I thought I'd take the opportunity to wish all AussieRulesBlog readers all the best for the festive season and the New Year.

I've outed myself a number of times as a traditionalist. As such, I would be saddened to see the demise of the Melbourne Football Club. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that the Dees are on life support.

There must be some limit to the river of top-up funds that flow to the Demons.

The old argument that there are thousands of MCC members who support the Demons but don’t stump up their money for membership courtesy of their MCC access is starting to wear thin. Even in their relative heydays recently (was it the odd or even years under Neale Daniher where they were competitive?), they didn't exactly pack out the ’G. The MCC have now tipped another $2 million in, but must be wondering if they’re throwing good money after bad.

Likewise the AFL.

Considering the anecdotal connections to the big end of town, you'd have to say that the Demons’ management and Boards over the years haven’t exactly shone. The Demons’ captains of industry can’t ALL be off skiing or in the south of France.

This situation can't be adequately explained by lack of Premierships or on-field success over an extended period. The Geelong faithful didn't drop off. The feral Tiger army appears from the woodwork every time there are consecutive wins. The Saints supporters remain, sadly, both vocal and numerous. The Bulldogs’ fans have stayed the distance. Surely all that success in the late 1950s should have generated a significant following for the Demons — but where are they?

The spectre of the Gold Coast Demons or West Sydney Demons looms ever larger.

In a recent press conference, a certain recently-resurrected AFL player whom this blog will not name — see the previous post! — made a comment about role model status. Those few who have read this blog in its entirety may recall a previous posting discussing role model status.

In 2001, I wrote to The Age Letters page criticising a coronial finding censuring Gary Ablett Snr for, among other things, failing in his responsibility as a role model (see here). As I opined at the time, Ablett had not been chosen by football clubs, nor acclaimed by the football public, for his capacity to make fine moral judgements.

Late in the 2008 season, Alan Didak and sundry Shaw siblings found themselves at the ‘Poor’ end of the moral judgement continuum. I was very critical of the three Magpies. The unwritten implication was that they had entered the AFL system in full knowledge of the requirement to be a ‘role model’. Following the recent press conference aluded to above, I find myself reassessing my position on the matter of role model status. Notwithstanding that reassessment, my general criticism of the Magpie trio remains, however the implied role model criticism is withdrawn unreservedly.

In considering the issue anew following this week’s press conference, I have concluded that there cannot be blanket assumption that everyone entering the system is appropriate to the task of role model when the primary consideration is physical sporting prowess. I am inescapably drawn to the conclusion that those equipped for the task will willingly embrace it, perhaps even seek it out.

It is irrational to suppose that these 16 groups of nearly 50 males will not contain most shades of the wide spectrum of human personality. While celebrating the football and team skills of these 800-odd men and youths, we must be careful not to automatically assume fitness for moral leadership. Let those who are capable, and willing, grasp the baton themselves. Let us keep our expectations of the rest to their sporting performance.

I hereby declare Aussie Rules blog to be a Ben Cousins-free zone until the footy actually starts! I wish him luck and hope, and expect, that he will succeed.

PS: The possibility that the Tiges might become genuinely competitive with the arrival of Cousins is the only truly sad aspect of the saga.

This weeks’ announcement of rule changes for 2009 competitions by the AFL is a mixed bag.

The imminent death of the ‘Bowden Manoeuvre’ is to be welcomed almost without qualification. Unfortunately, in putting the strategy to the sword, the AFL has once again demonstrated its penchant for overkill.

Despite a number of comments here and elsewhere decrying the move, I wholeheartedly support the introduction of two additional boundary umpires. Having one man patrolling the line on each side has been a nonsense for decades. Readers will remember, I hope, that the official reason for additional field umpires was initially the speed of the game. The poor old ‘boundaries’ have been struggling to keep up with an increasingly speedy game for many years. Ruckmen will simply have to adapt.

Modifications to the penalties for interchange infringements have moved in the right direction, but the punishment remains absolutely out of proportion to the crime.

Lastly, allowing umpires to recall poor bounces is, finally, a commonsense response to an increasing problem. I think the inherent uncertainty of the bounce is an important aspect of Aussie Rules, but very poor bounces have the potential to deliver too much advantage to a team. Of course the difficulty now is to decide how bad the bounce must be before it is recalled. This is, almost inevitably, the beginning of the slippery slope for the bounce. Inexorably, we will move toward replacing it with a throw-up. It will be a sad day when we no longer see the umpires bounce the ball.

In the first of a series of posts, I looked at Premiership coaches since 1960 and identified that gritty players who'd worked hard to get the best from their limited talent were disproportionately represented in the ranks of Premiership coaches.

I think there's one major reason that this should be so, but there is a prerequisite assumption involved.

The prerequisite is to assume that the performance level of the bottom 20% of a list determines the success of the team. Let me expand on this a little. Few would disagree that the ‘stars’ in a team are those who can be relied upon to produce close to their best most weeks. These may be the top 5–10% of the list. Then you've got the nucleus of the team — up to 70% of the list — who’ll do their assigned jobs most weeks without threatening to take the game by the throat, except in unusual circumstances. Then there’s the 20% who are the journeymen, the guys fighting to cement a place in the team, the guys who aren’t going to win BOGs, B&Fs or Brownlows. I think it’s the performance levels of these guys that defines Premiership teams.

OK, with the prerequisite assumption bedded down, how does this factor into coaching prowess? It seems to me that the list of the most successful Premiership coaches of the past 48 years is a list of blokes who made their playing reputations, such as they were, on guts and determination rather than natural talent. Who better to help the bottom 20% of a list understand what they need to do to cement a place in the team and potentially write themselves into history as Premiership players?

Of course, expounding on coaching credentials in this way is pretty meaningless without applying the ideas. So, of the current crop of coaches, who best fits the bill? These are subjective analyses, necessarily, but opinions make the blogosphere go ’round! Remember, Premierships are the only measure of success in this discussion and these assessments are relative.

Adelaide: Neil Craig
No record at AFL level, which could be seen as both a plus and a minus. I don’t see a flag from this coach.

Brisbane: Michael Voss
Not hugely talented in the Hird/Buckley mould, but not a gritty journeyman either. Ferocious determination on the field, but with the physical goods to make it happen. Especially without experience, I don’t see a happy ending here.

Carlton: Brett Ratten
A fair possibility if he can get the cattle.

Collingwood: Mick Malthouse
Classic example of the theory early in his career. The burden of being at Collingwood and fading memories of playing days suggest no more flags for Mick.

Essendon: Matthew Knights
Classic example of who NOT to choose under this theory. Talented footballer who didn’t have to work hard to earn his spot. No flag here.

Fremantle: Mark Harvey
Undoubted courage as a player, but also a precocious talent. Flag unlikely.

Geelong: Mark Thompson
Certainly an example of this theory in action. Hard to see him not adding to the trophy cabinet.

Hawthorn: Alistair Clarkson
A bit part player at a few clubs, but kept bobbing up. 2008 flag was no accident. More to come.

Melbourne: Dean Bailey
Never a standout at Essendon as a player. Administrative issues, affecting playing stocks, could reduce his potential. Unlikely, but a possibility.

North Melbourne: Dean Laidley
Laidley’s nickname — Junkyard Dog — says it all. Administrative issues have wrought havoc. A Premiership coach in waiting.

Port Adelaide: Mark Williams
Certainly gritty as a player and no-one would accuse him of being gifted. Club culture and expectation are a millstone that reduce his potential to add to the trophies.

Richmond: Terry Wallace
Should be the essence of this theory. Disappointing thus far.

St Kilda: Ross Lyon
Highly-talented player. No flag, especially in the St Kilda culture.

Sydney: Paul Roos
Roos is the exception to prove the rule. Hugely talented as a player. His mentoring of Sydney into successive Grand Finals speaks volumes for his capabilities.

West Coast Eagles: John Worsfold
I’d rank him on the cusp of fitting the theory.

Western Bulldogs: Rodney Eade
Ticks all the boxes, but there seems to be a timeframe before his message wears thin.

Why is it that the British Bulldog crowd (Rugby League) and the mobile wrestlers (Rugby Union), with, arguably, more in common than Gaelic and Australian Rules football, don't play against each other? We've seen an increasing number of high-profile bulldogs (not just Canterbury/Bankstown!) cross to wrestling recently, mostly successfully it seems, so there's not an insurmountable gap between the codes skills wise.

On the other hand, we have only Jim Stynes, Tadhg Kennelly and Colm Begley who’ve succeeded at the highest level in aussie rules, the younger Stynes and two O’hAilpins who’ve stumbled and struggled, and a few more around the fringes. Have any Aussies gone to Dublin to tackle (;-)) Gaelic Football?

I’m sorry — I’m about to utter another heresy. The Internation Rules series is a crock that advances neither sport and only enriches, ever so slightly based on ratings, television channels. The chance that a team, in either code, could lose a crucial player for a season as a result of an injury sustained in a meaningless confection of a sport is too great. Let's just knock this unfortunate 'bastard' on the head and get on with our respective codes.

A report in The Age on possible rule changes is most disquieting.

While there is considerable argument on the necessity for a change in relation to intentionally rushing behinds, some of the solutions being touted are definitely worse than the disease.

Other proposals include:

• the provision of two substitutes on the bench in pre-season games
  do we really want to make Aussie Rules more like gridiron?
• Awarding a free kick and 50-metre penalty for players who put down, tackle or unreasonably retard an opponent who has disposed of the ball, which prevents them from reaching the next act of play or next contest
  I can already see the umpires getting stooged on this one
• Introducing a fourth field umpire to provide greater scrutiny at stoppages
  and yet another interpretation of rules on the ground — JUST what we need
• Increasing the legal kicking distance from 15 metres to 20 metres and possibly as much as 30 metres
  Huh? Where on earth does this come from?
• Making the goal line level with the back of padding around the goal posts
  clearly one of the most important issues in the game! This is a nonsense run up the flagpole to take scrutiny away from things that are important.

I'm with Glen Archer! Dean Laidley's floating of Hamish Macintosh as trade bait was tawdry in the extreme. I wonder what reaction there'll be, sometime next season, when Laidley implores Macintosh to find an extra ten percent? What about “F**k off”? What damage has Laidley, perhaps unwittingly, done to the invisible fabric of his team? Will the famous Shinboner Spirit be as weak as Pimms in ’09?

I remain convinced that the Bombers’ slide after 2001 was hastened by the way that Hardwicke, Caracella, Blumfield and Heffernan were seemingly disposed of. I don't think that team ever recovered their trust in the coach, match committee and club.

Back on Laidley's turf, the matter of Daniel Harris, if media reports are accurate, is a totally different scenario. Cameraderie and group cohesion is a fragile commodity, but Premierships are NOT won without it.

From the Great Southern Stand, the sight of the Carlton Draft hot air balloon drifting across the ground had bets being hurriedly laid on its chances of taking out a light tower, or perhaps a couple of beamers in the car park. One of the better moments from the pre-game 'entertainment'.

It is a sad fact of modern, corporatised, socialised sport that clubs can demand that players bleed for the jumper, but, come Trade Week, all bets are off and anything goes. If only loyalty were a two-way street...

I confess I am mildly astonished that no-one voting for the Norm Smith Medal saw fit to award even one vote to Chance Bateman, while his opponent for a good part of the day was largely ineffectual but gained a sizable tally.

And so, finally, to the football, which reached no great heights.

After an even first quarter (I know it was even, because Rob Waters told me at quarter time!), the Cats could have sealed the game in the second with straight kicking and looked to have the Hawks covered.

The turning point, in my view, was Rioli's wonderful defensive efforts on the Members' wing in the third quarter. Neither side had been able to break the other's will to this point, but the Hawks seemed galvanised by Rioli and slammed on a match-winning six goals for the quarter.

One has to feel for the Cats. Were the game to be played ten times, I'm confident they'd win the other nine. Still, it's the best on the day and the Hawks did what counted on the scoreboard better than the Cats.

Oh, one last note to the sound guys: perhaps we could have done with only ONE hundred renditions of the Hawks' song?

How long before the Bowden Rule is introduced? Brent Guerra got a bruised fist from all the handballs back across the goal line.

These incidents didn't, thankfully, impact meaningfully on the game, but they were unfailingly ugly. The Bowden Manoeuvre is, at the very least, unadventurous and unsporting.

After the Geelong v. North game in the first week of the finals last year, I was moved to write to Stephen Gough, Secretary of the MCC, to complain about the blood pouring from my ears as the Geelong theme song crescendoed again and again at the end of the game. Thankfully, for the remaining finals the sound guy managed to avoid hitting Spinal Tap's famed Eleven.

Not so however for the 2008 Grand Final. After almost bearable sound levels in the preceding weeks, Grand Final day dawned to reveal a sound system tuned to rock concert standards with a bass overload to push your sternum in by a good few centimetres. Suffice to say that barely anything resembling English could be discerned through this din. Ian Moss and Powderfinger may have gloried in such overkill, but ground announcements were a melange of cacophany out in the cheap seats.

Then, in case we hadn't noticed, the opening bounce is hyped by some maniacal babble, followed, at each break, by this voice repeating the scores to us and describing a highlight from the preceding quarter. The only disadvantaged people missing out were the blind, who could not see the action. Even the acutely deaf would have heard the ground announcements — not understood, mind you, just heard, like the rest of us! And Rob Waters graced the big screen to read selected statistics as they were displayed on the big screen. All of this is happening at a volume of twelve (remember the Spinal Tap gag...).

So loud was all this amplified nonsense, I could barely make myself understood to my companion in the next seat. Take off the ear muffs when doing the sound check next time guys!

By the way, when the Great Southern Stand is refurbished, could someone please wave a magic wand and arrange for knee room for persons over 150cm on the upper level? The poor chap in front of me got bruised shoulders from the many collisions with my knees.

In what must surely rank with the infamous "Batmobile" of 1991, the AFL plumbed anew the depths of lameness with the pathetic squirt of sparks and smoke that followed the Premiership Cup down on it's ill-conceived journey from the roof of the Great Southern Stand to the playing surface last Saturday. So 'powerful' was this gush of pyrotechnics that the Cup appeared destined to hover tantalisingly out of reach at one stage. Last year's balloon-flight delivery was, by comparison, a totally masterful presentation.

In order to distract attention from the preparations for the Cup's dizzying descent, the producers of what was amusingly labelled pre-game 'entertainment' also contrived to have a set constructed, the dimensions and complexity of which would have turned Cecil B de Mille in his resting place. One expected a cast of, literally, thousands. Yet there were a mere twenty-six 'performers', sixteen of whom were perched atop some of Steve Hooker's spare vaulting poles. The purpose of this acrobatic display remains a mystery.

In the wake of Voss being appointed to coach Brisbane in 2009, and with some other coaches potentially under pressure next year, it's a good time to consider how coaches are chosen.

It's one of the fables of aussie rules that truly great players can coach — a fable that Brisbane have bought into big time.

I've started a study to look at the influences on "successful" coaches. I am, somewhat arbitrarily, using Premierships as the signifier of "success".

Looking at Premiership coaches from 1960 to the present day, there are some interesting points to note. There are a few dynasties.

• Norm Smith – Ron Barassi – John Nicholls – Alex Jesaulenko – Robert Walls – Malcolm Blight
• John Kennedy – David Parkin – Leigh Matthews
• Tom Hafey – Tony Jewel – Kevin Sheedy – Mick Malthouse – Mark Thompson
  

Once again the AFL's penchant for overreaction and love affair with technical detail was laid bare as the Bulldogs battled the Swans on Friday night. There are two important points to be made in commenting on this issue.

When Tim Callan ran onto the field a metre outside the designated interchange gate, the Bulldogs gained no advantage whatsoever. Clearly the significance of the penalty massively outweighs the significance of the infraction.

Secondly, sitting in the crowd, it was impossible to know why Higgins' shot at goal was suddenly a Kennelly shot at the other end of the ground, apparently courtesy of the AFL Umpiring Department's Technocrat-in-Chief, Umpire McBurney (edited). It was just another of the mystifying incidents through a game where the crowd who've stumped up their hard-earned to actually be sitting at the game are disadvantaged. TV viewers and some radio listeners have the advantage of the umpires being miked, and so they (and the commentators, who are often at just as much a loss to explain the umpires' actions) mostly get a faintly coherent understanding.

There must be some way for Gieschen's mob to develop some signals or a scoreboard sign that provides a coherent explanation to the punters at the game. The fact that so many of the rule interpretations are so tiggy-touchwood and so technical serves only to exacerbate the problem.

Shaun Higgins wore a fearsone shirtfront from Brent Guerra on Friday night. His team scored a sorely needed goal as a result of him wearing one for the team.

What a pity that the goal scorer, one peroxided prancing prima donna, couldn't be bothered acknowledging Higgins' courage and commitment in the midst of his own self-centred celebration.

I've been a wrap for Higgins for a while. I reckon there's a bit of Ben Cousins about the way he moves. No doubting his courage though.

I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the Hawthorn-Western Bulldogs qualifying final. I like one or two beers at the footy and a pie. The prices are ridiculous, but for my simple needs I'm prepared to absorb them. At a nearby snack bar — a wonderful example of disorganised chaos if I've ever seen one — I spied a ham, cheese and salad sandwich with a sticker price of $7.90. Nearly eight dollars! For a pretty ordinary-looking sandwich! Highway bloody robbery!!! It seems that the AFL's licenced caterers feel that an essentially captive audience warrants charging like wounded bulls.

The AFL's determination to create a senior-level AFL team on the Gold Coast seems to know no bounds. The announced draft concessions appear to be incredibly generous — until you consider the average lifespan of AFL draftees and the success rate of high-level draft picks.

The kids being drafted to Gold Coast will also be entitled to feel somewhat short-changed. There's not going to be a cohort of experienced team leaders with substantial AFL pedigrees to provide the leadership, on and off the field, that these youngsters will need for them to have a reasonable chance of a successful AFL career.

Of course, it's the very determination to create the Gold Coast presence that makes these measures necessary.

It would be sad to see the courts being drawn into the draft system, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for these kids to feel that being drafted to Gold Coast potentially diminishes their capacity to earn a living (and set themselves up for life if they're smart) in AFL.

Brisbane would do well to recall the debacle that was Tim Watson's coaching career before appointing Michael Voss to succeed Leigh Matthews. The parallels between Voss and Watson are too similar to be easily discounted.

Clearly, there's a world of difference between offering comments on a media broadcast and taking on the role of head coach of an AFL club. In fact, it would be foolhardy not to recognise that the demands on senior coaches have grown in the years since Watson's ill-fated tenure at St Kilda.

And then there's the matter that Voss' contributions to the media broadcasts have been less than earth-shattering...

Dear Chaps,

As 2008 dwindles to a close, thoughts turn to 2009. I wonder if we could look forward to the unusual spectacle of consistent interpretations of rules through the length of the 2009 season? Would it be too much to ask that, at the close of the 2009 season, TV and radio callers don’t have just cause to remark that a particular rule has “disappeared”.

And while we’re at it, perhaps we could instruct the umpires at each game to rely on what they actually see? Too often field umpires make crucial decisions from one hundred metres away, or when the ball is on the blind side of the pack.

We could also have a rethink of the advantage rule, lining players up to “kick over the mark” and then allowing them to play on to one side or even backwards, chopping the arms in a marking contest and incidental contacts of all sorts.

Apart from those things, you've all done very well!

Watching the last quarter of the Hawthorn v. Carlton game in round 22, it was hard to escape the conclusion that Brendan Fevola plays predominantly for himself. As the end of his football year crept ever closer, Fevola’s feverish, nay, almost manic, efforts to gain possession of the ball to kick his hundredth goal were almost comical — had they not been such a sad reflection on the man’s motivations.

At the other end, by way of contrast, was a more team-oriented player. Admittedly, with quarters and weeks to spare, Franklin could afford to be sanguine, but it’s difficult to imagine him making such a spectacle of himself.

I suspect Carlton will struggle to make a real impact on the competition while Fevola remains within their ranks. One selfish apple can taint the whole barrel — as the Tigers know to their cost.

I image I'm about to commit public heresy, but here goes anyway. Robert Harvey is not a champion or a superstar of aussie rules. He is, at best, a superlative athlete who gathered a large number of possessions through an extraordinarily long career.

In my view, a champion can turn a game by their own efforts. I'm thinking of the likes of Buckley, Voss, Hird, Carey, Ablett Snr in more recent times. “Champion”, you may have gathered, is a term I consider has been bestowed overenthusiastically, not to mention the now almost ubiquitous sobriquet of "superstar".

What opposition coach would have lain awake wondering whether Robert Harvey would cut his team to ribbons? None.

So, well done Robert Harvey, for enduring the physical demands of playing and preparing for twenty-one seasons.

(with apologies to Mr Dickens)

Some years ago, at the height of the fallout over Gary Ablett Snr’s drug and booze-fuelled involvement with the death of Alicia Horan, I wrote to The Age condemning the Coroner's criticism of Ablett as a role model. In that letter, I made the point that Ablett would not have consciously taken on the mantle of “role model” later assigned to him by some (see below).

The same, however, cannot be said of Heath and Rhyce Shaw and Alan Didak. By the time these young men entered the ranks of AFL players, society’s expectations of the privileged few were crystal clear. I heard someone say, in the aftermath of their disastrous binge, that they’d been “hung out to dry”. I would contend that this is a misreading of the situation.

The facts are that these young men are considered elite athletes. Their club, their club’s supporters and the football world in general are entitled to expect that they act the part. By all means get blitzed on Mad Monday, but during the season we should be free of reports of drink driving, public urination and the like involving AFL-listed players.

If these young men, incidentally being paid pretty substantial amounts of money to be elite athletes, are so wedded to boozing through the season, let them play in a suburban or country team where their mates will be doing the same thing.

Times have changed; expectations have changed. AFL clubs need to ensure that club cultures also change.

==========================================================
Letter to the Editor, The Age, 31 March, 2001:

Two high-profile AFL figures have been pilloried during this last week. One gained his profile through his business acumen and standing in the community. The other gained his profile exclusively through physical prowess. The community has, unfairly in my opinion, this week expected the same rectitude of both men.

The coronial report handed down on Thursday has seriously overstepped the mark in censuring Gary Ablett for failing a responsibility as a community hero and role model. The Coroner has mistakenly decided that public acclamation automatically confers the ability to make fine moral judgements. Nothing could be further from reality.

Ablett's status in our community derives solely from his ability to play Australian Rules football. His former manager, speaking on the 7:30 Report, described his life skills as "basic". His relationship with an adoring public has always been more-or-less one-way.

The football clubs who recruited Ablett did so based on his footballing abilities rather than his life skills. Whether they or his management should have so protected him from life is another issue and one that the AFL Players Association in particular seems keen to address. The footballing public marvelled at his deeds on the football field, not at his ability to live a fine, upstanding private life.

It is troubling then that a responsible government official should apparently be so caught up in the hysterical fan worship of Ablett that responsibilities and roles he neither wanted nor was prepared for are arbitrarily assigned to him.

The other figure, Carlton President John Elliott, has been a part of the business and political establishment and might reasonably be expected to understand the import of his comments and actions. By undertaking the office of President of an AFL football club he also freely and knowingly accepts responsibilities as a 24-hour-a-day symbol of the club. It is a matter of record that he treats these responsibilities with scant regard.

Elliott is rightly asked to account for his actions. He is clearly responsible for them even if he chooses to thumb his nose at orthodoxy. While the death of Ms Horan is indeed sad, it is grossly inappropriate to saddle Ablett with responsibility for the actions of another adult.
Neither Elliott nor Ablett are good role models. The difference is that one achieved his position understanding the consequences.

Despite annual assurances by the umpiring administrators that their charges do not target certain rules or interpretations at certain times, it seems there's been another blitz by AFL umpires in recent weeks. Fifty-metre penalties seem to be all the rage, with one being handed out this past weekend because the offending player pointed at the umpire! It may be reasonable to expect players to show respect to the officials and to penalise threatening words and gestures or accusations of bias, but pointing?

Some senior umpires also appear to be fundamentalists. That is, they adhere to the strict letter of the law. Thus we have players on their feet penalised when a player dives head first at their legs and others penalised when their arms brush, incidentally, against their opponent's in a marking contest.

Not for the first time this season, I have the AFL's umpiring department (and Rules Committee) in my sights.

Watching an unusual number of TV games this weekend, I was struck by the number of free kicks paid against players who were standing when their opponents cannoned, head first, into their legs. What, in heavens’ name, is the standing player supposed to do? Fine let's keep the head sacrosanct (but only give Kerr three weeks for a deliberate roundarm punch: consistency?), but surely we can apply a little practical understanding of the game? The standing player in this scenario has nowhere to go to avoid making contact. This interpretation of high contact is an unqualified nonsense.

A second instance of incidental contact occurs in marking contests where one player’s arm or hand brushes the other player’s arm INCIDENTALLY. Please Jeff, it doesn’t matter whether the player doesn't hold the mark after such incidental contact. Does the contact drag the player’s arm away? That must be the only criterion.

There is so much incidental contact in the game, so much of which appears to be in plain view of an umpire, yet it seems random events are chosen to be penalised. Umpires must be given the freedom to judge within the context of the game, rather than inconsistently and imperfectly applying a zero tolerance standard.

Lastly, the AFL tell us the Rules Committee are trying to improve the image, speed and continuity of our game (leave it alone!! — but let's leave that aside for a moment). On Saturday we had the 'spectacle' of a full back waiting to be called to play on before walking backward to 'rush' a point in order to waste time. This is the same AFL that awards a free kick against a player kicking or punching a ball after it has crossed the boundary line. This is the same AFL that had its umpires awarding 50m penalties for TOUCHING a player after an uncontested mark (where has that interpretation gone?). Those penalties are for WASTING TIME. What the hell was Bowden doing?

Andrew? Jeff? Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

Breathless speculation this week that Buddy had dropped Charlie (the Charles Brownlow Medal) was just too much to bear. The last key forward to "take Charlie home" was ....

That's right! Buddy's chances of getting the Brownlow are akin to mine of getting the six special numbers on Saturday night.

Can we please get over this Buddy mania? Sure, he's an exciting player, but let's give the boy a chance to establish himself before we begin the beatification rites.

In the wake of his nine-goal haul last weekend, The Age’s Rohan Connolly saw fit to draw favourable comparisons between Lance Franklin and Wayne Carey. The Age must have been short of words for the day, because the comparison served up was so much confected nonsense.

While Franklin’s statistical output compares with Carey's, his on-ground presence is a shadow of Carey's. Can anyone seriously imagine Franklin today being seriously touted as the Hawks’ captain? Does anyone seriously think that Franklin could impose himself on a game and turn its course purely through his own efforts?

To put Franklin's effort into context, we should consider the Matthew Lloyd of 1999 and 2000 versus the Lloyd of 2008. In ’99 and ’00, Lloyd was near unstoppable, as Franklin (still only occasionally) is today. Both served by dominant midfields, getting the better of defenders was/is not insurmountable. The Lloyd of ’08 gets fewer opportunities, less favourably, because the midfield is being trounced. In these circumstances, it is becoming obvious that Lloyd is a more one-dimensional player than many would have thought.

The lone adjective not applicable to Carey was one-dimensional. When Franklin has, almost single-handedly, carried a team to glory in September, not once, but twice, it may be appropriate to start drawing comparisons with Carey.

News this morning that Essendon Captain, Matthew Lloyd, may be fined after making a comment on the report of Western Bulldogs’ Robert Murphy is worrying.

This AFL administration is no stranger to the notion of on-the-fly changes. In recent weeks we have seen the clear overreaction to an interchange issue, and a subsequent backdown on a crucial part of the “solution”.

The umpiring department regularly targets particular rules — it’s no use the AFL denying this, the proof is on show every weekend!

Now we learn that players are forbidden to comment on ad hoc changes that may have profound effects on how they can ply their trade. No other workforce would accept such restrictions. The AFL, in its single-minded determination to silence criticism from within the AFL ‘family’, is simply being precious.

A mature organisation avoids knee-jerk policy shifts, and so can compete effectively in the contest of ideas through weight of rational argument.

Perhaps it has always been thus, but the selection of Brendan Fevola for the Allen Aylett Medal as best player in the Hall of Fame Tribute Match emphasises, yet again, media representatives' preoccupation with goals.

"Highlights" packages of games routinely feature goals only. It's as if the players who don't kick goals have done nothing worthwhile. Of course there are goals worthy of inclusion. Steve Johnson's first in the Tribute Match was as spectacular and freakish as anyone could want (and I called it before the ball had bounced; before Johnson even touched the ball!), but Fevola kicking from 50 or 55 is hardly remarkable these days.

Of course the forwards have to be good enough to beat their opponents to the ball in order to kick the goals, but the rebounding defenders and midfielders get the ball and deliver it with sufficient precision... While we're on the topic, midfielders racking up 30-odd possessions is little justification for BOG honours as well in these days of tempo football.

So, who was better than Fevola? Adam Goodes, Brent Harvey, Andrew McLeod, Sam Mitchell, ...

The 2008 Hall of Fame Tribute match between Victoria and The Rest (aka The Dream Team) is done and dusted. The media representations have been, by and large, gushingly enthusiastic and positive, the AFL's slightly less so in order to dampen any groundswell for a return of State of Origin football.

The Tribute Match was a disaster as a spectacle. Almost 70,000 people were bored to snores. The main interest in the second half were a couple of fights at the city end and an enthusiastically-embraced Mexican wave.

The football itself was pretty good, with regular (and surely to-be-expected?) flashes of brilliance. The missing element was passion in the crowd. With teams based on confected eligibility (when was Adam Goodes a Victorian?) and confected allegience (surely the the All-Australian team is the real Dream team?), there was nothing to get excited about.

State-of-Origin (Australian Rules) football meant something before the national AFL league, when the SANFL and WAFL were elite competitions. The VFL's long-standing penchant for robbing the SANFL and WAFL of their best players, and for selecting those imports into the Victorian team for interstate matches, meant that, for South Australians and West Australians especially, there was a real passion to beat the hated Vics. Since the National competition and the emergence of two teams each in Adelaide and Perth, there is considerably less passion. As evidenced by the Tribute Match, in Victoria there's almost zero passion.

Not even EJ could have got really excited about a Tribute Match that teased with promise, but delivered little.

I'm watching the Tiges go ’round tonight on TV. Even after he misses the ball, Richo's first thought is to look to the big screen to watch himself! Narcissism gone mad.

Watching the telecast tonight, I noticed, not for the first time, that 'number' now appears to be a synonym for 'player'.

Not that long ago, as we all suffered through flooding, teams were regularly reported to be "getting numbers back". Tonight I heard Anthony Hudson describe a passage of play thus: "There's a number free [on the wing]..."

It's not quite of the quality of Peter Landy's famous "each of two" description of level scores, but not bad.

King of the Tongue-Twisters at the moment would have to be David Schwartz. The Ox wants to be considered educated and regularly mangles expressions. A recent favourite referred to a player being "a former shadow of himself".

I cheerfully admit to not having watched more than about 30 seconds of any episode of The Footy Show since around 1996 (it started in 1994). I became bored with Sam Newman's boorish, locker room humour and penchant for humiliating those least capable of standing up for themselves. Without Newman's influence, the rest of the show is pleasant enough in a blokey but muzak-like style (unlike the nonsense that is the NRL version of The Footy Show).

It's clear that Newman is an intelligent person — he would not have retained his prominence over more than a decade were he not. It's also clear that he courts controversy. Caroline Wilson, Newman's latest 'target', like most 'serious' journalists, can be a little precious at times, but that does not excuse Newman's boorish behaviour.

Today's Age reports that the show's ratings went through the roof on the back of this latest Newman-based controversy. It's hard to escape the conclusion that Newman is on a pretty long 'leash' from management and may indeed have a brief to generate controversy as a means of maintaining audience share.

The (AFL) Footy Show takes the lowest common denominator as its high-water mark for audience. Those who watch, or take public offence at its shenanigans, do little more than provide life-giving oxygen. Without an audience, Newman and co would be off the airwaves quicker than you can say Sam's Mailbag.

Last year I became aware that punters like me could get hold of the DVD that was sent to clubs to apprise them of the umpiring interpretations to be in vogue for the season about to commence. This year, I determined to get hold of one and to see whether, as a player, coach or spectator, I was any the wiser after viewing it.

All I can say dear friends is don't waste your time. One thing is clear though! The umpires and the umpiring department clearly don't refer to the DVD each week!!

From a rules standpoint, I think the biggest blights on the game currently are the so-called "hands in the back" rule — or at least the nonsensical zero tolerance interpretation being employed — and the holding the ball interpretation where a player "dives" on the ball and it's then held to him by an opponent. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen umpires pay free kicks when they can't see the ball. Must have an aspirin and lie down before I get too upset. More on this topic later...

With 2 drawn games in consecutive weeks, nearly everyone seems to have some preferred method for breaking the draw. What with extra time and golden goals being touted, it wouldn't surprise to see the team captains settling down to a quick game of stud poker to decide the winner!

This is nonsense. Can we leave the game alone for a little while and see where it is headed? For 150 years, teams have managed to deal with the hollow feeling of a draw — for those who thought they would win, anyway.

What is it about the noughties that there has to be a winner? There are bigger problems with the game than an occasional draw — like the consistency of umpiring interpretations from quarter to quarter for instance!

I'm sure the AFL would vigourously deny it, but many will see equivalence between the three-week suspensions of Daniel Kerr and Josh Carr. What will stick in many a craw will be the notion that Kerr's headbut of Scott West was therefore equivalent to Carr's attempt to cork Gary Ablett Jnr's thigh. By its restructuring of its judicial arrangements to be process-driven rather than incident-driven, the AFL has unwittingly created the scenario where equivalence may be assumed.

In all the furore this week over 'champion' players being scragged and illegally impeded by taggers, it's worth noting that some of these champions react aggressively and others react by upping their impact on the game through hard work, determination and skill.

Daniel Kerr can consider himself lucky, especially in the wake of Barry Hall's momentary lapse of reason, but he will never be regarded alongside the champions of the game who, largely, manage to control their frustration and annoyance at the taggers. James Hird, Nathan Buckley, Chris Judd, Scott West and Gary Ablett Jnr come to mind as champions who overcame the tag through grit and skill.