To the idiots in charge of the AFL: Stop messing with our rules.

To the idiots in charge of airport security: Stop denying civil liberties and resort to common sense by allowing all nonthreatening items on aeroplanes.

In recent years, we have seen a significant increase in the number of occasions where an umpire calls for a television replay in order to determine whether the ball has reached the boundary as opposed to being legitimately fielded in the outfield. This practice for calling for a replay slows the game down, worsening slow over rates, and is surely infuriating for both players and spectators alike.

The cause of all this is the rule change instigated a couple of years ago which stated that a fieldsman who is in contact with the boundary becomes part of the boundary. The adjucidation of whether or not a fielder is simulataneously in contact with the ball and boundary is the primary cuause of difficulty, whereas it is almost never in question as to whether or not the ball has reached the boundary rope. A simple commonsense rule change could easily solve this problem. This would be to make the sole criterion of a boundary to be the position of the ball, so that it is possible for the fieldsman to be in contact with the rope, or even partially over the rope, while simultaneously in contact with the ball, provided of course that the ball lies within the field of play. This would be the same as it has been in seasons past, when for example a catch could be taken while leaning against the boundary fence -and be similar to the out of bounds rule in football. A simple logical change - for the better.

Extra gripe:My extra gripe is with the method of breaking ties in the one day competition. I strongly disagree as to the use of the head to head method for breaking a tie. We already have a statistical indication of the strength of a teams season, the net run rate, which would give a better reflection as to which team is indeed stronger.

I watch the games of the Socceroos with pride and hope they win, but I have concerns about the detrimental impact their success could have on Australia. Australian soccer, regardless of its administrators' efforts, is still a game that promotes tensions between ethnic communities causing further harm to our already damaged social cohesion. It does not promote friendship between competing nations, as indicated by rampaging supporters attacking each other.

The Australian ethos is one of ruggedness and extreme hardship, built on a past of fidelity and mateship with a metorious capacity to endure. These are still displayed and exemplified in our football codes of Australian Rules and rugby. Soccer presents a disparity to these cultural aspects with the pretence of writhing about in pain from an ankle tap or soft contact. The rules of the game were made by a committee of blueblood English university students based on their fear of physicality. The rules are in direct contrast to the aspects of life which forged the Australian character.

I look forward to the Socceroos' success and I will, like all Australians, take pride in their endeavours while hoping the game remains in the backwater of the football codes of our nation.