ESPN Footy Podcast crew discuss if the low-scoring battle between Adelaide and Hawthorn reaffirms that an AFL stadium in Tasmania must have a roof.
Stop just paying lip service to footy fans
And while we're talking about treating the AFL fan base with something a little better than complete contempt, why not actually give them a voice on this very committee we're discussing here? Yes, I'm serious. The AFL Fans Association was created in 2013 as an independent voice of the average football fan and has done its best to monitor and address a wide range of issues from the supporter point of view. But too often it has been treated dismissively not just by the league, but even more so by major media outlets (trust me, I've seen the contempt first-hand) who prefer to view all supporters as some sort of one-dimensional cerebrally-challenged cliché.
If the AFL really is serious about a Competition Committee truly representative of the widest possible range of views on the game, how can there not be a single member reflective of by the far the biggest (numerically) group of stakeholders? You really want to know what the fans think? Ask them directly. Then take their answers seriously.
You can read more of Rohan Connolly's work at FOOTYOLOGY.