I think when AFL fans today talk of softness they refer mainly to what’s been happening off the field. There are too many rule changes, pedantic interpretations by umpires (no doubt under instruction), and match review panels where coughs and sneezes are now penalised as not being appropriate in the 21st century.

Back in the “good, old days”, when men were men and women ate their young, if the umpire (only one) didn’t see it, it didn’t happen. And, frankly, very few minded.

Certainly there was no risk of being picked up on Monday morning by some review panel watching the replay – there were no replays.

I’ve previously told the story of a Sturt player, a lay preacher, copping constant abuse from his West Adelaide opponent concerning his beliefs. ‘Bible bashing bastard was a phrase’ frequently used.

Late in the day our young Christian had just about enough and he decked his WA friend. “Umpire, did you see that?” came the complaint from the tormentor.

“I certainly did”, said the umpire, “Not bad for a Bible bashing bastard”.

The umpire knew what had been going on and turned a blind eye. No report, no nothing, it didn’t happen!

These days, of course, that sort of common sense umpiring cannot happen. The review panel will pick it up, the umpire will be asked to explain how he missed it and everyone is in trouble. Some call it progress.

Now, nobody wants to see thuggery of the sort I’ve seen since the fifties and today that aspect has virtually disappeared from the game.
No complaints from me.

Unfortunately, there’s no room for common sense either.

We would like to think our West Adelaide friend and his ilk have disappeared from the game. They haven’t, of course, it’s just that our Sturt friend can no longer retaliate without penalty. So any “softness” has really been forced on the players from outside influences.

The game is just as hard, tough and difficult as ever. Rugby league fans may call it soft but then the majority of them pay to watch big blokes run at each other from ten metres away. They don’t hear the smack of body on body so much as hear the squelch (sorry, boys, couldn’t resist – in my minds eye I can see Inglis and Idris running at each other).

Acts like Toovey’s have been going on since day one. Sometimes you get to walk away, sometimes not. Nobody, however, can ever question the courage required.

The players of every single generation have been bigger and stronger than the last. Not so much the individual but the sheer number. A 1930s premiership team I read about had three players over six foot tall. A 1970s team from the same article had fifteen.

The fitness today is unrivalled in the game. The bump is gone but the tackling is more intense which may be, in part, because the bump has gone. Players today are grabbed where in the past they may have been shirt-fronted (or filleted, as a friend of mine used to say). You don’t see Magro’s shirt-front of Jezza any more.

Of course, some of that is the way the game is played today. Free running, zoning etc. means most kicks in a game are executed without physical pressure. Certainly, they are executed at pace but usually in the clear so anyone who gets himself shirt-fronted, or even tackled, has probably made a mistake in judgement. The real change has occurred around the stoppages.

This is where the modern game is so much more intense than before.

It is much more difficult to get a clear possession in this area of the game. The numbers at the stoppages now resemble those games the seven year olds play – a constant swarming mass around the ball. This, of course, detracts somewhat from the spectacle but it doesn’t alter the skill and courage required to be in there amongst it.

Of course, to be fair, the modern player does not have to worry about Ted Whitten any more, or Ronnie Andrews or big Carl. They know that they won’t collect a swinging arm for their troubles.

In those days they’d get a free kick, of course, but they’d have to find their head first. In this sense, the game today is easier to play because the modern player does not have quite so many things to think about.

In terms of fitness, skills, intelligence ans the like, the game today is harder to play. Tactics, set plays and run-ons having to be stopped without taking someone’s head off means more is asked of the modern player than in days gone by.

The skills are generally better, certainly the two-sided aspect, but today’s players still miss too many targets and they still can’t kick for goal – unless they are running the ball along the ground at some ridiculous angle. The easy ones are just as, well, difficult.

It is a contact sport, still, and the 360 degree nature off it means collisions still occur and players still get hurt. Unlike the rugby codes there is no gifted possession so every ball is a contest which, again, leads to collision and injury.

Australian Rules has never been a soft game. It’s not a soft game now.

Off field, though, they’re doing their best. Let’s hope they leave something for future generations. As a comment said, “There’s more powerful interests than the basic spectacle at play”.

This is the danger area to the game as we know it, and have known it. It is difficult to predict, with certainty, where the game is headed but the indications are clear.

Perhaps, we can say the intention in future will be to make the game “safer”, if not “softer”. Inevitably though safer will cause softer as a natural by-product. Of course, that all depends on your definition of soft.

Right now it requires fitness, skill and courage. May it always be so.