So Riewoldt and Hardwick have a tantrum, impartial and wise media sages like Matthew Richardson are outraged, and the AFL completely backflip. Really is unbelievable.
Let's take stock of how this went down. AFL: "Here's the rule, it's a safety thing. And this is how it will be interpreted". [incident occurs invoking the rule]. "Well the umpire was correct to pay those as per our stipulated interpretation. But oh, you're unhappy, coach of the penalised team and parochial fans? We'll change the interpretation immediately".
It really is an indefensible line of reasoning for a sports organisation to run with.
And what even is the interpretation now? Let me posit a hypothetical. Suppose in the exact same contest, Barrass turned side on and stuck his boots out to stop Riewoldt's run at him. Where does that fall now?
Why is AFL culture allergic to sensible rules with clear cut interpretations? We had a good thing going - no studs. Can't kick people with your studs. Why is that a problem.
Let's take stock of how this went down. AFL: "Here's the rule, it's a safety thing. And this is how it will be interpreted". [incident occurs invoking the rule]. "Well the umpire was correct to pay those as per our stipulated interpretation. But oh, you're unhappy, coach of the penalised team and parochial fans? We'll change the interpretation immediately".
It really is an indefensible line of reasoning for a sports organisation to run with.
And what even is the interpretation now? Let me posit a hypothetical. Suppose in the exact same contest, Barrass turned side on and stuck his boots out to stop Riewoldt's run at him. Where does that fall now?
Why is AFL culture allergic to sensible rules with clear cut interpretations? We had a good thing going - no studs. Can't kick people with your studs. Why is that a problem.