Archie Perkins was being honest. The AFL can’t ignore that

“I feel like it would impact me too much and I don’t think it would be in their best interests as a footy club to have me there because I wouldn’t be 100 per cent with it, and couldn’t really commit myself 100 per cent as opposed to staying here.”

For a start, Perkins was being honest about his preference, not telling clubs outside Victoria he would refuse to go their way if they picked him, a point his manager Robbie D’Orazio made to AFL Media when trying to douse the firestorm created by his comments, which could be seen as draft tampering.

No one should criticise an 18-year-old for being honest about his apprehension and his reluctance for his career to go a certain way, because that is healthy. But without denigrating him personally you could easily argue that if a player is not ready to move outside Victoria, they should not nominate for the draft.

Perhaps the sensible thing to do would be for those around a player who had that thought to say “just spend another year at home, with friends and family, playing in the VFL/east coast competition or NAB League under-19 competition until you’re ready”.

Eyebrows might be raised, but so what? Such a decision needs to be respected more than I sense it would be at the moment. Perkins had made no secret of his preference in interviews he held before draft day, so that should have been a conversation he had with those around him.

In the end, three clubs from outside Victoria – Adelaide, Sydney and the Gold Coast – had the chance to pick him before the Bombers, but did not.

The second advantage of a player being honest is that if a non-Victorian club had chosen to take him, they were aware of the risk and could create an environment that would help him settle into a new town.

If premiership Bulldog Tom Boyd’s experience in his first season taught us one thing, it’s that it is best for 18-year-olds to be honest, because they will all feel different emotions about what they have ahead of them in 2021 and people within clubs will help them.

But Perkins’ expression of his preference also has a potential effect that could be viewed as compromising the draft.

The reality is that he appeared less available to eight clubs outside Victoria than the 10 inside, particularly as it’s hard enough retaining players who move states at the best of times.

His comments, regardless of their effect on each club’s decision on whether to take him or not, create an unhealthy perception around one of the league’s key equalisation planks.

It also might encourage other youngsters to try the same approach, which becomes even more problematic if the talent resides in Western Australia or South Australia.

That means the AFL has to take the lead, investigate how broad the issue is and put in steps to stop any issues arising from the need of some players to stay near home.

The AFL appointed the highly regarded mental health team led by Dr Kate Hall and their input into the pathway program is vital.

The first point to be made is that talent pathways must prepare the professional footballers for the cold, hard reality that to play AFL they may need to move away for home and have them equipped to do that by the time they nominate for the national draft.

If the experts think that is impossible, then serious consideration needs to be given to raising the draft age or putting a limit on the number of players from each draft that can be selected at 18.

It is an issue the AFL has danced around for too long without fully addressing it.

Not everyone is Matt Rowell, but plenty of talented footballers are less worldly than aspiring professional tennis players, golfers, basketballers and cricketers.

The AFL must concede their approach is less sophisticated than it needs to be in preparing them for life in the AFL.

Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser once said “life wasn’t meant to be easy” and Perkins has found that out.

Rather than criticise him for being open, thank him for restarting a conversation the industry must have.