ALMOST a year ago, I was embroiled in a heated debate on radio with Dwayne Russell over what I thought was the diminishing impact of many of Australian football's original facets. I call them the cornerstones of our game.

I argued that these cornerstones help give our game its unique identity, and that they are being eroded — visually and statistically. The cornerstones are: long kicking and intelligent short kicking, high marking, high scoring and physical contact.

I believe they are being eroded by several ill-conceived rule changes and interpretations coinciding with coaching strategies and game plans brought about to counteract these rules.

Let's look at these areas, consider possible causes and remedies and look at examples of each.

KICKING

The lack of long kicking is due to the introduction of flooding, a refusal to kick to a 50-50 contest and playing tempo/possession football. There is one rule change that led to this and that is the quick kick-in after a point.

With no lull in play, manning up is non-existent and physically impossible, so in a group defence mentality, players head to the back half in numbers to halt quick offensive moves.

I recommend a return to the old kick-in rule with 30 and 50-metre arcs (as first mooted by Essendon coach Kevin Sheedy). Kicks inside the 30-metre arc would be called play on, forcing teams to plan strategy on longer clearing kicks unless they want to risk kicking short. Zones and man-on-man defensive strategies will return, and can be broken down by good offensive kick-in strategies.

Too much play in the modern game resembles circle work. You often see five to seven minutes of ineffectual ball movement without a goal.

The second option for the use of the longer kicking is the nine-point (or 12-point) goal from outside 50 metres.

This adds excitement, keeps more games alive longer and if an attempted supergoal falls short, someone may get the opportunity to take a high — I repeat, high — mark. For the traditionalists, supergoals would be counted as one in official records.

HIGH MARKING

Another rule change to help preserve this cornerstone would be that any kick backwards outside the forward 50 be ruled play on. There's no greater frustration for supporters than kicks backwards to keep possession or run the clock down. This often leads to greater flooding and uncontested possession. If the players chipping it around were forced to play on, the opposition would be more inclined to rush the ball-carrier to force the issue.

The ball-carrier taught not to kick to a 50-50 contest may be forced into a hurried longer kick out of the danger zone. A longer kick with more hang time is a recipe for more high marks.

The hands-in-the-back rule interpretation must return to its previous state. Two weeks ago, Mark McVeigh took a screamer. What followed was farcical. AFL umpiring director Jeff Gieschen declared it a mark, contradicting a rules DVD shown to clubs and media in the pre-season. Rules committee member Kevin Bartlett said the mark was illegal and state umpiring director Kevin Mitchell said McVeigh's mark wouldn't be paid in the VFL. The VFL is the second-best league and an AFL feeder competition.

Players rotate between both levels, but seem to be playing under a different set of rules and interpretations.

When players jump, they raise their arms for balance. Resting fingers on someone for balance should not be penalised; pushing a player forward, denying him a chance to compete should be a free kick for in-the-back.

HIGH SCORING

How liberating was the Carlton-Brisbane Lions game last week, when quick, long balls and less defensive strategies combined? Look at Leigh Matthews and Denis Pagan's successful eras — high scoring was prevalent. Both have adapted to the modern game, but must have been like pigs in the proverbial the other night.

Scoring averages after five rounds suggest a lower level than 30 years ago and needs to be dealt with.

The other issue is the belief that you can win a premiership only with a defensive thought process. You need only look at two of the more defensive games last year, the grand final included, to debunk this theory.

Richmond's three-point win over Adelaide in round eight was a tactical masterpiece by Terry Wallace. People forget that his strategy was based on getting offensive advantage early, which Richmond did, and then shutting down the game. How would the strategy work if the Tigers were three goals down after five minutes?

The Swans were four goals down at half-time of last year's grand final and, for the next 15 minutes, produced an offensive burst to get back into the game. Twelve goals per team in a grand final isn't totally defensive. It's great to defend, but stanzas of a game need to be worked offensively if the original plan isn't working.

PHYSICAL CONTACT

The retention of physical contact is the hardest cornerstone to administer. It comes down to common sense and the fact that incidental and accidental contact occur. One example needing clarity is the rule relating to the five-metre shepherding zone, put under the spotlight in last year's Daniel Giansiracusa/Justin Koschitzke incident. The rule should be discarded or not open to the scrutiny given to the case last year. The rule exists. Giansiracusa's action was legal, Koschitzke's awareness poor. No hysteria. Move on.

Soccer, hockey, international rules, even water polo have influenced how our game is played (mainly defensively). My arguments are based on the unique identity of our code. These cornerstones have been diminished.

I've always been concerned about over-regulation of football based on placating community standards and pampering to political correctness.

I'm reluctant to suggest solutions based on more rule changes, and would like an easier remedy, but I don't think there is one.

Tony Shaw's column appears every Friday.