The AFL is in danger of making the same mistake as cricket in turning its sport into a lop-sided contest if some of the umpiring interpretations seen during round two are a true indication as to where the game is headed.
Just as cricket is a shadow of the sport it was in the 1970s and 80s because the game has swung too far in favour of the batsman at the expense of the bowlers, so the AFL is heading down the path of adjudicating too heavily in favour of the forwards at the expense of the defenders.
After just two rounds of the season the one question that needs to be answered more than any other is 'Just what are defenders able to do to prevent a forward from getting the ball without giving away a free kick?'
The otherwise exciting Friday night clash between Brisbane and Collingwood was marred by continual soft free kicks being paid to forwards of both sides for the most minimal of contact by defenders.
No wonder a bemused Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse said after the game that he planned to seek clarification from AFL umpires' boss Jeff Gieschen this week.
And if Malthouse, one of the AFL's most experienced coaches, cannot understand the current interpretations then what hope does the man in the outer have.
New interpretations such as preventing a defender from hitting the arms of a forward in a marking contest and the contentious 'hands in the back' rule whereby a player is penalised for even just placing his hand in the back of an opponent in a marking contest were brought in by the AFL to bring back the marking contests that were such a part of the game's golden era in the 1980s and 90s.
But instead they seem to be having the opposite effect - totally taking away the contest between forward and defender.
And if a defender happens to show any annoyance at all towards the umpire as a result of being penalised, the forward is immediately given a 50 metre penalty under the AFL's new 'zero tolerance' attitude towards back-chatting umpires.
This, the AFL says, is all about ensuring it can continue to recruit umpires into the game - especially at lower levels - but if the current rules continue going down the path they are it may be harder to recruit defenders into the game than umpires.
The contests between defenders such as Stephen Silvagni and Glen Jakovich and forwards such as Gary Ablett, Wayne Carey and Tony Lockett were compulsory viewing in the 1980s and 1990s but even those legendary defenders would struggle to compete given the way the game is being umpired these days.
Do we really want forwards to be offered so much protection by umpires that the one-on-one contests between forwards and defenders that have made the game so great are taken out of the game?
All this will lead to is basketball-type shoot-outs with goals coming so thick and fast that the game becomes repetitive and boring.
And if a shorter defender - such as former Kangaroos' great Glenn Archer - can't make legitimate body contact in marking contests, as was the case over the weekend when seemingly perfect spoils were pulled up for the most minor of infringements, then just like basketball it will simply be a case of the tallest player