by DOC » Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:06 am
Graham Cornes.
JUST as it was starting to work its way into our football hearts, Port Adelaide has blown it again.
There has been so much to like about the Power in recent years. It has shown us how to recruit, been more than competitive on the field and its 150th year celebrations took us all back on a fantastic journey of football nostalgia. And its young players have been a delight to watch. Most importantly, even before this season’s new rules impacted on the game, it has played football the way football was intended to be played – with a positive, attacking mindset.
But when you attack the SANFL, as Port has done this week, it is attacking the very hand that fed and nurtured it over the decades – saved it in fact when the administrators should have marched in and shut the club down. It’s bad enough having an AFL reserve team, with all the advantages it enjoys, playing in the SANFL. But then wanting to bring a player who has been a part of the AFL team back into its SANFL team on the same weekend is demanding too much. Surely it’s either one or the other. So it has gone running to the AFL to complain.
The one thing we South Australians should be proud of as the Melbourne-centric AFL slowly but surely has subjugated the game, is our independence of its stifling yoke. While it constantly tampered with the game, eroding the spirit and even the integrity of the game, the SANFL moved slowly and measured every new suggestion before accepting or rejecting it.
Port Adelaide’s pointed press release which attacked the SANFL for not allowing the substitute who may have played for the Power to then come back and play for the Magpies is petty and mischievous at best.
Remember, for a start, this ‘new rule’ was introduced with barely 36 hours’ notice before the season’s first AFL game. Besides, there are very few games this season when the SANFL game is scheduled after Port’s AFL match. It’s a spurious complaint because there will be very little, if any, disadvantage to the Power. Again, it ignites that simmering debate about highly-paid AFL players competing in the SANFL.
Port then complained further about the different rules its AFL players had to play under in the SANFL – as if this was a monumental disadvantage for its AFL team. As well as the hastily-introduced medical substitute law, it mentioned the standing the mark rule, third man up rule at ruck contests and last touch out of bounds. Interesting to note there was no mention of the anti-density laws that at the last minute were foisted on the VFL by the AFL this season. These are the rules that have generated so much consternation, confusion and criticism by AFL coaches in the first couple of weeks of implementation. We should be proud our SANFL refuses to knuckle under to such spontaneous, ill-considered decrees from the AFL.
The SANFL had a very good reason not to adopt the ‘standing the mark’ rule. It was concerned the coaches and players had not had enough time to absorb and understand the new rule which goes against centuries of ingrained football instinct. It should be noted the AFL invested over 500 hours with its umpires instructing and rehearsing the rule at the AFL clubs. Note also the rule hasn’t been introduced in the AFLW because of limited time constraints to bring players up to speed! It’s a ridiculous rule anyway that is completely unnecessary if coaches coach with attacking intent. The complaint of the third man up at ruck contests is again mischievous. The SANFL does have a rule preventing the third man up in ruck. You just don’t have to nominate who it is with the schoolboy-like hand in the air, as is the rather silly demand of the AFL.
There are other differing laws between the SANFL and AFL. The SANFL has a 25-metre rule for infringements as an alternative to the 50-metre penalty, football’s greatest blight. It’s much more sensible. And yes, we have a last touch rule designed to keep the ball in play, which as much as I personally dislike it, keeps the ball in play longer and reduces the stoppages. It’s impossible to see how any variations of those laws will impact on a young player’s development.
The Port Adelaide press release also complained about not having access to contracted players at other SANFL clubs. Is it serious? It wants to select a contracted player from a rival SANFL club to play against the team to which he is contracted? Surely I’ve misread that?
The debate about whether our two SA teams should have their reserve teams in the SANFL has never abated. We understand the advantages it provides for the two AFL coaches but it undermines the equity of the SANFL.
From the moment Port Adelaide launched its rogue bid to join the AFL back in 1990, it has torn at the integrity and the finances of the SANFL which has had no alternative but to bankroll it. When Adelaide Football Club, albeit reluctantly, had to pay 80 per cent of its profits back to the SANFL, Port paid nothing, devising devious methods and ‘Foundations’ to hide its true income. Today the Crows pay a levy of $400,000 to field their reserve team in the SANFL while Port pays nothing.
We should all have an appreciation of our origins and be grateful for the people and organisations which gave us our opportunities. Whether it likes it or not, Port Adelaide owes an enormous debt to the SANFL. Unfortunately, it has a poor way of showing it.