With the pre-season competition only forty-four days away — yes, that’s right, 44 days till the Bombers shape up against the Weagles on Feb 12 — the aussierulesblog editorial staff felt it was important to take the opportunity to research a video decision-assistance system. So, we rounded up our sibling and headed off to day three of the Boxing Day test. We were rewarded with three video referrals.

Cricket is a fascinating game and we much prefer the multi-day version to the one day or, heaven forfend, multi-hour versions. There is a subtlety and majesty about first-class cricket that we think no other team game captures. Of course, there are good days and not-so-good days.

Last year, we sat through Dale Steyn and JP Duminy humiliating what was allegedly the Australian attack. This year, we saw nine wickets fall, two excellent 50s scored by Pakistani batsmen and the emergence of a young Pakistani fast bowler with a real future at Test level. Nevertheless, it felt like quite a slow day.

On three occasions however, our attention was galvanised by a team referring the umpire’s decision to the so-called fourth umpire.

Now, as explained earlier, we were feeling that the day was plodding along at a relatively unexciting pace — probably not helped by getting to bed at 2:30AM after watching a replay of the 2009 Grand Final on Foxtel.

When a team asks for a referral, cricket’s natural rhythm is upset. For the TV and radio audiences, there’s banter to listen to or replays to cast an eye over. For the poor old paying customer sitting in the grandstand, there’s nothing but the seemingly interminable wait ‘til the fourth umpire’s decision is relayed to the field umpire.

This is not a value-add for Test cricket.

The further point to make with regard to these three referrals was the the umpire’s decision was supported in each case. The common case for a referral system is that we should be using all available resources to make sure we get the right decision every time. Great! And there are how many wrong decisions made? Not many, clearly.

It seems to aussierulesblog that this system is a variation on a mulligan in golf. Why not let’s extend it to the players so that they make the right decision every time? A bowler doesn’t like the ball that gets clobbered for a towering six, so let him have another try after annulling the score from the offending ball. A batsman realises after driving at the ball outside off stump that it was swinging away and he should have allowed it to pass. Annul the catch taken at gully and replay the ball!!!

Of course this is nonsense!

As we have previously noted, there are substantial inequities built into the loosely proposed ‘system’ for video checking of goal umpiring decisions during the 2010 pre-season competition. The ‘dead time’ during the cricket referral shows what a disaster such dead time would be in an AFL contest and the resulting inequities inherent in avoiding dead time make the proposal a nonsense — all for a mere three wrong decisions throughout the whole of the 2009 season according to Adrian Anderson.

The idiots, it seems, are running the asylum.

Update: Watching a referral on Channel Nein’s cricket coverage is just as interminable, with endless speculation over microscopic details. Do we really need a system like this in Aussie rules? On every level, we think the answer is a resounding “No!!”

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the culture of the playing group at Carlton remains heavily influenced by the Fevola years. The former Blues spearhead demonstrated his inability to consume alcohol responsibly on one of footy’s biggest stages, but that was merely the latest in a series of alcohol-related incidents over his career. As the Blues’ best player over a good part of that time, it seems his indiscretions were treated in a manner designed to minimise fallout for both player and club.

News today that 19-year-old Carlton rookie, Levi Casboult, was coerced into joining a drinking game on a so-called ‘booze cruise’, pitting himself against a senior Carlton player, aren’t a good look for the club. There will be many 19-year-olds in the community who would have given the senior player a run for his money, but that’s not the point.

Let’s get past the notion of responsible consumption of alcohol. The fact is that these men are paid as elite athletes; their clubs and their clubs’ fans expect them to perform at their elite best.

For an elite athlete, alcohol consumption to the point of being detained by police, or alcohol consumption sufficient to break down inhibitions and resulting in actions that attract the attention of the police should be an absolute no-no.

Players aren’t recruited for their raw brainpower. It’s physical capabilities and associated ‘footy smarts’ that recruiters look for. As a work colleague noted to aussierulesblog today at a Xmas luncheon, clubs must look at a player with a brain as an unexpected bonus.

Aussierulesblog has defended players in the past, arguing that some can’t handle the mantle of role model that the community is so keen to crown them with. Notwithstanding that Carlton is not our favourite club, there’s something about these latest incidents that yells a message that these men don’t consider themselves as elite athletes. That’s not good enough.

Let’s also recall that players have their ‘mad Mondays’ where much is forgiven. It’s an opportunity to let their hair down and the community — certainly the footy community — are likely to allow them a little more leeway in that context.

We have to ask what these players thought was going on. This is not the end of the year for them — that’s mad Monday! We’re six or seven weeks from the first (semi-)serious hitout of the season and the Carlton boys are playing drinking games on a booze cruise! Discipline? Leadership? Fevola?

Most readers will, we are sure, recognise the metaphor of a fish rotting from the head — that is, poor or missing leadership is eventually reflected in the rest of the entity. Carlton’s tacit acceptance of on-field scoring opportunities over leadership and team orientation continues to reap its just desserts.

As another year winds to a close, aussierulesblog would like to take the opportunity to pass on our best wishes for the festive season to our vast audience.

To our readers, regular and not-so-regular, thank you for providing the occasional hits that keep us believing that someone out there is occasionally interested in what we think and write.

Thank you to those who’ve posted comments. Your efforts have been very much appreciated.

Finally, still some days short of the New Year, we pledge a New Year’s resolution: We will strive in 2010 to avoid blaming all of footy’s ills on the Great Satan (Jeff Gieschen).

Have a great festive season and a terrific New Year! Roll on footy season!!

Forgive me! The post title is deliberately inflammatory and slightly misleading. This post is about personal preferences.

The “world game” simply leaves me gasping — for some Aussie rules!

Is it the lack of scoring or the pathetic staging and diving? Yes, they’re part of it, although I get the impression there are fewer boring 0–0 draws in the modern game. The goal that was scored from behind the centre line in the EPL this week was staggering. The top-level players are undoubtedly enormously skilful, as you’d expect, and the extent of their ball control is sometimes breathtaking. Thierry Henry showed recently just how good they could be if they could use their hands as well!!! And yet, the spectacle eludes me. If you find it enjoyable and exciting, terrific!

Aussie rules though, gets my heart pumping. Genuine physical contests with no quarter begged or given. Ball control skills with an irregular ball that, without a shadow of a doubt, rival the skills of the other code. The full involvement of the players in Aussie rules — kicking, marking, handballing, running, tackling, shepherding — seems more satisfying to me.

Were the FFA to pull off the completely fanciful and win the rights to host the FIFA World Cup, they certainly won’t have to save a seat for me. No doubt Frank Lowy and Sepp Blatter  will be tossing in their sleep wondering how they’ll survive without aussierulesblog in the stands, but I suspect they’d get by.

And there’s the nub of my attitude to the World Cup bid. Fine, go ahead if you must, but I don’t really care. Don’t spend too much taxpayers’ money along the way and don’t disturb the games that are most important to the majority of us.

We haven’t even reached Christmas and already there is devastating news for some players.

News that David Rodan has done an ACL in an innocuous handball drill is very sad. Rodan is one of aussierulesblog’s favourite players and we wish him a successful recovery and return to AFL in 2011.

The news does prompt us to wonder whether modern players’ bodies are too highly stressed. It’s understandable when we see a knee pushed and pulled in unnatural directions and an ACL diagnosis results. All too often recently, it seems, ACL injuries are the result of apparently-innocuous, single-player events.

As a Bombers fan, the one that comes most clearly to mind is David Hille’s injury in the early stages of the 2009 Anzac Day clash. Hille, twenty metres clear of any opponent and not under pressure in any way, takes a medium-sized leap to mark a pass from a teammate and, upon landing, immediately clutches his knee.

Matthew Richardson’s ACL injury in 1996 (I think), was similarly innocuous.

In the quest for ever-greater levels of fitness and agility, perhaps we are driving these human bodies to breaking point?

One would hope that the running joke that the referral system in the second cricket Test has become would be cause for Adrian Anderson to rethink his proposal for a third goal umpire to check contentious scoring adjudications during the 2010 pre-season AFL competition.

Cricket, with its natural space for reviewing decisions, has got a technical system that delivers at least as much uncertainty as the blokes in white shirts standing at either end of the pitch.

Trying to insert an obviously similarly flawed system into the hurly burley of an AFL contest, without the flawed assistance of a snickometer or a hotspot camera, is a recipe for disappointment. Give it away now, Adrian.

While Andrew Demetriou may have gilded the lily talking up the possibility of a cancelled AFL season should Australia win the right to host the FIFA World Cup, it’s clear that a country where “football” runs a poor fourth, at least in commercial terms, amongst winter sporting codes simply should not be in the race in the first place.

I suppose it’s laudable that Frank Lowy and friends are generating recognition internationally for Australia. There may even be a little coin to be added to the GDP by a few international visitors, were we to host.

Lowy and his fellow promoters of the bid must have known at the time they launched the bid that there would be a clash of calendars and venues. The time to work out what could and could not be done scheduling-wise was before the bid was submitted.

Instead we have this unseemly battle of the codes via the media in response to FFA’s ambush. Tell FFA and FIFA to stick their tournament where it fits — somewhere where “football” is a religion.

A report today that a third goal umpire with access to television coverage and a comms link to on-field umpires will scrutinise goal umpiring decisions through the 2010 pre-season competition raises many questions.

As is the AFL’s modus operandi, this proposal is using a sledgehammer to crack a wheat grain. Footy operations boss Adrian Anderson says only three goal umpiring decisions across 2009 were later assessed as incorrect. Three of how many? Had one of those incorrect decisions not occurred during a close Grand Final, you can be assured we wouldn’t be having this experiment in 2010.

The biggest, but by no means the only, problem with this proposal relates to timing. Anderson says the third umpire will be able to assess TV coverage of replays, but if the ball has been bounced, or play has otherwise restarted, there would be no redress.

Let’s think for second Adrian. One team is awarded a goal in error, so the third umpire has all of the time until the ball is returned to the central field umpire and it is bounced to assess whether or not the decision was correct. The other team scores a goal that is adjudged a behind by the goal umpire, but the full-back grabs a ball from the bucket and has kicked out again — restarting play — within a few seconds. For the second team there’s no chance of the decision being overturned because play has restarted.

Next we need to ask whether the third umpire will have the capacity to ‘order up’ specific footage or angles to help in making a judgement, or will they be subject to the director’s whims? You don’t need to be a ‘rocket surgeon’ to see there’s room for some spurious activity here.

Look, Anderson has condemned his proposal out of his own mouth. Three incorrect decisions in a season! For crying out loud!!

Each year there’s the same preoccupation with draft picks — which player your club picked first and how much of a ‘gun’ player they’ve been in TAC or what amazing beep tests they did at draft camp.

This is all nonsense. We’ll know in five years whether these kids will make the grade, and no amount of fervent prognostication will make a scrap of difference.

Naturally, the kids in the 2009 draft are better prepared than recruits have been before for adapting to the tough and uncompromising world that is AFL football. But the truth is that for every Daniel Rich who makes a sizeable splash in their first season, there are dozens of others who’ll sink like stones after a few games.

Lest anyone be thinking I’m talking through my hat, just remember that the Bulldogs’ Brian Lake was taken at pick 71 of the 2001 draft, while Tim Walsh was taken at pick 4 in 2002 for the same club. Yeah, that’s right. Tim who?

Amongst all the draft-related news and seemingly endless — and pointless — draft prognostications over recent weeks, there was one truly startling piece of information.

In a story likening Richmond’s current plight to Geelong’s at the turn of the century, Jake Niall noted that Richmond did not have a full-time recruiter on staff in 2005. You don't need to be a ‘rocket surgeon’ to be aware that the Tigers have burned almost countless recruiting opportunities in the past couple of decades, not to mention letting go a player like David Rodan. It beggars belief that a club in the AFL competition could have its head so far into the sand that recruitment was not a number one priority. And it’s not like they were travelling well at the time.

Of course, recruiting is a subjective process at the best of times. With the benefit of hindsight, one can wonder how the Tigers selected Deledio and Tambling ahead of Franklin and Roughhead — faith in Richo was probably a big factor. Recruiters spend time watching games to evaluate a wide selection of potential recruits — unlike the ubiquitous draft previews that litter the blogosphere — but, ultimately, make subjective judgements based largely on perceptions of their list’s future weaknesses. In short, none of this is an exact science. Nevertheless, Richmond’s situation in 2005 is extraordinary.

Matthew Ricardson's retirement should be seen as a filip by Richmond fans, though I am sure most will see it as an extremely sad day. For AussieRulesBlog it’s a very sad day — one of my favourite whipping boys is no more!

Let me say, yet again, that Richo’s love for and dedication to the Tigers has never, ever been in question, and he should be applauded for this. The sad truth, however, is that Richo has, for most of his career, been a disastrous on-field role model for less exalted teammates.

I feel for Damien Hardwick today. He will have to maintain a solemn outward demeanor appropriate to the ending of such a famous career, but his heart must be bounding with joy at losing a significant millstone in his quest to return the Tigers to consistently competitive football.

No longer will messages about clinical skill execution be thwarted by a favourite son dropping clangers as if he were re-enacting Hansel and Gretel’s stroll into the magic forest. Forwards can now be expected, nay required, to kick goals like professionals without the most famous current forward squandering chances like a gambling addict at the tables at Crown Casino.

Today also marks the passing of the last of the triumvirate of mediocrity that anchored the Tigers to the middle or lower reaches of the competition for most of the last two decades — Wayne Campbell, Matthew Knights and, now, Matthew Richardson.

As an interesting postscript, just as the Tigers will, I believe, be able to make a new start with Richo removed from the playing group, Collingwood may find a similar benefit in the retirement of that endurance athlete, Anthony Rocca. Both have, I think, for quite different reasons, held their teams back.

With media speculation over the future of two members of the Bombers’ leadership group, I’ve been thinking a bit more deeply than usual over player contracts, changing clubs, and so on.

From the supporters’ perspective, we’d love every player on the club’s list to love the club as much as we do. Only the callow supporter changes clubs. For the rest of us, we are there through thick and thin.

For the players, however, things are more complex.

• We’re talking about their job — and a job that can set them up for the rest of their lives, if they’re a bit canny. 
• There’s clearly some considerable caché among ex-players for one-club players. We hear ambitions to be a one-club player too often, especially from players who have clearly forsaken potentially greater success at other clubs, for it to be a furphy.
• Coaches and clubs do their best to indoctrinate players with the notion of loyalty to their mates.
• Many players are connected to supporters and feel a sense of obligation to them.
• Players put their bodies in harm’s way while wearing a club’s guernsey.
  
• To have reached AFL level, players are pretty driven individuals with a keen sense of ambition for success.

I had the chance last week to hear Leigh Matthews speaking at a function. Four-time premiership player, four-time premiership coach — probably knows a little bit about the game. . .

The comment that interested me most concerned the modern, that is the “noughties”, coach. In 1986, when Matthews was appointed to the Collingwood coaching job, he was full-time, but most of his players and any assistant coaches were not. He was, effectively, the only conduit to the players.

Step forward to 2008 and Matthews’ final year as coach at Brisbane. Not only are the playing group full-time employees of the club, so too are the assistant coaches. Matthews’ role was no longer to coach, but to manage a group of men who did the coaching on his behalf.

This notion has stuck in my mind pretty firmly and is leading me to question my own pet theory about AFL coaches (see Coaching credentials, Coaching credentials, part 2 and Coaching credentials, part 3).

It is now the assistant coaches who have more direct influence over the average player’s preparation and mindset. The head coach manages and motivates the team of assistant coaches to manage and motivate the playing group.

Now, of course, this is a simplistic scenario and can only go part way to explaining how a football team at the elite level functions. Nevertheless, it does serve to illustrate that the need for a head coach to have those qualities that influence the bottom 15–20% of the playing group to excel is much reduced. The modern head coach is a senior manager/executive. I think this has been a subtle change, in process for perhaps a decade or more.

One thing that doesn't change, until there's some convincing evidence to the contrary — like a spate of Buckley-coached Magpie flags, is that really gifted players aren't your go-to guy to win the club premierships from the coaches' box.

The AFL appears determined to embrace video-assisted decision-making technology in some way, shape or form. The ‘goal’ awarded to Geelong’s Tom Hawkins during the Grand Final — an exceptionally close Grand Final, it’s worth noting — has provided a context.

In the widespread discussion of the issue across many fora, there appear to be two ‘camps’: the We must use all available resources to ensure we have the correct result EVERY time camp; and the It doesn’t happen often enough to worry about it camp.

Let me say at the outset that I think video-assisted decision-making, even if only for balls in close proximity to the goal posts, is applying a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito.

Who will decide when a video decision is required, and on what basis? Would Darren Milburn's claim in the grand Final that he'd touched the ball be prima facie context for a video decision, for instance?

Will the game cease while a video decision is sought? For NFL, NRL and cricket, there are natural pauses in the game that lend themselves to extension for examination of crucial on-field decisions. But who has not endured the countless indeterminate replays required for such a decision to be made and bayed at the officials (even via the TV screen) to “Get on with it!”

In the NFL, head coaches have two opportunities per game to query on-field decisions and a sanction — loss of a time-out — attaches to an unsuccessful challenge. There's no applicability of these concepts to Aussie rules.

In NRL, the referee chooses when to refer a touchdown decision to the video official. Which official on the AFL field will decide to refer to the video official? The goal umpire is hardly going to query his own decision, but might be pressured by circumstance into making a non-decision, i.e. I don't know, so refer it. For the field umpires, it will depend on positioning whether they have an appropriate context to decide whether a decision be referred or not. Or will the video official or (gasp!) media people alert the field umpire that a decision is questionable? If the latter, who will judge their independance and impartiality?

Cricket, even with it natural breaks in play and general slow pace anyway, is transformed into a funereal spectacle by the slow-mo replay. The looming opportunity for teams to query 2 decisions in a Test innings, a la the NFL challenge situation, only adds to the problem. There's little synergy here with AFL either.

Finally, and the clincher in my view, a video-assisted goal umpiring decision presumably will stop the game. In today's game, the loss of the chance to bring the ball back in from a point as quickly as possible disadvantages the defending team to an astonishing degree. We've seen, in 2009 at least, the spectacle of opposition cheer squads hurling a ‘lost’ ball back onto the field of play, disrupting a kick-in, allowing the defending forwards to set up or adjust their defensive zone.

The AFL have gone to astonishing lengths in recent seasons to speed the game up and remove unnatural breaks — immediate kick-ins from points without waiting for the flags to be waved, 50-metre penalties for time wasting — yet are now considering a process that will bring the free-flowing game to a screeching, shuddering halt.

It just doesn’t make sense!

Reports that the AFL will impose a significant ban on Brendan Fevola "if he is found to have sexually assaulted a woman on Brownlow Medal night" raise some interesting questions.

What standard of proof will be required? Will it be enough for the journalist in question to simply make a statement, or will a police complaint be required? And who will judge whether the offence was committed?

These are very murky waters the AFL is peering into. Where will their moral stance end? Will a driving offence bring an AFL sanction as well? What about bankruptcy or fraud? Will a conviction in a court of law be required?

It’s easy to understand that the AFL is attempting to protect its brand in signalling this action against Fevola. But they would do well to think through the implications before proceeding — their precedents in the laws of the game changes suggest they’ll shoot first and ask questions later!

Over at Big Footy, on the Essendon board, there’s been much handwringing over comments by Alastair Clarkson in relation to the rumour of trade talks on Campbell Brown.

"I know the Essendon footy club did that back in 2002 with Damian Hardwick, Blake Caracella and Justin Blumfield and also Chris Heffernan, and I don't think it did the Essendon footy club any good, sending out players of that quality, it affects the culture of your club too much." [Clarkson is quoted as saying.]

“...[Bradsahw was] stunned that his club of 14 years would try to shunt him into a trade.”

News that Carlton and Brisbane are working toward a trade of Fevola for Bradshaw and Rischitelli, apparently if the Lions players can be “convinced” to move, reveals once more the truly ugly end of the AFL system.

No more need be written on the subject of Fevola’s manifold indiscretions.Whether the Blues are well served by moving him on is a moot point. There’s plenty of precedent to suggest a move into a non-AFL-saturated community would benefit Fevola — think Lockett and Hall in Sydney — and a move to a new team environment where there is no history of putting up with his ‘high jinks’ might also work for him.

No, the ugly end of this scenario is Bradshaw and Rischitelli being dragged into the deal somewhat peripherally. Rischitelli has certainly been mentioned in trade discussions previously and there’s a sense that he’d welcome a move back to Melbourne for non-football reasons.

Bradshaw, originally from Victoria, has been a long-term servant of the Lions and provides a very effective foil for Jonathan Brown. Apparently he has made no secret of his intention to move back to Victoria at the end of his playing career. That is, however, a very long way from being an unwitting pawn in some Machiavellian trade deal.

Greg Baum has written an excellent piece on this scenario in The Age. He contrasts the various “loyalties” around AFL, from the fans’ unwavering commitment to clubs’ demands of players. The most telling remark, for me, concerns Hawks legend Don Scott, who, Baum reports, felt more loyalty to the player group than to the club per se. Even this has to been in context, as many will recall Scott standing before an angry Hawthorn crowd and ripping a Melbourne Demons guernsey during the contretemps over those two clubs’ merger plans.

I make no secret of my affection for the Bombers. It’s my firmly-held belief that the Bombers’ great team of the late 90s and early 00s was irrevocably torn asunder by the departure, under somewhat strained and unwilling circumstances, of Damien Hardwick, Blake Caracella, Chris Heffernan and Justin Blumfield within the space of two years. None of the four would probably have been considered a top-flight player in their own right. As a group, the four would hardly have been considered by outsiders as the heart and soul of the Bombers, yet, in the wake of these departures and without the loss of stars, the Bombers went into an almost uninterrupted slide.

I wonder if Brisbane's team fabric could survive the forced departure of Bradshaw and Rischitelli and the importing of the self-centred Fevola, or will it implode as the Bombers’ did a little less than a decade ago.

Not for the first time, a regular and significant contributor through the season has missed out on a Premiership Medal courtesy of an untimely injury. Also not for the first time, a player with barely a handful of games is elevated into the Grand Final team and secures a Premiership Medal

Matthew Stokes — 18 games, 27 goals in home-and-away matches for 2009 — could legitimately have expected to have secured a place in the team for the Grand Final but for an injury a couple of weeks prior. As it stands, his compensation for his efforts is a mention by Captain Tom Harley in his comments on the dais.

Brad Ottens, by way of contrast, played 3 home-and-away games and 3 finals to secure his Medal.

Teammates know the players who have contributed through the year, as do clubs and their supporters. Nevertheless, I think it's past time that the AFL looked at setting a benchmark that a player who plays, say, 40% of home and away and finals games for the winning club, should receive a Premiership Medal irrespective of participating in the Grand Final.

It's pretty easy to mount a case, in the example above, that Stokes did more across the season to get Geelong into a Grand final-winning position than did Ottens.

The same might also apply for Runners Up medals.

I was discussing reactions to Matthew Lloyd's retirement announcement with a companion, especially a short letter published in The Age (I think) proposing jail time for Lloyd since he'd now escaped his four-match suspension over the Sewell collision in Round 22, and I realised that the Sewell incident and the ramifications of it must have been a considerable part of Lloyd's decision-making process.

It cannot have been an easy decision to retire with the knowledge that some part of the football world would consider he was running away from the penalty. Watching Lloyd on Channel 10’s Before the Game, he is pretty clearly comfortable with the decision and ready to deal with any suggestions that he aimed to take Sewell out.

For what it’s worth, I think Lloyd’s decision is the correct one, perhaps a year late. In contrast to Hird, who could still materially affect the course of a game during his last season, Lloyd has rarely had a decisive impact on a game since returning from his massive hamstring injury.

Nevertheless, Lloyd has had a wonderful career for the Bombers and fully deserves all of the accolades he is receiving.

Let’s leave aside for a moment whether there’s a need for pre-game “entertainment” at the AFL Grand Final. For 2009, inclement weather may have marked a partial return to sanity.

Mark Seymour, Jimmy Barnes and John Farnham performed from a stage situated above an access driveway onto the ground. Terrific idea on two counts: they were close enough to some of the crowd to actually feed off some crowd energy; and there was no need to construct a large and intricate temporary stage in the middle of the ground (which would then need to be dismatled and wheeled off the ground).

A small dais was in place for the performance of James Morrison and six accompanying trumpeters to play. . . the club songs? Why?

Of course, there was also the obligatory crowd of youthful people performing in unison. One suspects the AFL “entertainment” gurus are students of Kim Jong Il and feel a similar need to display massed uniform conformity. In the extremely windy conditions, it would not have been surprising to see performers being lifted off into the stratosphere by the piece of picture (of the Premiership Cup) they were holding aloft.

But it was all topped off by the contextually-isolated arrival of the real Premiership Cup via some sort of flying fox arrangement strung between two light towers. What the #*^@ did this represent?

Let’s return to why this “entertainment” is needed. The NFL has a tradition, on a far smaller and more intimate arena, of providing an “entertainment” extravaganza at half time of the Superbowl. Given the stop-start nature of NFL football, perhaps it’s not surprising that the crowd need something “exciting” to gee them up at half time. The NFL also cater to the cultural needs of their audience — see examples in sport such as cheer leaders at gridiron games and organists leading crowd chants during the many breaks in baseball.

I fail to see how the AFL’s hit and miss attempts at “entertainment” cater to the needs, cultural or otherwise, of a Grand Final crowd.

If the spectacle of Geoffrey Edelsten arriving on the blue carpet for the Brownlow function wasn't strange enough on its own, the 'bordello chic' paraded by his fiance quite takes one's breath away.

Isn't it some time now since Edelsten was involved as proprietor of a team? Haven't there been significant questions raised about his fitness for various pursuits in the meantime? Still, were it not for an amply displayed bosom, we'd probably never even know he was there.

And while we're (vaguely) on the topic of fashion, since when did black tie mean wearing a quite normal, albeit black, necktie? Call me old-fashioned, but black tie on an invitation surely means a tuxedo with a bow tie?

And would it hurt for one or two of the chaps to actually button their collar and have their (incorrect) tie appropriately fastened, with the knot at the junction of the collar rather than at some distant place halfway to their chest? They really do look quite scruffy and their girls could quite justifiably stack on a turn over it.

Further media speculation today, apparently fuelled by conversations at a weekend buck's party, would suggest that Essendon Captain Matthew Lloyd will hang up the boots. Lloyd's realistic options are pretty limited.

Since returning from tearing the hamstring off the bone, Lloyd's impact on the game has been minimal. Had he not been the club Captain, and had he not been the club's all-time leading goal kicker, it's not hard to imagine that he would have been sidelined a year or two ago. He hasn't displayed the explosive pace required to play at full forward, and over his career has relied more than most full forwards on his leading. Body-on-body contested marking has never been a particular feature of his game, although he is clearly quite strong.

Were Lloyd interested in entertaining offers from other clubs, and it seems he would take a good deal of convincing, it's hard to see which club might benefit and even harder to imagine they'd risk a position on an already tight list for someone of Lloyd's age and medical history. For the Bombers, the future is more important than some sort of grand round farewell for a fading favourite son.

It seems like there will be a whiff of sour grapes about this scenario, no matter what happens, and that is sad. Nevertheless, the team is more important than one player, especially one well past his prime. If Lloyd were to announce his retirement before the Crichton Medal presentation, there would be a standing ovation second only to James Hird's waiting for him.

Update: Lloyd's column in this weekend's Sunday Age effectively puts to bed the notion that Lloyd is consumed by himself. His is clearly an issue of desire and commitment. There can be no doubt that elite AFL in the 21st century requires even more mental application than ever before in the game's history. Lloyd is right to take the time to make sure he has the mental and physical wherewithall to participate in another season. Limited list numbers, salary cap and the club's future don't allow the luxury of carrying a favoured son for sentimental reasons.

Perhaps Judd has been ill-advised by his Carlton minders. Perhaps his limited sleep in the hours after the Blues exited the season was some sort of excuse for his now-infamous “martial arts” allusion. Perhaps the litany of excuses, pseudo-explanations, self-justifications and pleadings might have been better left unuttered. Perhaps Judd and Carlton would have been better served following the Matthews pattern and simply sucking it up when it came their turn to cop it back.

The Hawthorn hard men of the early eighties could, arguably, be labeled as thugs, but they took what was coming without a whimper when it was their turn.

Judd has not only tarnished his brand with an ill-judged action, but compounded it by whinging when called to account.

Whatever you think of Essendon Captain, Matthew Lloyd, the fevered speculation in the media over his playing future ignores one simple fact: there’s no ‘I’ in ‘team’.

As club Captain and all-time club leading goal kicker, Lloyd is, I think, entitled to some extra consideration, such as immunity from a stint in the VFL and a dignified exit from on-field activity, but anything further has to be seen in the context of the team’s future.

Clarion calls for Lloyd to be played exclusively at full forward comprehensively ignore the future. The opportunity for the likes of Jay Neagle, Scott Gumbleton and Michael Hurley (among others) to benefit from his advice and presence on-field is simply not available if Lloyd plays his customary role.

If Lloyd were demanding guarantees other than immunity from the VFL, he would be placing himself above the team. I’d be very surprised if that were the case.

Update: Not surprisingly to me, the handwringing over the possibility of Lloyd moving to another club turned out to be yet more media wishful thinking masquerading as journalism. We really are ill served by those who claim to keep us informed. If there’s no story, they'll simple make one up to fit their preferred scenario.

Update #2: Lloyd's column in this weekend's Sunday Age effectively puts to bed the notion that Lloyd is consumed by himself. His is clearly an issue of desire and commitment. There can be no doubt that elite AFL in the 21st century requires even more mental application than ever before in the game's history. Lloyd is right to take the time to make sure he has the mental and physical wherewithall to participate in another season. Limited list numbers, salary cap and the club's future don't allow the luxury of carrying a favoured son for sentimental reasons.

It’s easy, and strangly comforting, to pronounce the demise of brand Judd following the one-time golden boy’s exploration of Michael Rischitelli’s face last weekend. History, though, would suggest the brand will survive.

In 1985, Leigh Matthews struck Geelong’s Neville Bruns in an off-the-ball incident. Matthews was deregistered for four weeks, charged by Victoria Police and fined $1100. At pretty much any level, Matthews’ transgression surpasses Judd’s by a considerable distance.

Matthews went on to a successful and decorated career as a coach, winning four Premierships in that role, and, between coaching stints and since retirement, respected media columnist and colour commentator.

While Judd will forever be associated with the Rischitelli incident, his brand has not been trashed.

Notwithstanding Matthews rehabilitation, Judd would do well to nevertheless guard himself well for the remainder of his career. He need only look to the one-time King of Arden Street to see what can happen when the well of public sympathy dries up, albeit in that case for off-field indiscretions.

There's been a lot of press this week about 'finals pressure', especially in connection with the Bombers and Blues, whos’ young players have not participated in a finals campaign.

I was thinking about this, again especially in regard to the Bombers and Blues, both of whom regularly play in front of high-volume crowds at the MGC.

Forty years ago, when most teams in the then-VFL played only occasionally at the MCG — when they played Melbourne, or, post 1965, Richmond — crowds at traditional suburban venues were probably no more than 35,000 at most. In those days, there were four finals games over four weeks (first semi, second semi, preliminary, Grand Final). On each of the Saturdays in September, the MCG would host a finals game for each of under-18s, reserves and seniors. With three games being played, not to mention a rare chance to see games at the ’G, crowds of 90,000-plus weren't at all unusual, even for the 'minor' finals.

So, a group of players unused to playing at the MCG, unused to playing before 90,000 people and playing for a place in history, might easily feel additional pressure.

For a young group of players who already play regularly in front of big crowds, I wonder whether there is any extra pressure in a finals game, other than, perhaps, the Preliminary and Grand Finals.

“The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction.”

This description, from the AFL website, refers to the charge against Essendon’s Ryder.

I defy anyone to seriously suggest that Hodge’s actions immediately prior to Ryder’s do not fall within the same category. This incident was prior to the third quarter collision between Lloyd and Sewell.

Pathetic by the Match Review Panel — a travesty of justice.

Campbell Brown's curious outburst on radio immediately after the round 22 Hawthorn-Essendon game can almost be forgiven, since the two people he would regard as leaders of his club showed by their actions that a knee-jerk reaction was acceptable.

Jeff “Dial-a-quote” Kennett, intoxicated by the illusion of power and happy to feed those he once contemptuously threw sand at, has spoken at length about anything and everything recently, often without adequate consideration of his intentions beforehand.

Alistair Clarkson, leaving the ground after the game, unleashed a stream of invective at Essendon players as he left the arena, notably with Brown in close proximity.

Brown himself, no model of propriety on the field, had already mouthed off to the Essendon bench during the second half — which was about the total of his contribution to the game — and following the example set by his coach and his President, decided to start his tongue without first engaging his brain.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Lloyd-Sewell collision, and there was clearly no animosity between the two after the game, the Hawthorn of the Noughties has not distinguished itself save for its grace in victory last September.

The Hawthorn of Kennedy, Parkin, Jeans, Matthews, Brereton, Dipierdomenico, et al played the game with brutal intensity, but when it came time to take their share, they did so without either a backward step or a whimper.

The current Hawthorn leadership would do well to look to those predecessors for a guide to how to conduct themselves. By all means play “unsociable” football, but when the time comes, take it like men!

The Franklin suspension this week reveals a weakness in the system devised by the AFL to dissuade head-high contact. A comparison of the Franklin-Cousins collision with the Mawell-McGinnity collision earlier in the year reveals at least one important distinction.

Franklin has the merest split second to decide what to do when confronted by Cousins. That he chose the relative gamble of a bump against the more team-oriented, smarter option of a tackle perhaps says more about Hawthorn's season than almost anything else through the home and away rounds.

Maxwell, on the other hand, had many seconds to decide what to do. So many in fact, he decided well in advanace to run directly at McGinnity, who at that stage was pursuing a Collingwood opponent, and give him an old-fashioned shirtfront.

In both cases, the contact to their opponent's head was incidental, but Maxwell's was a calculated and pre-meditated attack on an unwary victim. Franklin and Cousins both responded instinctively, and in fact had little or no time to do any more than that.

So, how does this concern the AFL? Simply, the decision to classify the head as “sacrosanct” leaves no room for the Tribunal or the Appeals Board to assess intent. Reliance on a zero-tolerance approach effectively means that the two incidents are considered equivalent, when virtually any sentient being can see they’re nothing of the sort.

North Melbourne's appointment of Brad Scott as senior coach for 2010–2 seems to tick plenty of boxes.

As a member of the three-peat Brisbane Lions of 2001–3, Scott has plenty of exposure to a Premiership-winning culture. More importantly in my view, he was a gritty, determined player of mediocre talent who achieved respect and a permanent place in a mega-successful team.

Harking back to an old theme of mine, it is Scott's playing credentials mixed with Premiership culture exposure that mark him as a potentially very successful coach. Remember that gritty players who got the most out of their (limited) talent are over-represented among Premiership coaches since 1960: Parkin (4 Premierships), Sheedy (4), Hafey (4), Jeans (4), Barassi (4), Kennedy (3), Malthouse (2), Pagan (2). Note also that Parkin, Sheedy, Barassi and Malthouse were all members of multiple Premiership teams as players before becoming coaches.

For North, Scott and Damien Hardwick ticked many of the same boxes, with Hardwick having a broader spread of experience with Premiership involvement at three different clubs, Scott having the three-peat and some years under Malthouse, while Crocker was a member of the ’Roos’ ’96 Premiership team.

Time will tell whether Scott has the other attributes that are required to lift a team, but the basics are there in spades! One also wonders whether Eugene Arocca’s former life at Collingwood gave him some added insights into Scott's potential. . .

It's not often in aussie rules that there's a stark and definitive example of umpiring guesswork. Watching the Sydney-Geelong game last night, at one stage Mooney chased the ball along the boundary line.

The camera angle was such that the audience could not determine whether the ball was out of bounds or not. Unfortunately for the boundary umpire, the camera angle also showed him making a decision he could not see definitively.

The only way an out-of-bounds decision can be made definitively, is for the adjudicator to be positioned on the tangent to the boundary at the point where the ball may have crossed the line.

Suffice to say, the boundary ump was a long, long way from standing on the tangent and can thus only have guessed at whether the ball was in or out.

This is a long, long way from being good enough at the elite AFL level. Dare I say, Release the Giesch.

In a recent post, I foreshadowed addressing the issue of painkilling injections.

Leigh Matthews reputedly commented, after the 2003 Grand Final, that there should be a shortage of painkilling injections, such were the injuries his team carried into the game. In fact, it is relatively common for players to either go into even home and away games with a jab or two, or to receive a jab during the course of the game.

Were a player to follow Warnie's lead and take a diuretic, he'd have a sanction applied if caught (even if only having a first strike recorded against his name). That diuretic could assist in losing some weight, or mask some other drug.

Were the player to use a steroid during training, he'd have a sanction applied. The steroid could assist in building muscle mass and strength, or in overcoming an injury.

The player getting a jab of local anaesthetic improves his performance because a specific pain is deadened to allow him to play as if the injury didn't exist.

I guess you'll see where I'm going here?

How is the anaesthetic any less performance-enhancing than the diuretic or the steroid?

Even before a new coach is anointed at Richmond, it appears Richo has a tick to go around again next year. Ordinarily, an 800-goal AFL player with fourteen or fifteen seasons under his belt would be a huge plus for a young list. Young players need role models, on AND off the field — it’s easy to mount an argument that Melbourne’s current woes are a direct result of a lack of leadership — but is Richo the guy you want your young players modelling themselves on?

I’ve acknowledged in previous posts that Richo bleeds yellow and black, but, sadly, that doesn’t outweigh the substantial negatives he brings to the table: unreliable goal kicking; unreliable decision-making; and protected status that means he doesn’t receive appropriate sanction for the other negatives.

Of these negatives, it’s the last that is most potentially damaging. A new coach will want to make changes to begin overcoming some of the poor habits accrued by the Tigers during the Frawley and Wallace (and Gieschen and Walls?) reigns. One of the prime sanctions to apply to players flouting team rules or not measuring up to team skill requirements is a trip to the VFL.

How many times has Richo suffered the indignity of being dropped? How many times have his clangers, or body language, torn the spirit out of his teammates? How many times should he have been dropped?

It appears as though the Tigers are going to have a cleanout. Bowden, it seems, is gone — how I will miss wondering why any player would fall for one of his appallingly theatrical baulks around an opponent. Johnson is gone, Simmonds and Brown look at least shaky. Admittedly, none have kicked 800 goals or, Bowden aside, been at Richmond for their whole career, yet none of them have the level of obvious downside that Richo carries with him

The only saving grace is that Cousins has been demonstrating, on the track and in games, exactly what standard the young Tigers need to attain to achieve success. Is it totally unrelated that a string of improved performances under Rawlings occurred with Richo in rehab?

I feel for the new coach. It must be hard starting an important new role with a millstone tied about your neck!

Rohan Connolly’s piece in The Age likening Geelong’s current woes to those of Essendon in late 2001 leads me to continue the dominance theme from my previous post.

Connolly points out that the Cats’ current form bodes ill for their finals campaign. While they had moments during the game against Carlton where they looked dangerous, and a little like the Geelong of 2007–8, more often they looked inept as the instinctive responses to pressure weren’t backed up by the same cohesive, superbly drilled and experienced group they are used to playing with.

The take-out message from all of this should be to marvel at the deeds of the 2001–3 Brisbane Lions, who, although never as dominant through the season, brought the right game to the stage when it counted in three successive finals campaigns.

Leigh Matthews reputedly commented that there was a shortage of painkilling injections in Australia after the 2003 Grand Final, such were the number of soft tissue injuries his team battled. That a team could win the biggest game of the season making such extensive use of performance-enhancing drugs — and there's no other way this situation can be described — is the subject of another debate (watch this space!).

In the context of Geelong’s apparently imminent fall from dominance with a single Premiership to show for two-and-a-bit extraordinary seasons, and Essendon’s result of one Premiership from 1999–2001, the Lions’ return of three consecutive Premierships stands as a truly Herculean achievement and one we should not expect to see repeated any time soon.

And let's put this into a little more perspective. Should the Saints succeed in winning the 2009 Premiership, and should they remain undefeated for the season, they would rightly claim recognition for a, to-date, unique achievement. Yet I can't help thinking such an achievement pales against that of the Lions.

With the Saints desperately clinging to hopes of a 100% winning record for 2009 and the Cats having already shot their bolt (and the 2009 Bombers disappearing down the gurgler!), I thought it might be interesting to look at how some recent seasons dominated by one or two clubs look statistically* by comparison.

2000 Bombers
25 wins, average margin 53.6pts; 1 loss, 11pts; Premiers

2007 Cats
21 wins, avg margin 54.9pts; 4 losses, avg margin 11.3pts; Premiers

2008 Hawks
20 wins, avg margin 42.4pts; 5 losses, avg margin 25.8pts; Premiers

2008 Cats
23 wins, avg margin 51.9pts; 2 losses, avg margin 56pts; runner-up

2009 Saints (to Rnd 18)
18 wins, avg margin 40.1pts; 0 losses; TBA

2009 Cats (to Rnd 18)
16 wins, avg margin 34.4pts; 2 losses, avg margin 24.5pts; TBA

Keeping in mind the famous declaration attributed to 19th-century British PM Benjamin Disraeli — There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics! — it would appear the 2009 Saints are some way short of the domination wrought by the 2000 Bombers and 2007–8 Cats.

Saints fans will, quite rightly, consider a Premiership — if it eventuates — to be sufficient reward in itself, and my purpose is not to denigrate those efforts or that result in any way.

Nevertheless, it's not unreasonable to claim the 2000 Bombers as the most dominant team in recent decades: 2 goals+ per game over the 2009 Saints (at round 18); and fewer losses/better losing margins than 2007–2008 Cats.

* Data from http://finalsiren.com

AussieRulesBlog has a new look, better reflecting, I hope, the generally serious tone of the blog. I'm trying to adopt a broadsheet-style look and feel, that I hope has a synergy with the postings.

I've done a lot of the coding myself, so I apologise in advance for any errors.

I added the recent comments gadget to give visitors a sense of what my audience is looking at and commenting on.

I hope my loyal readers like the changes.

Cheers

Murph.

The Scott Welsh incident at the opening of the Bulldog's fourth quarter against the Saints last Saturday night was a classic case of poor communication. And yet there was an area of abysmal communication — beyond the obvious — that no-one seems to be speaking about.

I wonder how many Bulldogs fans at Docklands stadium were in the dark over this incident? Out of nowhere, the umpire holds the game up and before you can say “Charlie Sutton!”, Riewoldt is kicking a goal from the goal square!

It's a feature of elite aussie rules in the noughties that three umpires are going to see infringements away from the ball. If you're a footy fan and your attention is on the ball and the near proximity, there's little chance you'll understand why a free kick is suddenly being paid (often when looking straight at an incident it's impossible to fathom the reason for the free kick!).

The umpires at AFL level are miked up and can fairly easily be monitored to ascertain the reason for a free kick. Surely the technology to show a screen on the scoreboard that explains why an off-the-ball free kick has been awarded can't be rocket surgery.

This is an issue the AFL administration has to deal with.

The front page of today's Age Sport section shows a high-flying Jack Riewoldt with the ball tumbling through his arms and his eyes as good as closed. Former Bomber and current Tiger, Tom Hislop, in the same pack and also trying to mark, has his eyes closed too. It's not the first time that players attempting to mark appear to have their eyes closed in photographs.

In a painful confession, I must remind my loyal AussieRulesBlog audience that as a sportsman, I'm a good writer! Not that I've avoided physical activity altogether. I played a medium grade of pennant squash for fifteen years and have had the odd dabble with chasing a golf ball around the countryside.

One of the things I've learned about myself is my propensity to close my eyes at the moment of connection. It's just a momentary blink, a little like a micro-sleep on a long country drive.

I've discovered that when I can command my eyes to stay open to actually watch the ball impact the racquet/club, I hit a stunningly better shot.

Clearly, the process of hand-eye co-ordination falls down, sometimes rather spectacularly, when one half of the equation is absent.

The pictures of Riewoldt and Hislop with eyes seemingly firmly shut makes me wonder how much better they could accomplish their objective if they could see the ball at the moment of contact!

I also wonder whether players who have the 'yips' in front of goal might have a similar issue? Could it be that Richo closes his eyes as his foot connects with the ball? Cam Mooney? Tom Hawkins? Could be the same issue. . .

Last year, in the wake of drawn games in consecutive weeks, I commented on then-widespread calls for some means of breaking the draw in home and away matches.

This last weekend, we have two teams being coached by stand-in coaches — desperate for victories to enhance their chances at securing their role for 2010 and beyond — fighting out a thrilling draw. Not surprisingly, stand-in Richmond coach Jade Rawlings calls for a draw-breaking mechanism. Also not surprisingly, Patrick Smith, speaking on SEN radio, opines that there's a fundamental problem in having draws through the home-and-away season when there are draw-breaking mechanisms in place through the final series.

Rawlings position is understandable and sentimentally attractive — although the odds are his team would have lost. Smith's position is less understandable.

I, for one, don't understand why a draw is such a terrible result, especially when it's such a relative rarity. If we were discussing fudball, the situation is somewhat different with nil-all, or one-all draws commonplace.

For two aussie rules teams to find themselves on exactly the same points tally at the end of four quarters of hectic football is, and should be widely acknowledged as, a testament to the never-say-die courage and determination of two groups of athletes fighting each other to a standstill over an allotted period.

Far from seeking mechanisms to thwart draws, we should be celebrating these rare occurrences and lauding the athletes involved.

Watching the game on television from the comfort of my lounge chair, the excitement of the finish was almost stolen by the presence on the screen of a countdown clock. If not for the derring-do of Mitch Morton, the tension would have been gone from the game with more than 90 seconds still to play. Earlier this year, amid proposals to place countdown clocks on the main scoreboard, I challenged the rationale for countdown clocks. I am firmly of the view that countdown clocks should be banned full-stop — none in the media, none for the teams, none on the scoreboard.

Aussie rules audiences have suffered the tension of not knowing how long a quarter would run for a hundred or more years. Strategically, the game is different if you know exactly how much time is left, and it's UGLY.

Lets remove ALL countdown clocks. There's nothing to be gained and many moments of heart-rending tension to be experienced.

The news of Big Bad Bustlin' Barry Hall's immediate exit from the Swans may mark the passing of the last of football's hard men.

Hall's effectiveness has always relied, at least to some extent, on the opposition's wariness of him running through someone. Changes to interpretations of AFL rules over recent seasons have severely eroded Hall's capacity to intimidate.

He has never been just a footballer, but always a footballer with an incandescent wild streak. Reinterpretation of contact above the shoulders and wider application of it to more and more off-the-ball incidents and, more recently, clamping down on dumping opponents after they dispose of the ball have pulled the metaphorical teeth of football's most physically dangerous player.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that greater umpiring scrutiny, a poor reputation with the "men in white" and wall-to-wall video coverage have been at the heart of Hall's increasing frustration. Simply, he's been unable to play the game as he has known it.

Sadly for him, it may be that Hall was born about thirty years too late. It's not hard to picture some Hall "magic" within the Sensational Seventies when hard men like Neil Balme ruled the field with fists of iron. He wouldn't have been out of place in the Electrifying Eighties when the Hyphen, Lethal and Rotten Ronnie were thumping blokes regularly.

By the 90s, the writing was on the wall, but the noughties have seen the deliberate rough stuff pretty much eliminated at the elite level of the game. There's no place in the modern game for Hall. His pure football isn't good enough, or consistent enough, without the physical threat that used to accompany it.

The big issue for Hall will be whether he can convince another playing group and another coaching staff that he can deliver value — goals — without penalty — 50-metre and suspension. Talk about the Bulldogs looking for a quality big forward may end up being just that. It's hard to see Hall fitting into a structure that nurtures Brad Johnson. And would they want that disruption in the playing group anyway?

I've made plain, in this and other forums, my distrust of television coverage of AFL as a guide to what actually went on. Nevertheless, it's clear from the telecast of this afternoon's St Kilda-Geelong contest that the Saints can indeed match it with the big boys.

The Cats' forward line was exposed as ordinary without the presence of Steve Johnson — and, more importantly, WITH the presence of Tom Hawkins. There must be some huge question marks hanging over the young bloke's head right now. He didn't appear to give a bleat when the game was there to be won. Similarly, Mark Blake's contribution was well and truly outshone by the less-heralded Mumford.

The Saints, by contrast, showed that they have a good enough spread of talent and desire across the ground to take on anyone with a degree of confidence. I've been a doubter, but the Saints have convinced me today.

A loss will sharpen the Cats' appetite, and they were, in any case, not far away from the Saints who benefited from an amazing start. The Cat's won't give up the first five goals too often and they all but hauled the Saints in, which would give them significant confidence for a rematch.

I still think it's the Cats' Premiership to lose, but there is clearly another genuine contender.

Dust off the stake in the town square and pile up the faggots*, people! It's heresy time again!

I am sick to death of hearing every week what a fantastic player Simon Prestigiacomo is. It's time to call a spade a spade! The bloke HOLDS his opponent, denying them a fair chance to compete FOR THE BALL. His supporters will say he rides the ragged edge of the interpretation of holding. I reckon that's rubbish and the umpires apply a different set of rules to this guy.

If it were any other player, they'd be free-kicked a dozen times a game, but Prestigiacomo is a PROTECTED SPECIES. In almost every game, other players ARE free-kicked for clearly less-substantial holding.

Collingwood fans will be lining up to tell me that Lloyd and Hird are and have been protected species, but they were making the ball their objective.

Take a look at Fletcher, an elite defender for more than a decade and a half, making the ball his objective and beating his opponents by, more often than not, beating them to the ball. What a contrast with the ugly, negative tactics of Prestigiacomo!

The AFL dream up new rules and interpretations to make contests "fairer" — the so-called "hands in the back" interpretation, for instance — but do nothing to remove a blight like Prestigiacomo's tactics. It's a scandal and everyone who lauds Prestigiacomo is sullying our game.

* See here.

Rumours are rife that Carlton will be severing their ties with current major sponsors and seeking a new relationship with the Advanced Medical Institute as it was revealed at the MCG that their 2009 "Tell them we're coming" promotion was a case of premature ejaculation.

And, yes, we Bombers ARE still waiting. . .

No, I haven't taken to channelling Pauline Hanson. But I think it's a bit rich for the AFL to issue a "please explain" over "A character in the multi-chapter Harry Potter franchise"-gate (doesn't almost anything sound so much more sinister with "-gate" suffixed to it? NOT!).

It may have escaped notice at AFL House, but aussie rules is a collision sport and blood does get spilled. The pictures of a character in the multi-chapter Harry Potter franchise — I mean Chris Judd — hawking up blood after having his nose obscured with a roll of elastoplast weren't pretty, but let's think about the alternative.

Perhaps the good old navy blues could take a leaf from the book of the Azzuri: the Italian national diving team. As any true-blue aussie rules fan knows, those fudball pansies do a swan dive and roll around for hours if a bloke even looks like he might clip them. Do we want Judd and Co. going down in fashionable feints every time an opponent bumps them? Oh, sorry — Fevola's already doing that! Well, you know what I mean!

The Selwood footage was gut-wrenching, but doesn't it just say something about the extraordinary courage and determination of these men? Shouldn't we be celebrating the courage?

Come on Mike, Andrew, Adrian. At the elite level, our teams are playing for high stakes — although you'd never know it looking at Port and Freo most weeks — and having your key playmaker and team inspirator (new word — I like it!) on the park during a tight final quarter could be the difference between a few places on the ladder and making it to the third week of the finals. If people are upset by this imagery, they should be watching another vigorous sport — like extreme lawn bowls. . .

As the calls for the addition of substitute players to the interchange bench become more and more frequent, it's worth reflecting on the scenarios that provoke such calls and some of the underlying principles of australian rules football.

It's now almost de rigeur for losing coaches to bemoan the lack of interchange players due to injury. The game has changed, but for many years reserves, known as 19th and 20th men, were available only as substitute players. Once a player was replaced by the 19th or 20th man, that was it for the day. If a coach was forced to use both reserves and a further injury occurred, that was bad luck.

Then we moved to an interchange system — which has had its own unfortunate implications with the speed of the game — and a new tactical battle emerged in the creative ways coaches used their interchange bench.

Let me stray slightly for a moment to mention the shape of the ball used in aussie rules. It's elliptical or oval and, except in highly-controlled circumstances, its behaviour is something of a lottery. Players are often left grasping at thin air as our ball makes an unexpected detour. When this happens, it's bad luck.

Back to the matter in hand. When a player is seriously injured, such as David Hille two minutes into the Anzac Day game, it's bad luck. If it rains and your team doesn't play well in wet weather, it's bad luck (unless you're at Docklands!). If the umpire bounces the ball and it doesn't go perfectly straight, thus favouring one team, it's — that's right, it used to be bad luck.

If your team has four serious injuries in the first half, that's real bad luck, because you've just lost any chance at rotations.

Let's wait and catch breath before rushing to add more players to the bench. When, years ago, the rules of centre bounce contests were changed to force ruckmen to run at each other to remove unsightly wrestling, no-one envisaged a spate of knee injuries — but that's exactly what we got. Then an outer circle was added to reduce the momentum on impact between ruckmen, and then we discovered they were disadvantaged when the bounce was less than straight. Then the ruckmen were told thay couldn't cross the centre line before leaping for the ball. . .

Gradually, each little change has had unfortunate implications and now we're seriously at risk of losing the umpires' bounce that, as with much else in aussie rules, has an element of luck attached to it. Not only that, but ruck contests have become a magical world where some rules of the game don't exist and free kicks seem to be plucked out almost at whim by the umpires.

Let's remember that luck is one of the imponderables that makes aussie rules a better game than boring, nil-all soccer, a better game than big-boys' British bulldog NRL, a better game than mobile wresting RU and a better than than the unltra-managed and controlled NFL.

Substitutes for injured players over and above the four-man interchange bench? No mate, that's bad luck!

They've kept it under wraps for half a season, but Carlton unveiled their latest recruit against the Saints at Docklands tonight. Disguised as an injured Chris Judd, the new recruit was revealed as none other than a character in the multi-chapter Harry Potter franchise! AFL enquiries will be made when it is realised the character was not even on the Blues' rookie list.

Left: A character in the multi-chapter Harry Potter franchise, cunningly disguised as Chris Judd. Right: A character in the multi-chapter Harry Potter franchise in a recent movie role.

  

I noted, with barely-concealed disgust, the apparent war of words being slugged out between TV chef Ramsay and ACA doberwoman Grimshaw in the online newspapers. As I marvelled at ACA's fantastic capacity to claim the high moral ground and label others as lowlife, it occurred to me that something similar has almost become the norm in footy circles.

It was, perhaps, not coincidental that it was Channel Ten who regaled us with the now-famous footage of Ben Cousins flipping the bird. This is the same broadcaster that brought us such cerebral delights as Big Brother, whose weekly prime time roster currently includes NCIS × 2, Law & Order: SVU × 2 and Law & Order: Criminal Intent × 2 — that's six grisly murders — and they're outraged by a footballer raising a finger in what he would assume is the privacy of the dressing room?

For everyone who hyperventilated over Cousins, get over it! The football media could show us many more shocking images, tell many more shocking stories about many other footballers; Cousins is simply an easy target.

So, at last, the slow-motion bus crash that was the Wallace years at Richmond has, like previous coach Frawley, entered its final moments.

As previously noted at AussieRulesBlog, it's too easy and simplistic to declare that Wallace is a poor coach, as his period at the helm of the Bulldogs attests eloquently. I am inclined, still, to the view that deep cultural factors underlay Wallace's inability to steer the Tigers to success. If any blame is to be sheeted home to him, perhaps it is his failure to ensure sufficient internal political backing to make hard and unpopular decisions. That the administration has been unstable has not helped Wallace's cause.

And so to the aftermath, and the choice of a replacement coach. High on the checklist should be recent significant involvement in Premiership-winning culture, a non-Richmond background and the force of personality to remove dead wood, no matter how unpopular the decision. Is there such a person potentially available? Do Alistair Clarkson or Mark Thompson have hidden twin siblings? Can the Tigers withstand the further pain of bottoming out completely on the way to fully rebuilding the list?

On the other side of the country, Mark Harvey finds himself trapped in a similar slow-motion accident. Despite a bench-ful of veritable cripples in the final quarter last Friday night, Fremantle should have been able to overcome the chronically-inept Tigers. Harvey had the look of a rabbit caught in the headlights, unable to move to save himself, wondering how his team could butcher such an opportunity. The signs of a similar cultural problem at Fremantle are compelling. Harvey's attempt to import a new culture along with a slew of ex-Essendon buddies appears doomed. It beggars belief that a team with a decent culture could become so expert at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The laws of australian football, as they are being applied in round ten, bear only a passing resemblance to those being applied through the pre-season competition and the early rounds of the season.

Please put us out of our misery, Jeff, and release a mid-year DVD that provides the new interpretations.

Release the Giesch!!!

PS: We'll probably need yet another one just before the finals begin.

As the title of this post would suggest, I'm somewhat torn on the free agency idea.

Currently, players land at clubs positioned on the ladder in a sort of weird inverse proportionality to the player's perceived talents, that is, the best potential players (in each draft round) going to the worst-performed clubs.

Let's think about the ramifications. Had Joel Selwood been drafted by Richmond, would we be singing his praises in quite the same way? Had Colin Sylvia been drafted by Geelong, would he now rival someone like Jimmy Bartel in that group?

Players play the game, as we're reminded almost every week, to play in Premiership teams. Had Richard Tambling been drafted by Geelong, he might well have a Premiership Medal hung on his wall.

As things stand, other than delisting or trading, a player has to accept his lot. Scott West and Robert Harvey, for instance, will go into the history books as two wonderful players who never savoured Premiership glory at the elite level.

The other side of the argument concerns loyalty to your mates, the culture, the history and the hundreds of passionate, ne'er-say-die volunteers and helpers around every club. I'd suggest that the aforementioned Scott West and Robert Harvey had opportunities to move to potentially more successful clubs. I'd also suggest both are very proud to be known as one-club players.

I'm very inclined to Eddie Maguire's view: that free agency will result in the death of multiple clubs in Melbourne. Wealthy clubs will, again, be able to effectively "buy" a Premiership. Less affluent clubs will lose their better players for, probably, negligible compensation.

There's one other factor that almost tips the scales for me. The salary cap was introduced to even out the competition, to avoid the rich clubs buying high-performance teams designed to fill their trophy cabinets (I'm looking at you, Carlton!). Free agency works in direct opposition to the salary cap.

I'd be grateful for the collected wisdom of the AussieRulesBlog 'community' to help me make up my mind. . .

Regular AussieRulesBlog readers will have gleaned that I am a devoted Bomber. Without quibbling about the result, I'm left to wonder what the differences are between Nathan Lovett-Murray's three-week bump and Nick Maxwell's get-off-scott-free bump during the pre-season. I think Lovett-Murray was dumb and he is a serial offender, so three weeks is fair enough.

Let's think about the two scenarios. Both were clearly late. Tick. Both involved somewhat incidental(?) contact to the opponent's head. Tick. Lovett-Murray gave Pettifer a bloodied nose, Maxwell broke McGinnity's jaw. Huh?

[Edit, 27 May: When I wrote this, I was having a daydream (apparently) and avoided remembering that the Match Review Panel actually cited Maxwell and awarded a penalty of weeks. It was an expensive counsel and a legal technicality that saved Maxwell.]

I noticed a few comments from media people this week about the changes in umpiring interpretations since the season began a mere nine weeks ago. It is crystal clear that many of the zero-tolerance, tiggy-touch wood interpretations have been remaindered again this year.

I'm at a loss to understand why it is that umpires are instructed to be overly technical, intransigent and intolerant as the season begins, only to have the whistles pretty much packed away by finals time, as suggested by James Hird on Fox Sports' On the Couch.

As the season began, merely touching a player who had just marked was virtually an automatic 50-metre penalty. In Round Nine you could dance an evening two-step with the player and the umpire's whistle stays firmly at his side.

Surely a law of the game is a law of the game? It is frankly ludicrous that the operating interpretation of so many "laws of the game" should vary so greatly over a period of two months. It hardly helps the AFL's campaign for greater respect for umpires for the elite umpiring department in the country to not be able to make up its mind what does and does not constitute a free kick or a 50-metre penalty across the space of two months.

Who makes these decisions? Is it Jeff Gieschen, my favourite whipping boy? Or Rowan Sawers? Adrian Anderson? Andrew Demetriou? Guys, you have our sport in trust. Isn't it about time you stopped screwing around with it?

As the writing on the wall looms ever larger for Terry Wallace at Richmond — and with another six senior coaches potentially coming out of contract at the end of the year — attention will turn, inevitably, to the potential choices for seven AFL clubs.

In a series of previous posts, and this one follows on, I've looked at one relatively crude criterion that might be applied when clubs decide who to look at seriously. I'll be spending some effort in bringing a slightly more scholarly approach to the question as the season unfolds, but a superficial analysis right now serves to illustrate the minefield that club administrations are entering.

Following on from my previous arbitrary measurement (Premierships equal success), I decided to look at premiership years as players — playing in a grand final is not intrinsic as I'm focusing on cultural exposure rather than on-field experience of the last Saturday — of five current, and one recently-discarded, coaches. This is, of course, absolutely ad hoc and unscientific.

It's also interesting to note that a very low number of naturally-talented footballers have achieved the ultimate coaching success: Blight (2), Jesaulenko (1), Roos (1), Coleman (2), and, stretching the definition in my view, Matthews (4).

Gritty players who got the most out of their (limited) talent are over-represented: Parkin (4), Sheedy (4), Hafey (4), Jeans (4), Barassi (4), Kennedy (3), Malthouse (2), Pagan (2), Williams (1), Thompson (1 and counting) [and Clarkson (1)].

See Coaching credentials 2

Anyone over the age of 40 will recall that Lou Richards was the perhaps the biggest name in football through the 70s and 80s. If all you've ever seen of Lou is the banal tosh they've had him doing on Channel Nein for the last decade, then you'll have to take my word for it. Lou is, and will always be, a legend of the game, whether he has the tag or not.

The only footy 'personalities' who could give Lou a run for his money were Ted Whitten — Mr. Football — and Ron Barassi — affectionately dubbed Mrs. Football by Ted.

I think Lou and his family have made a mistake in waiving a Lifetime Achievement Award. Not only would it be the first, but it would also be richly deserved.

I think it only a matter of time before the Hall of Fame criteria are revised to include media. It may not happen before Lou leaves us, but I think you can bank on it.

After Lou is made a legend (eventually), the next media Legend should be Lou, Jack and Bob's League Teams.

Over recent weeks I've become increasingly more disenchanted with current adjudication of the holding the ball/incorrect disposal rule.

There appears to be a chasm between what we see during the games each weekend and the explanations provided by the AFL's Umpiring Department. And, might I just note in passing that having Dwayne Russell do the voiceovers for the video explanations highlights nicely the gap of understanding when he is calling games and clearly has no idea why players have been free kicked.

See the Holding the Ball video here.

In viewing the video, it seems to me that the problems lie in the failure to define prior opportunity. How much time is enough time? One player will be free-kicked when tackled less than a second after receiving the ball, another will be able to swing through almost 360º whilst being tackled, often over two or three seconds, without being free-kicked.

The average AFL spectator has no idea. Crowds routinely howl "BAAAALLLLLLLLLL!!!!!" the moment a player is touched. Unfortunately, some umpires seem to feed this frenzy with apparently hair-trigger decisions.

The one things that seems clear, watching games, is that the Umpiring Department haven't offered umpires a 'template' for judging prior opportunity.

Is it a measure of the failure of zero-tolerance approaches in interpreting other rules that a template hasn't been provided? Whatever the case, blatant inconsistency does nothing to further the cause of umpires. As I've noted previously, I'm sure we'd all prefer a consistent interpretation, even if we disagree with the practical effect of a rule.

How about it, Jeff? Do you want to let the footballing public into the secret? How long is long enough for prior opportunity?

A second factor, actual disposal after being tackled, also seems to suffer in the interpretation. Many times the ball appears to be dislodged by the tackle, but no free kick is paid despite this not being a legal disposal. Other times, a player with an arm pinned is spun around with the ball taken from his grasp by the force of the tackle, sometimes free kicked for illegal disposal, sometimes not. The seemingly capricious basis for these decisions is, frankly, mystifying and nothing provided by the AFL Umpiring Department sheds light on the practical application of these rules.

Having had the occasion to see Franklin first hand (thank-you to the footy gods for an unexpected victory!!!) and watching the telecast later, I'm inclined to think that Franklin has a lot of Richo in his makeup.

I've written in other forums that I expect Franklin to be able to do the ordinary as well, and as consistently, as he occasionally does the extraordinary (and over a decent period) before he warrants the tag "champion". Aussierulesblog readers would know that I'm no fan of Richo, and his inability to do the ordinary as well as he occasionally does the extraordinary is a key element of my criticism.

I noticed another Richo-like behaviour from Franklin while watching the video: preoccupation with the big screen at the ground after being involved in the play.

There's no doubt that Richo is well-regarded and popular and I'm sure that Franklin will also be well-regarded and popular over his career.

At this relatively early stage of his career, Franklin does have a Premiership medallion that Richo would crave, but the similarities are compelling.

Some nine and a bit years after the Docklands stadium burst onto the AFL scene, some clubs are discovering their deals to play at the stadium are toxic. North Melbourne CEO, Eugene Arocca claims the club will have to write out a cheque to stadium management after their upcoming home fixture against Port Adelaide. One assumes future fixtures at the venue against other non-Victorian teams are likely to generate the same result.

Someone from North Melbourne signed the deal with Docklands management. Did they have their eyes closed at the time? Did they read the small print, or was it treated like a credit card or mobile phone contract?

IF the deals for North, St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs are as toxic as reports suggest, it's surely not the stadium's fault. The question a sensible person could ask is whether club management at the time were incompetent.

Of course, the elephant in this room is the commercial basis for ownership of the Docklands stadium. Stadium owners' borrowings have to be managed, along with operational costs. Were the finance a public-sector arrangement, perhaps with State Government guarantee, the interest rate would be lower, logically leading to lower operating costs.

It should also be remarked at this point that the AFL did, relatively recently, possess a fully-owned stadium, in AFL Park, which could have been further developed to the original planned capacity IF various State Governments had honoured promises to provide public transport infrastructure to service the site.

Oh no! Another heresy, but this time against one of my own heartfelt tennets. Reading The Age's sport section today, I find myself in total agreement with Captain Obvious. It's actually a very good piece.

I must go and wash now. I feel unclean. . .

Postscript (Saturday 2 May): I knew it couldn't last. Watching the Hawthorn-Carlton game on TV was excruciating. Walls sounded even more awful than usual, but his comments were so soaked in navy blue. The contrast with the radio calls on MMM and ABC was stark.

Michael Gleeson's piece in The Age, and especially the quotes of Jeff Gieschen therein, show exactly how parlous the state of officiating in elite Aussie Rules has become. The logical contortions required to justify the current week's interpretations of rules are breathtaking. God-botherers aguing about angels and pins would be almost a breath of logical fresh air by contrast.

Nick Maxwell is quoted saying: "I thinks there's just a little bit of confusion [among players] at the moment." Well, Nick, you sure dribbled a bib-full there. If the players, who have regular conversation with the umpires, are confused, what chance de we poor dumb punters have?

The micro-definition of (some) laws of the game, the (temporary) 'zero tolerance' stands, constant shifting (apparently) of interpretations, bald-faced contradictions as noted by Gleeson AND the increasingly precious attitude on the part of some umpires are damaging the brand.

I think most players and spectators want one thing and one thing only from the umpires: CONSISTENCY. Even if we think a rule is a crock of poo, if it's applied and adjudicated consistently, I'm sure most people would wear that. If the current interpretations don't allow for consistent application, CHANGE THEM!

The buck for this mess has to stop somewhere. Jeff, grab your coat and piss off!

The 50-metre penalty was initially introduced to combat 'professional' time-wasting. Defenders would hurl the ball back over a free kick recipient's head in order to buy time to man up. A player taking a mark would be dragged to the turf — again to buy time to man up. In the past, time-wasting activities like kicking the ball over the boundary line were used for the same purpose. Brent Guerra, in the 2008 Grand Final, used deliberately rushed behinds to waste time in an attacking ploy.

I have no problem with the 50-metre penalty in these situations.

Recently though, we've seen 50-metre penalties applied for trifling indiscretions: touching an umpire (not aggressively); pointing at an umpire; pointing at your own eyes (in a threatening manner?); abuse of an umpire; and some in-play examples that are inconsistently adjudicated . . . Arguably inconsistent applications include the contrast between the Heath Shaw suspension and the Henry Slattery letoff for touching umpires (it's not hard to argue that Shaw's action was more aggressive than Slattery's) that was announced as a zero tolerance policy a few short weeks ago.

AFL Umpiring Director, Jeff Gieschen, has made the point that player behaviour toward umpires in the elite competition provides an 'acceptable behaviour template' (my words, my emphasis) for players in lesser competitions, where security arrangements for umpires might be non-existent. I'm sure there are scenarios every weekend of the season where umpires in lesser competitions fear for their safety.

Despite this rational argument, the practical implementation leaves much to be desired. As things stand at Round 5 of 2009, the umpires are looking precious. Perhaps it's a personality-driven thing. Is it just me, or does Steve McBurney feature disproportionately in the awarding of off-the-ball 50-metre penalties? Does he have super vision, is he simply extra vigilant, or is he the ultimate umpiring technocrat? (I'll go for #3.)

Whatever the reasons, whatever the justifications, the elite-level game is now littered with 50-metre penalties for trivial offences. A penalty awarded anywhere forward of the half-back line virtually means a kick for goal. This is too large a penalty for many of the infractions it is applied to.

Applying my Nostradamus-like qualities to this conundrum, I'd suggest we'll see a review of these interpretations for the next season.

This has been yet another example of the AFL trying to crush a peanut with a 50-tonne press.