Job Justification and the AFL

Blog note: I have been asked by BigFooty.com to post blog entries twice a week on AFL, and I'll reproduce them here. That is why there will be a lot of footy blog posts over the next seven months. I'll try to still post about other stuff when I can. Apologies to my non-footy constituency.

My previous job (other than football authority) was with a government statutory authority. This organisation shared a Human Resources department (known as "People and Culture") with another statutory authority which worked roughly in same area as mine did.

This HR department was well resourced (unlike some other "operational" areas of our organisation), and went around ensuring we upheld the organisations values, knew our rights and responsibilities regarding all manner of things that had little to do with our day-to-day work.

I envisaged them sitting in their office cubicles, or more likely in one of their 34 meetings for the day, trying to brainstorm things to do so they could feel and look important, and more importantly, indispensible. When all we needed was someone to make sure we got paid on time, made sure our leave balances were correct, and then left us alone to make the world a better place.

I get the same feeling when I think of Adrian Anderson. News from the AFL is that at the Telstra Dome/Etihad Stadium/Docklands/ for the remainder of the NAB Cup, the crowd will be able to see how long there is to go in a quarter by viewing a countdown clock located on the scoreboard.

Who thought of this, and more importantly, what identified problem does this solve? Most people I know love the uncertainty of the end of a quarter, especially at the end of a game when it is tight.

But this is only typical of the noise coming from Harbour Esplanade. Hawthorn, keen to utilise a glut of silky left footers in their back half, rush a few behinds in a Grand Final. The problem isn't that big, and the easy, quick solution (stopping those who rush the behind from kicking it in) is ignored, instead responsibility is placed upon umpires to make a judgement call about player intent, and now we have a deliberately rushed behind infringement.

Sydney have 19 men on the field for 30 seconds at the end of a game, and the extra player arguably has an effect on the result of the game, which is a draw. Instead of accepting a quick, effective solution (docking Sydney two points), the AFL throws out decades of precedent (and not for the first time - see StK v Freo 2006) and radically alters how players interchange on and off the field.

And so it goes. I sat next to Adrian Anderson on a train to the cricket on December 27, and he really struck me as a man full of his own importance (and he really looks like his brother, who was with him).

It is clear that he feels a need to justify his existence, at a time when interest in the game and attendances are at an all-time high. But someone in a role like his doing no tweaking to a game that doesn't need it is a man on borrowed time. So we keep changing rules, adding "innovations", and so on.

The rushed behind change is a classic example. Instead of trying to limit the number of judgement calls an umpire needs to make in a game, thus making the game easier to umpire and minimising mistakes, the AFL under Anderson's stewardship goes the other way. It's just ridiculous.

What we need now is what a lot of players have been saying for a while: time. Some time without changes, for the game to organically and holistically evolve, and for problems to sort themselves out. And if that makes Adrian Anderson superfluous, then so be it.