THE new season was five minutes old on Friday night when a familiar cry rang out at the MCG. "Ball!" they called. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, it wasn't a demand for a free kick but an indication as to which St Kilda player had been poleaxed.

Whatever the eventual judgement of Luke Ball's collision with Matthew Whelan, it was depressing to see the brilliant Saint get another serious injury. If this is where football courage leads, something is not quite right.

Alternatively, if this is about a brave player being strategically and consistently targeted, it is seriously wrong. The third possibility is that Ball has an inordinate amount of bad luck, although it's hard to believe his tendency for head injuries is merely that.

While Friday night's incident was unfortunate, its timing was felicitous. Officialdom's new concern about protection of the head requires guidelines only precedents can bring, and this case is tailor made.

Whelan's shepherd was a strong body block and didn't appear malicious in its intent. It might even pass muster as not having been executed with unreasonable force in the circumstances. And Whelan was also hurt which, while not absolutely absolving him, does suggest he too was taking a physical risk.

The other side of the coin is that he initiated a heavy collision with a player who didn't have the ball. The opposing player had cuts to the face, which in the rules is a protected area.

A judgement will have to be made as to whether negligence, at the least, on Whelan's part contributed to Ball's injury. It is a significant incident given that the match review panel will be understandably anxious to draw a line in the sand on contact to the head, yet this incident appears to straddle the border of legitimacy.

While the sight of Ball again being felled, with the season barely begun, was sickening, the Demon defender might gain the benefit of the doubt. He did not seek to attack the pursuing player so much as to vigorously block his path. There is a difference.

It wasn't the only contentious incident over the weekend in which the cry of "Ball!" was heard. After a pre-season of hyperbole about the game going soft, of the head and back being overly protected, the umpires seemed determined to demonstrate it wouldn't happen.

The one rule that would seem to have been emphasised was the one about punishing the poor blighter with the footy. Twenty-one frees were paid for holding the ball in the two games I saw — well above last year's average.

Football needs a debate about holding the ball. Such a rule is needed because the playmaker must have limitations imposed upon his freedom for the game to have its edge, but he also should be encouraged to take risks. Under the current interpretation, he is not.

The rules are being applied according to how coaches want their teams to play. Players are encouraged to give the ball off quickly, not to be too ambitious in the face of the tackler.

Coaches can preach whichever doctrine they like, but the rule makers should be trying to define a game that promotes adventurous, attractive football. They should ask themselves whether they would like to see someone play like Robert Flower amid football's modern crucible.

Penalising players for holding the ball when they have taken three quick steps and been caught is to discourage risk. "Rewarding the tackler" for an unbreakable tackle, when the ball player has done what footballers have done for over 100 years — taken possession under pressure — is to distort the priorities of the game. If we want more attractive football, we should encourage those who are capable of providing it.