AFL rule changes are seldom, if ever, greeted with jubilation and dancing in the streets. So the public backlash to the banning of the third man up in ruck contests was fairly predictable.
It's the potential negatives of another tweak to the rules that are always given more air time than the positives, and in the latest outpouring of displeasure one man's name loomed larger than any other.
Gary Ablett snr's incredible nine-goal haul for Geelong in the 1989 grand final has been trotted out again and again on social media over the past 24 hours, specifically the moment in the second quarter when he soared over his own ruckman Darren Flanigan and Hawthorn's Greg Dear at a boundary throw-in to take the ball and snap an amazing goal.
It's a huge highlight, sure. But isn't the fact we have to go back 26 years to find it a comment in itself? That for all the hand-wringing, the third man up isn't exactly a cornerstone of the game?
Related Content
Hawthorn captain Luke Hodge and Geelong Brownlow medallist Patrick Dangerfield, proficient at the skill themselves, aren't happy. Nor might be Hodge's former teammate Jordan Lewis.
But if you're a part of the "leave the rules alone" brigade presumably on the basis of keeping the game as it has been played traditionally, this is one rule change about which you should be pleased.
With the distinctions between various positional players diminished by the year, this actually helps preserve the role of the ruckman, a role which has come under threat like few other.
"No more rib guard", tweeted Melbourne's Max Gawn at the news. Ask any of his ruck peers and they'll be similarly relieved. But also pleased at more of an opportunity to display the tapping and palming skills they've spent their careers honing.
If that's more difficult these days given the congestion around the ball, the old Clark Keating-esque smash over the traffic is a tactic they're quite capable of exploiting rather than relying on a leaping teammate while they nullify their ruck opponent in a nil-all draw.
In terms of practical impact on how the game looks, it's actually the tightening of the deliberate rushed behind interpretation that might have a lot more influence on aesthetics than the abolition of third man up.
This is another positive, hopefully taking the rule a lot closer to how it was being interpreted not just by umpires, but by defenders under pressure, when it was introduced for the 2009 season.
Perhaps players then panicked unduly, but early on after the rule was implemented we saw many defenders desperately trying to keep the ball alive rather than seek the safety net of conceding a rushed behind and risk being penalised. It was exciting stuff, but beyond that, at least the ball remained in play longer.
Year by year, as more latitude has been given, we've been taken back to not far from where we were when Hawthorn defenders seeking a respite were booting the ball through their own goals in the 2008 grand final.
Yes, it will be tougher on defenders now. But defence, in terms not only of preventing opposition scores but clearing the danger zone, is an important skill, too. We should be encouraging the art rather than offering a safety net which requires none.
Not to mention bringing the deliberate rule into line with the harsher interpretation that now exists for the practice around the ground. The huge gap in interpretation between what was paid dependent upon the width of a point post was a major anomaly that needed to be corrected, and now has been.
Attempting to clear congestion, rightly, remains a Laws of the Game panel priority. The statistics show third men up have done little to clear the traffic around stoppages. Nor, for that matter, has just about any other recent rule change.
Not a limit of 120 then 90 on interchange rotations. Not the tighter calls on deliberate out of bounds and the 10-metre protected area around the mark and the consequent reduction of boundary throw-ins.
We're either stuck with the traffic jam of players around the ball that has become a hallmark of contemporary football, or we're going to have to pursue still more radical solutions.
That won't please the punters. But nor, seemingly, does the congestion. Perhaps the middle ground is rule changes that attempt to preserve as many of the traditional features of AFL football as possible. And I reckon these latest ones at the very least help do that.