Melbourne coach Dean Bailey’s response to opinions from Carlton’s Mitch Robinson and high-profile ex-player Dermott Brereton that the Demons play “bruise-free footy” beggars belief.

AussieRulesBlog understands that Bailey is expected to answer questions at a press conference, but to describe the opinions as “offensive” having offered only “Go and turn the Adelaide game on” and , in relation to last Friday’s game against the Blues, “I think we had some instances during  the game where we were hard and tough at the footy...” [our italics and bolding] as justifications is flogging the perpetrators with a wet lettuce leaf.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Bailey agrees with the assessment — behind closed doors. But if Bailey and the club regard these comments as insulting, there’s really only one way to deny them, and that’s on the field on Friday night against the Bombers.

AussieRulesBlog watched the game on TV and was struck by the Demons’ inability to handle the ball cleanly under pressure time and time again.

AussieRulesBlog isn’t the first to mention this, and we’re sure we won’t be the last, but judgements on players’ and coaches’ performances can only properly be judged from the context of each club’s inner sanctum.

We’re moved to mention this after watching On the Couch last night. Chris Scott, rookie Geelong coach, was in the chair and was questioned by Mike Sheahan about his post-match comments about Steve Johnson.

Sheahan’s point was that Johnson had gathered 21 possessions and kicked seven goals. What, he wondered, could Scott have been upset about.

And here’s the nub of the problem. The media’s focus is on the tangible elements of the game. If Johnson had gathered only 7 possessions and kicked 7 goals, Sheahan and his media colleagues would still have been in raptures.

Scott prefaced his answer to Sheahan by making the point that, internally, the club judged players’ performance by measures other than raw possessions. It’s about the often-invisible, so-called “one-percenters” such as positioning at a stoppage, picking up a loose opponent, running to block a space, unrewarded running and the like.

The truth of the matter is that we cannot judge players or coaches because we aren’t privy to the detailed instructions and game planning, the training drills and team meetings, the match committee and boardroom discussions. Without that context, it’s all more-or-less uneducated guesswork.

Of course there’s a place for the media, but it would be nice if they were, generally, less obsessed with statistics and more concerned with context and nuance. Among the chief stat obsessors is (Captain Obvious) Robert Walls, and the standout for context and nuance is Dermott Brereton.

I would encourage AussieRulesBlog readers to take media hyperbole over stats with a very large pinch of salt and think about context and nuance.

Edited — see clarification below.

Serendipity is always unexpected — perhaps it’s in its nature to be so. Recently, AussieRulesBlog has been having a slightly agitated online discussion on some aspects of the rules of Aussie Rules. As part of that discussion, we made the observation that the vast majority of the crowds we share stadiums with appear to have only a passing acquaintance with the rules of the game if we can take the almost maniacal shouting of “Baaallllllll!!” as any indication.

As a result, we had resolved to do a series of posts on various aspects of the rules with a view to doing our bit to improve general understanding of them and thus, somewhat contrary to our reputation, also do our bit to moderate some of the criticism directed at umpires at the elite level.

The serendipity comes in as we watched Foxtel’s broadcast of the Bulldogs-Hawthorn game yesterday evening. Brian Taylor expressed a view on an umpiring decision that was completely at odds with the rule that we had, only a day or two beforehand, considered in some detail. We don’t think it’s making too big a leap to suggest that most footy fans get their knowledge of the rules and their interpretation from TV broadcasts — whether it be the audio from umpires which is broadcast or the comments of those providing the TV commentary.

So, here goes with our first foray into developing a better understanding of the rules of the game. We’re going to start with one of the most contentious areas of the game: holding the ball.

Here’s the relevant rules, direct from Laws of Australian Football 2011 (including weird capitalisation!):

15.2.3 holding the football — Prior opportunity/No Prior opportunity
Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:

(a) has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football immediately when they are Correctly Tackled; or
(b) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

15.2.4 application — specific Instances where Play shall continue
For the avoidance of doubt, the field Umpire shall allow play to continue when:
(a) a Player is bumped and the football falls from the Player’s hands;
(b) a Player’s arm is knocked which causes the Player to lose possession of the football;
(c) a Player’s arms are pinned to their side by an opponent which causes the Player to drop the football, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply;
(d) a Player, whilst in the act of Kicking or Handballing, is swung off-balance and does not make contact with the football by either foot or hand, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply; or
(e) a Player is pulled or swung by one arm which causes the football to fall from the Player’s hands, unless the Player has had a prior opportunity to Correctly Dispose of the football, in which case Law 15.2.3 (a) shall apply.

15.3.1 correct disposal
A Player Correctly Disposes of the football if the Player Kicks or Handballs the football.

AussieRulesBlog heard a story from Dermott Brereton a couple of weeks ago on SEN Radio before a Friday night game. It was after the Montagna-Curnow incident. Brereton suggested the most appropriate penalty for Montagna was “the you dog rule.” He went on to explain, and we’ll paraphrase as best we can remember. He said he’d never told this story publicly before.

The young Brereton had developed the habit of sagging at the knees when tackled, causing the tackle to connect above his shoulders. He’d got a lot of free kicks this way. One day, playing against North at Arden St, he was matched up on John Law. Law wasn’t a star, but Brereton respected him as a gritty and determined opponent. Early in the game, Law had applied two tackles, Brereton had sagged and been awarded the free kick. On the second occasion, standing on the mark, Law said to Brereton, “Stop cheating, you dog! Stand up and take the tackle!”

Brereton claims he never again used the sag at the knees strategy. Losing the respect of his opponent was a greater penalty to him than a penalty from the tribunal.

As much as Brereton hated and respected Essendon, we Bombers hated and respected him. Like Leigh Matthews, Brereton handed out his fair share of physical punishment, but when the time came for some return fire, he didn’t flinch. AussieRulesBlog respected him then as a fierce and fearsome opponent.

These days, we think he’s about the best analyst going around. It takes guts to tell the story that he did to a radio audience. The hate has long faded. Now it is simply RESPECT!

AussieRulesBlog hopes the “clarification” of the advantage rule provided to AFL clubs is more effective that the version posted to the AFL website.

We don’t feel any wiser than we did before seeing this “clarification”. And beyond providing a justification for Barcodes supporters to claim, “We woz robbed!”, we’re not quite sure what has been clarified.

Still, the player-initiated advantage rule does have an element of pure luck about it which is perfectly in keeping with the game’s addiction to gambling sponsorship at the moment.

With much recent furore over Match Review Panel assessments, it’s worth taking a look at the system on which those assessments are based.

The first part of the process consists of the MRP reviewing match video and assessing incidents according to this first table.

Once the level of the offence has been determined, a second table defines the demerit points accruing to the player.

In essence, each 100 demerit points signify a one-match suspension penalty, with any balance carried over. There are deductions, such as a 25% discount for an early plea in most cases, and some additions, such as carryover demerit points from previous offenses.

What emerges from a brief examination of the system is the crucial nature of the MRP’s assessment of the incident.

Let’s look at three recent incidents and examine how the MRP’s classifications affected the final result.

Campbell Brown — Striking

After considering the medical report lodged by the Western Bulldogs, the incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), medium impact (two points) 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. He has an existing bad record of two matches suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 20 per cent to 270 demerit points. He also has 2.50 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 272.50 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 204.38 points and a two-match sanction.

An assessment of ‘intentional’ would have raised this to a level 4 offence, and together with an assessment of ‘high impact’ the offence would be level 5. We can’t imagine that many would have argued about intentional and high impact (as distinct from high contact which was already included). Level 5 striking offences attract 425 demerit points, plus a 20% penalty and carryover points is 512.5, less 25% for an early plea is 384 points, or three weeks’ suspension and 84 carryover.

AussieRulesBlog still finds three weeks to be a bit of a flogging with wet lettuce given the actions involved. Without high impact, the total is 294 demerit points and two weeks. It matters not that Brown was also involved in the Hall incident in the same game and demerit points accrued.

Jack Trengove — Rough conduct

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Adelaide Crows, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 243.75 points and a two-match sanction.

AussieRulesBlog has previous expressed our opinion on this assessment. In our view, the high contact assessment was inappropriate since Trengove grabbed Dangerfield well below the shoulder. Without high contact, and then there would not have been a report in all likelihood, 225 demerits less 25% (168) would probably have seen Melbourne and Trengove bite the bullet and accept the penalty.

In the event, an unsuccessful challenge sees Trengove on the sidelines for three weeks.

It is worth noting that the Tribunal Booklet includes the following:

The application of a tackle may be considered rough conduct, which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence, without limitation, regard may be had to:
– whether the tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
– whether the tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle;
– whether an opponent is slung or driven into the ground with excessive force.

Heath Hocking — Striking

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of eight activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Five offence, drawing 425 demerit points and a four-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 318.75 points and a three-match sanction.

In this case we’re looking for some consistency, or at least it’s appearance. Brown’s back elbow to the head of a player who would not have been expecting it was rated reckless and medium impact. Hocking is defending himself against a vigorous physical charge by Polkinghorne and gets intentional and high impact — the double whammy, as it were. Was Hocking’s action 2 weeks’ worse than Brown’s?

A level 3 offence for Hocking — 225 less 25% = 168 — seems more appropriate in the circumstances and more in tune with other similar results and consequent injuries.

Summary

Of course there are unique factors and circumstances in each incident that the MRP reviews. There is never going to be uniformity, but the assessments being handed down seem to be from a different parallel universe each week. As with umpiring, getting it right would be nice, but we’ll settle for a consistent approach — even if it’s the wrong one.

Access the AFL’s 2010 Tribunal booklet for full details of the MRP system, including detailed definitions.

Those of us over a certain age have many fond memories of the Marx brothers-like hi jinks of Bob Davis, Jack Dyer and Lou Richards on League Teams each Thursday night. Three good mates having a bit of fun — with a bit of football occasionally thrown in to justify having the cameras and floor crew standing by. It was the sort of real fun we used to watch before reality TV.

And now there is only one.

AussieRulesBlog is deeply saddened by the passing of Bob Davis.

Jack Dyer passed away in 2003.

Adrian Anderson’s Match Review Panel system continues to defy reasonable expectation.

Early in the season, Campbell Brown’s “reckless” backward elbow got him only a two-week holiday (albeit followed by another two-week penalty for his high tackle of Barry Hall).

Last week it was the Trengove/Dangerfield incident where Trengove was charged with “high contact” — which he didn’t make, as we noted in the previous post. We agree that sling tackles are dangerous, but it seemed the MRP had decided to use Trengove to make a statement about sling tackles and loaded up the charge.

This week it’s the Bombers’ Heath Hocking who has been the subject of the MRP’s capricious assessment. Hocking’s contact with Brisbane’s James Polkinghorne has been labelled “intentional”. For those who’ve not seen the video, Hocking was tagging Simon Black. Black was running from the centre of the ground to the forward flank, trailed by Hocking. As Hocking approached him, Polkinghorne made a clear motion to block the running Hocking.

MRP matrix

Intentional

definition of ‘intentional’ – A player intentionally commits a reportable offence if the player engages in the conduct constituting the reportable offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment. [Our italics]

AussieRulesBlog is at a loss to understand the furore over the suspension handed out to Melbourne’s Jack Trengove for his tackle of Adelaide’s Patrick Dangerfield. We’re also struggling to understand the footy club’s statement that the tackle was executed “to a tee”.

The simple fact is that Dangerfield was slung to the ground rather than being dragged to the ground. The extra force associated with the slinging action makes that sort of tackle potentially very dangerous — as exhibited by the resulting concussion experienced by Dangerfield.

If Melbourne, or any other club, are teaching their players to sling their opponents in tackles, they’re exposing their players to enormous legal risk should the tackled player sustain a serious injury. If Melbourne, or anyone else associated with AFL football, thinks that a sling tackle is an appropriate action, they’re sadly mistaken.

We do have one area of dispute with the initial citing of the incident however. Contact was deemed to be high, and that wasn’t the case. It was the result of the slinging action that caused Dangerfield’s head to contact the turf. One less activation point in the initial report may have convinced Melbourne not to contest the charge.

Every now and again an AFL footballer demonstrates a chivalrous attitude that renews AussieRulesBlog’s faith in the higher ideals of sport.

Some years ago, Essendon’s David Hille turned back from following the ball to check on an injured Jamie Charman and call Brisbane trainers to his aid. More recently, a couple of players whose names we don’t recall have, similarly, called trainers to aid opponents who have been concussed in contests for the ball.

And then there’s the win-at-any-cost attitude that sees Lee Montagna and Justin Koschitzke ‘test’ a clearly incapacitated Ed Curnow’s shoulder by bumping him as players milled around at the end of a quarter. There are plenty of precedents. Jack Riewoldt attempting to punch Tayte Pears’ injured hand, Steven Baker punching Steve Johnston’s injured hand, Mal Michael bumping Nick Riewoldt’s injured shoulder, Steven Kretiuk and Matthew Lloyd’s hand, . . .

Some readers will be thinking as they read this, it’s a man’s game and what happens on the field stays on the field, or if you run out onto the field you’re effectively saying you’re fit enough to compete. Well we agree with these sentiments — up to a point.

Sport should be about striving for ideals, about competing fiercely in the contest and respecting your opponent. The modern game appears to be leaning toward, figuratively, kicking an opponent when they’re down and the physically-strong oppressing the physically-weakened.

It’s about respect. Not just respecting opponents, although that’s very important. It’s about respecting yourself and treating others as you would want them to treat you.

Let’s not beat around the bush: Lee Montagna and Justin Koschitzke were unsportsmanlike in their attack on Curnow. There’s no other way to say it. They brought the game, and sport in the wider context, into disrepute.

Such incidents must be made illegal and automatically referred to the tribunal. There cannot be any justification for such attacks outside of a genuine contest for the ball.

Over to you, Andrew and Mike. Do we want our game to promote respect? Or are you happy to see it descending into unprovoked mob violence?

Simon Black’s “mercenaries” jibe at high-profile Gold Coast Suns recruits seemed out of character at the time (see previous post).

In subsequent days, Gold Coast coach Guy McKenna weighed in with a dig about “cleaning up [Brisbane’s] mess” and now, somewhat predictably given the sequence of events, Brisbane coach Michael Voss says he is taking McKenna’s comment “personally”.

‘Anonymous’ suggested in a comment on our Black story that the whole thing was a PR set-up. We have to agree as events have unfolded.

Far from establishing a fierce ‘cross-town’ rivalry, the interchange of insults between Gold Coast and Brisbane has descended into pathetic farce.

As if to underscore how empty the rivalry is, that doyen of deep and sober analysis, Robert Walls, has weighed in with a defence of his own Brisbane legacy.

Enough already!

Seriously guys, leave this sort of childish nonsense to the experts in the field: politicians. Just get on with the footy!

We know it’s Tuesday and, after a fortnight with almost daily games scheduled, media outlets must be struggling for news, but inventing history is a bit beyond the pale.

“James Hird won't be following Kevin Sheedy's tradition of waving his jacket to taunt West Coast fans. . . .
It became a tradition for Sheedy to wave his jacket around to celebrate a win over the Eagles, pioneering the move following a two-point triumph in 1993.”

Kevin Sheedy’s tradition? Really? Well, we will concede that he did it once.

Since then it has been very much a supporters’ tradition.

As an Essendon member, we can’t quite recall any other occasion when Sheedy waved his jacket.

Still, on a slow news day it seems it’s OK to rewrite history to provide an ‘angle’ to fill some space.

Simon Black’s outrageous taunt of Michael Rischitelli as a “mercenary” is a step too far. Black would do well to recall that Brisbane shopped Rischitelli around in its ill-fated quest to acquire Brendan Fevola.

Without personal knowledge of either Rischitelli or fellow trade bait Daniel Bradshaw, there’s little reason to suggest that either would have deserted the Lions had the club not treated them so cavalierly.

We wonder if Black would be taking such a high-minded attitude had he been the one shopped around as trade bait.

This is an inglorious chapter at the end of an otherwise storied career. If anyone has advised Black before his outburst, they’ve done him a serious disservice.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Who would have thought that Mr Dickens would have been so attuned to AFL football in the 21st century? The opening line of A Tale of Two Cities could easily refer to Essendon and St Kilda. What’s more, there’s a common thread.

Over the off-season there was an exodus of sorts from the Saints. The entire roster of assistant coaches moved on. Although not linked to the Saints’ situation, the sacking of Matthew Knights at Windy Hill also presaged an exodus of assistant coaches.

Ross Lyon gathered a new group of assistants, as did new coach James Hird at Essendon.

Eagle-eyed readers will note that the Bombers have 3½ wins from six games, while the Saints have managed just 1½ wins.

Now, of course AussieRulesBlog isn’t going to put this discrepancy down to just a coaching staff changeover — there was the little matter of a certain 17-year-old and the repercussions thereof which may have distracted the Saints.

But, thinking about assistant coaches and what they can bring to a club, let’s look at the ins and outs for both the Saints and the Bombers.

St Kilda

Essendon

It’s pretty clear, even from the outside, that the assistants at Essendon in 2011 have make a substantial contribution to the apparent turnaround in the Bombers’ on-field fortunes.

Simply by extrapolation, it would seem the change in the Saints’ on-field fortunes might have more than a little connection to the change in coaching staff. We commented on the scale of the Saints’ cleanout last November.

Last year,like many others, AussieRulesBlog wrote off the chances of Karmichael Hunt making an impact at AFL level. Today we had our first opportunity to see him play live, albeit as part of a Suns team demolished to the tune of 139 points. Our clever headline last year — Not Really Likely — gave the NRL convert no chance. We were wrong — big time!

Today was Hunt’s fifth game of Aussie Rules at the elite level, and one of less than perhaps two dozen games he has ever played. Playing today in the maelstrom that was the Suns’ backline, we considered that Hunt acquitted himself creditably in his circumstances and the game context.

At one point, Hunt took a kickout after an Essendon behind — and executed a perfectly serviceable 50-metre drop punt. On a number of occasions he delivered precise handballs to teammates in better positions. He effected a good number of effective spoils of his opponents. Only once did we see him make a ‘mistake’ — he collected the ball in free space, delivered a nice handball to a teammate, ran on to support and appeared somewhat surprised to receive the ball back again when he was clearly going to be under immediate pressure. The resulting turnover delivered a goal to the Dons.

Yesterday, glamour Giants recruit Israel Folau played just his fourth game of Aussie Rules and only his second against mature-bodied, experienced top-level footballers — with apologies to the players at Ainslie and Tuggeranong. It’s no surprise that he was “all at sea” at times. Like Hunt, Folau demonstrated that he can kick the Sherrin effectively with a solid kick out of defence. Unfortunately for him, there we no Giants players in the vicinity and Bret Thornton kicked a goal from his mark.

Will Hunt or Folau emulate Jim Stynes and go on to win a Brownlow Medal? Probably not. Will future opponents have sleepless nights wondering how to counter them? Unlikely. Will they be solid and useful players for their clubs? We have no doubt that can achieve that goal and earn their place in their respective teams legitimately.

We also witnessed Gary Ablett Jnr again today. Like all the Suns players, apart from a period in the second quarter, he was only able to make cameo efforts to stem the Bomber tide. What really impressed us however were two incidents at quarter breaks. After the first-quarter blitz, Ablett called the players to a huddle and spoke to them before they went to the coaches and ancillary staff. After the third quarter, Ablett made a bee-line for the Suns’ Jack Hutchins and was clearly intent on explaining something to him and encouraging him. We think any suggestion that Ablett is not doing his utmost for the Suns is way off the mark.