Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Breaking news: AFL coach swears

No comments:

AussieRulesBlog thinks we’re getting just a bit too precious when Alastair Clarkson is the subject of media reports because he swore.

 

Sure, it was on the field during an under-age football match. Yes, it would have been better had it not happened.

 

And, yes, every one of those kids would have seen graphic television footage of pretty much every AFL coach silently uttering some expletive or other. And let’s not forget about players missing shots for goal and exclaiming “Point!”, but starting it with an F.

 

It also appears Clarkson is not guilty of the “expletive-laden rant” that one radio report had accused him of.

 

Please, let’s not blow this grain of sand up into a mountain.

Read More

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Dissent is not evil

No comments:

It’s a mark of totalitarian regimes that they do not tolerate dissent and that’s an unfortunate association for the AFL to be courting when it admonishes players or officials who comment on legitimate points of discussion in the game.

 

This last week, in the wake of the Ziebell-Judd equivalency, three players took to the ether to express a view and North Melbourne coach Brad Scott chose a media interview to do the same.

 

The three players were issued with a ‘please explain’ letter each.

 

Drew Petrie’s tweet: “advice for jackziebell. Stop being so courageous and playing footy hard that way it's meant to be played. Please turn into a softy!”

 

James Kelly’s tweet: “I was going to tweet how Zebel getting 4 weeks was a mare of a decision but decided not to so I don't get in trouble.”

 

The AFL has apparently determined that these comments were not in breach of Rule 23.18.2 — a rule that doesn’t appear in the AFL’s 1012 version of the laws of the game in case you were thinking of checking it out — in that they were not “unfair, unreasonable or excessive”.

 

It’s just too precious of the AFL to insist that players and officials cannot criticise umpires, the Match Review Panel or the Tribunal when the decisions of these AFL functionaries have a significant potential effect on how players and officials can go about their tasks.

 

The Ziebell decision, where even the tribunal that suspended Ziebell agreed that he’d been attempting to gain possession of the football — a fundamental tenet of the sport of Aussie Rules, surely — goes to the very heart of how players compete for the football. The tribunal has effectively said that incidentally causing injury to an opponent whilst attempting to gain possession of the ball is an infringement of the rules of the game and will carry  some penalty.

 

This is absolutely untenable, but even more incredible is the AFL’s response to criticism. We wonder if there’d be please explain letters for players agreeing with the tribunal’s stance?

 

If the decisions of umpires, the Match Review Panel and the Tribunal cannot stand the spotlight of criticism, then our game is in a pretty bad way.

 

And by criticism AussieRulesBlog doesn’t mean the invective hurled at umpires from the stands. The Bomber supporter (unfortunately) just below us on Friday night who commented on every umpiring decision by shouting “You idiot!” or “You moron!” is where the AFL should concentrate their efforts. We wonder if he knew he was referring to himself?

Read More

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

AFL judicial system is broken

No comments:

So, let’s get this straight. Jack Ziebell’s collision with Aaron Joseph in a genuine contest for the ball is equivalent to Chris Judd wrenching an opponent’s arm whilst he is pinned with a player on top of him. Of course that’s a simplistic assessment, but the similarity of the penalty — a four-week holiday each, if you hadn’t heard — invites the comparison.

 

The old VFL/AFL Tribunal system may have been antiquated, time-consuming and, as we then thought, inconsistent, but compared to the hotch-potch inflicted on the game by Adrian Anderson it was simply wonderful.

 

There is no part of the current system that delivers consistency and most parts, including basic on-field officiating, are devoid of considerations of context. The system is, quite simply, broken and it’s author cannot credibly remain in his post. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out, Adrian.

Read More

Monday, July 16, 2012

Judd legacy in jeopardy

No comments:

AussieRulesBlog wonders if Chris Judd has damaged the brand — in a football sense — beyond redemption with his third bizarre act of unsportsmanlike conduct on the field.

 

We are thinking of comparisons with, say, Ben Cousins. Cousins’ well-publicised off-field issues never significantly affected his on-field performance. AussieRulesBlog regards him as one of the finest dozen or so players we have seen.

 

Similarly, Wayne Carey’s indiscretions, also well-publicised, didn’t damage his standing as one of the very best footballers to have ever pulled on boots.

 

Remember, these are comparisons in a purely football sense, completely excluding moral issues.

 

It’s rather curious that Judd’s imperfections should show up in the very arena where he has dazzled so many. Life can be funny like that.

 

For the record, AussieRulesBlog has always regarded Judd as just below the very top echelon of players. We feel his disposal by foot has lacked the incisive precision of the truly elite players.

Read More

(Very) Special-K

No comments:

There can be little doubt that the marketing strategy that saw Karmichael Hunt signed to the Gold Coast Suns was based as much on curiosity value as any realistic expectation that Hunt could reach the pinnacle in a third football code.

 

The man they call Special-K gave us a glimpse last year with his first goal in AFL football, but has elevated his performance to a substantial degree in his second season.

 

Where, last year, pundits focussed on the smallish number and lowish quality of his possessions, this season the commentary has been almost universally positive about his value to the Suns’ midfield. His dream-fulfilling after-the-siren goal this weekend has put the stamp of approval on his fledgling AFL career.

 

It is, by any measure, a significant achievement to gain the industry’s respect. We think a return to NRL or rugby is no longer the main danger to the Suns retaining their code-jumping champion. Surely his next objective will be to conquer a fourth football code — the round ball game — before moving on to the NFL!

 

We hope that The Promised Land can emulate Special-K’s development, even if it might take a little longer. We need to remember that Hunt is 28 and had already mastered two, albeit rather similar, codes. Folau is a relative baby at 23 and even life-long AFL players of his size can struggle to hit their straps before their mid-twenties.

Read More

Monday, July 09, 2012

Absence of context in MRP rulings

No comments:

Regular readers will already be well aware that AussieRulesBlog has long been critical of the Match review panel system currently in place. The theory sounds just fine, but too often the practical results leave a great deal to be desired.

 

Sharrod Wellingham’s devastating bump to Kade Simpson last Friday night and the MRP’s assessments released today simply serve to highlight, yet again, the failings of this mathematical approach to on-field indiscretions.

 

‘Reckless’ is how the MRP describes the action. We’re tired of beating round the bush. Let’s call this assessment for what it is: bullshit! Wellingham had left the ground before the ball got to Simpson, did not ever even glance in the direction of the ball and was tucked into an offensive bumping shape, did not make any attempt to get the ball, was solely focussed on hitting Simpson. Reckless!

 

Meanwhile, Heath Hocking’s ill-considered off-the-ball block of Lenny Hayes gets assessed as ‘intentional’ — because it was off the ball. We don’t have any argument with that assessment, but it looks ridiculous compared with reckless for Wellingham’s action.

 

Not only does the reckless assessment give Wellingham a free break, but the system rewards him with a 40% discount because of his good record. Sorry, intentionally taking out an opponent in the way Wellingham did disqualifies him from obtaining any advantage from his lack of previous charges.

 

Adrian Anderson’s MRP assessment system is fine for small indiscretions, but has proved itself, time and again, demonstrably inadequate for major incidents.

 

Anyone who saw Simpson’s body spasming in the seconds after the collision will have had the same thoughts that ran through AussieRulesBlog’s mind — that Simpson had sustained a major spinal or head injury. We reckon Wellingham is very, very lucky that he doesn’t have a wheelchair-bound Kade Simpson on his conscience.

Read More

Saturday, July 07, 2012

95% above the shoulders

No comments:

If ever a proof were needed for the old adage about football being played 95% above the shoulders, the Blues provided it last night.

 

Clearly stung by the criticism of their coach, Brett Ratten, the Blues bounded out of the blocks.

 

The Barcodes, like the Bombers a few weeks ago against the then-winless Demons, seemed to play like they could turn it on when required. But when they hit the go pedal, the Blues responded.

 

So, the out-of-form Blues gave the Barcodes a lesson in mental preparation, if not football. There simply are no easy games at AFL level and the team that assumes it can win on its own terms is destined to fall short.

Read More

Thursday, July 05, 2012

Slings and spears: weapons of yester-year

No comments:

The tackle Taylor Walker applied to Steven Morris last weekend has been almost universally condemned, and a good thing too.

 

 

For some reason we can’t fathom, some people are describing this as a sling tackle. It’s not. It’s a spear tackle. Spear tackles are characterised by the opponent being lifted from the ground and driven forcefully into the ground, more-or-less head first.

 

The sling tackle is perfectly demonstrated in Jack Trengove’s tackle of Patrick Dangerfield in 2011.

 

 

Trengove holds Dangerfield’s arm and then rolls — like a crocodile death roll — so that Dangerfield’s body is dragged over the top of Trengove’s body and into the ground. The effect is similar to those plastic arms used for throwing balls for dogs to chase. The added length of the arm tends to produce a greater acceleration of the object being pulled in a (rough) circular path. This tackle is quite clearly different in form, execution and potential health damage from Walker’s tackle.

 

In Trengove’s case, the MRP decided, quite wrongly in our opinion, that the injury sustained by Dangerfield when his head hit the ground as part of the tackle made the offence of greater magnitude than, say, Lance Franklin’s tackle last week.

 

 

 

As we’ve plainly spelled out in the title of this post, there is no place for either the sling or the spear tackle in the AFL of the twenty-first century, but please, please, please people — use the correct term.

Read More

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Yellow and black get off light

No comments:

While we’re on the subject of alternate or clash guernseys in the wake of the Bombers’ announcement of their new grey model, it’s not just the Barcodes getting an easy run.

 

The Tigers have flown under the radar on this issue, probably courtesy of the ‘lightness’ of their yellow versus the AFL-defined ‘darkness’ of the Bombers’ red sash.

 

Thus, the Tigers alternate guernsey is this innovative design:

 

 

It takes an act of will beyond AussieRulesBlog’s abilities to see that the addition of yellow side panels and some yellow around arms and neck makes this guernsey materially lighter than the standard Tigers strip.

 

So, there’s one immovable rule for the Bombers and fifteen other teams, and a separate one each for the Barcodes and the Tigers.

Read More

The issue isn’t grey, it’s black and white

No comments:

There’s a predictable storm in a teacup as our beloved Bombers reveal their new alternate guernsey, a mix of tradition and various enhancements designed to placate all but the most vociferous opponents.

 

2347

 

The Bombers already feature grey in the logo and in various apparel items including training gear. Let’s be grateful they decided on grey and not the TrueValue Solar blue!

 

The real issue isn’t the Bombers. Essendon have fought a brave rearguard action to avoid the inevitable, but have bowed to it with (public) good grace. Not so the Barcodes.

 

AussieRulesBlog has visited this issue previously, but now is a good time to raise it again. This isn’t a matter of clashing colours. The AFL have made it abundantly clear that they want one team in dark or vibrant colours, and the other in light or muted tones. It’s not the end of the world — that comes in December according to the Mayans!

 

Manchester United and Liverpool, just to name two hugely popular EPL clubs, play in a seeming rainbow of strips through their season without problems. Even Newcastle United turn out in strips other than their famed black and white vertical stripes. But not our precious Barcodes. Here’s their ‘clash’ guernsey:

 

COLL1281[1]

 

Oh, and here’s their ‘normal’ guernsey for comparison:

 

 COLL1110[1]

 

AussieRulesBlog can hardly believe that they represent the same club! It’s astonishing. Sharp-eyed readers will note that the clash guernsey is the inverse of the normal guernsey. How devilishly clever!

 

And if there’s a really obvious clash, such as with North Melbourne (?), who we remind you look like this:

 

Jumper_Large[1]

 

then the Barcodes roll out their alternative clash guernsey which looks like this:

 

COLL1270[1]

Perhaps Vlad and his mates at AFL House could puff out their chests and bludgeon Eddie into accepting that his Barcodes should look like this for their away games?

 

Washed_out_woods[1]

 

We’re not going to hang by our thumbs waiting for the announcement.

Read More

Breaking news: AFL coach swears

AussieRulesBlog thinks we’re getting just a bit too precious when Alastair Clarkson is the subject of media reports because he swore.

 

Sure, it was on the field during an under-age football match. Yes, it would have been better had it not happened.

 

And, yes, every one of those kids would have seen graphic television footage of pretty much every AFL coach silently uttering some expletive or other. And let’s not forget about players missing shots for goal and exclaiming “Point!”, but starting it with an F.

 

It also appears Clarkson is not guilty of the “expletive-laden rant” that one radio report had accused him of.

 

Please, let’s not blow this grain of sand up into a mountain.

Dissent is not evil

It’s a mark of totalitarian regimes that they do not tolerate dissent and that’s an unfortunate association for the AFL to be courting when it admonishes players or officials who comment on legitimate points of discussion in the game.

 

This last week, in the wake of the Ziebell-Judd equivalency, three players took to the ether to express a view and North Melbourne coach Brad Scott chose a media interview to do the same.

 

The three players were issued with a ‘please explain’ letter each.

 

Drew Petrie’s tweet: “advice for jackziebell. Stop being so courageous and playing footy hard that way it's meant to be played. Please turn into a softy!”

 

James Kelly’s tweet: “I was going to tweet how Zebel getting 4 weeks was a mare of a decision but decided not to so I don't get in trouble.”

 

The AFL has apparently determined that these comments were not in breach of Rule 23.18.2 — a rule that doesn’t appear in the AFL’s 1012 version of the laws of the game in case you were thinking of checking it out — in that they were not “unfair, unreasonable or excessive”.

 

It’s just too precious of the AFL to insist that players and officials cannot criticise umpires, the Match Review Panel or the Tribunal when the decisions of these AFL functionaries have a significant potential effect on how players and officials can go about their tasks.

 

The Ziebell decision, where even the tribunal that suspended Ziebell agreed that he’d been attempting to gain possession of the football — a fundamental tenet of the sport of Aussie Rules, surely — goes to the very heart of how players compete for the football. The tribunal has effectively said that incidentally causing injury to an opponent whilst attempting to gain possession of the ball is an infringement of the rules of the game and will carry  some penalty.

 

This is absolutely untenable, but even more incredible is the AFL’s response to criticism. We wonder if there’d be please explain letters for players agreeing with the tribunal’s stance?

 

If the decisions of umpires, the Match Review Panel and the Tribunal cannot stand the spotlight of criticism, then our game is in a pretty bad way.

 

And by criticism AussieRulesBlog doesn’t mean the invective hurled at umpires from the stands. The Bomber supporter (unfortunately) just below us on Friday night who commented on every umpiring decision by shouting “You idiot!” or “You moron!” is where the AFL should concentrate their efforts. We wonder if he knew he was referring to himself?

AFL judicial system is broken

So, let’s get this straight. Jack Ziebell’s collision with Aaron Joseph in a genuine contest for the ball is equivalent to Chris Judd wrenching an opponent’s arm whilst he is pinned with a player on top of him. Of course that’s a simplistic assessment, but the similarity of the penalty — a four-week holiday each, if you hadn’t heard — invites the comparison.

 

The old VFL/AFL Tribunal system may have been antiquated, time-consuming and, as we then thought, inconsistent, but compared to the hotch-potch inflicted on the game by Adrian Anderson it was simply wonderful.

 

There is no part of the current system that delivers consistency and most parts, including basic on-field officiating, are devoid of considerations of context. The system is, quite simply, broken and it’s author cannot credibly remain in his post. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out, Adrian.

Judd legacy in jeopardy

AussieRulesBlog wonders if Chris Judd has damaged the brand — in a football sense — beyond redemption with his third bizarre act of unsportsmanlike conduct on the field.

 

We are thinking of comparisons with, say, Ben Cousins. Cousins’ well-publicised off-field issues never significantly affected his on-field performance. AussieRulesBlog regards him as one of the finest dozen or so players we have seen.

 

Similarly, Wayne Carey’s indiscretions, also well-publicised, didn’t damage his standing as one of the very best footballers to have ever pulled on boots.

 

Remember, these are comparisons in a purely football sense, completely excluding moral issues.

 

It’s rather curious that Judd’s imperfections should show up in the very arena where he has dazzled so many. Life can be funny like that.

 

For the record, AussieRulesBlog has always regarded Judd as just below the very top echelon of players. We feel his disposal by foot has lacked the incisive precision of the truly elite players.

(Very) Special-K

There can be little doubt that the marketing strategy that saw Karmichael Hunt signed to the Gold Coast Suns was based as much on curiosity value as any realistic expectation that Hunt could reach the pinnacle in a third football code.

 

The man they call Special-K gave us a glimpse last year with his first goal in AFL football, but has elevated his performance to a substantial degree in his second season.

 

Where, last year, pundits focussed on the smallish number and lowish quality of his possessions, this season the commentary has been almost universally positive about his value to the Suns’ midfield. His dream-fulfilling after-the-siren goal this weekend has put the stamp of approval on his fledgling AFL career.

 

It is, by any measure, a significant achievement to gain the industry’s respect. We think a return to NRL or rugby is no longer the main danger to the Suns retaining their code-jumping champion. Surely his next objective will be to conquer a fourth football code — the round ball game — before moving on to the NFL!

 

We hope that The Promised Land can emulate Special-K’s development, even if it might take a little longer. We need to remember that Hunt is 28 and had already mastered two, albeit rather similar, codes. Folau is a relative baby at 23 and even life-long AFL players of his size can struggle to hit their straps before their mid-twenties.

Absence of context in MRP rulings

Regular readers will already be well aware that AussieRulesBlog has long been critical of the Match review panel system currently in place. The theory sounds just fine, but too often the practical results leave a great deal to be desired.

 

Sharrod Wellingham’s devastating bump to Kade Simpson last Friday night and the MRP’s assessments released today simply serve to highlight, yet again, the failings of this mathematical approach to on-field indiscretions.

 

‘Reckless’ is how the MRP describes the action. We’re tired of beating round the bush. Let’s call this assessment for what it is: bullshit! Wellingham had left the ground before the ball got to Simpson, did not ever even glance in the direction of the ball and was tucked into an offensive bumping shape, did not make any attempt to get the ball, was solely focussed on hitting Simpson. Reckless!

 

Meanwhile, Heath Hocking’s ill-considered off-the-ball block of Lenny Hayes gets assessed as ‘intentional’ — because it was off the ball. We don’t have any argument with that assessment, but it looks ridiculous compared with reckless for Wellingham’s action.

 

Not only does the reckless assessment give Wellingham a free break, but the system rewards him with a 40% discount because of his good record. Sorry, intentionally taking out an opponent in the way Wellingham did disqualifies him from obtaining any advantage from his lack of previous charges.

 

Adrian Anderson’s MRP assessment system is fine for small indiscretions, but has proved itself, time and again, demonstrably inadequate for major incidents.

 

Anyone who saw Simpson’s body spasming in the seconds after the collision will have had the same thoughts that ran through AussieRulesBlog’s mind — that Simpson had sustained a major spinal or head injury. We reckon Wellingham is very, very lucky that he doesn’t have a wheelchair-bound Kade Simpson on his conscience.

95% above the shoulders

If ever a proof were needed for the old adage about football being played 95% above the shoulders, the Blues provided it last night.

 

Clearly stung by the criticism of their coach, Brett Ratten, the Blues bounded out of the blocks.

 

The Barcodes, like the Bombers a few weeks ago against the then-winless Demons, seemed to play like they could turn it on when required. But when they hit the go pedal, the Blues responded.

 

So, the out-of-form Blues gave the Barcodes a lesson in mental preparation, if not football. There simply are no easy games at AFL level and the team that assumes it can win on its own terms is destined to fall short.

Slings and spears: weapons of yester-year

The tackle Taylor Walker applied to Steven Morris last weekend has been almost universally condemned, and a good thing too.

 

 

For some reason we can’t fathom, some people are describing this as a sling tackle. It’s not. It’s a spear tackle. Spear tackles are characterised by the opponent being lifted from the ground and driven forcefully into the ground, more-or-less head first.

 

The sling tackle is perfectly demonstrated in Jack Trengove’s tackle of Patrick Dangerfield in 2011.

 

 

Trengove holds Dangerfield’s arm and then rolls — like a crocodile death roll — so that Dangerfield’s body is dragged over the top of Trengove’s body and into the ground. The effect is similar to those plastic arms used for throwing balls for dogs to chase. The added length of the arm tends to produce a greater acceleration of the object being pulled in a (rough) circular path. This tackle is quite clearly different in form, execution and potential health damage from Walker’s tackle.

 

In Trengove’s case, the MRP decided, quite wrongly in our opinion, that the injury sustained by Dangerfield when his head hit the ground as part of the tackle made the offence of greater magnitude than, say, Lance Franklin’s tackle last week.

 

 

 

As we’ve plainly spelled out in the title of this post, there is no place for either the sling or the spear tackle in the AFL of the twenty-first century, but please, please, please people — use the correct term.

Yellow and black get off light

While we’re on the subject of alternate or clash guernseys in the wake of the Bombers’ announcement of their new grey model, it’s not just the Barcodes getting an easy run.

 

The Tigers have flown under the radar on this issue, probably courtesy of the ‘lightness’ of their yellow versus the AFL-defined ‘darkness’ of the Bombers’ red sash.

 

Thus, the Tigers alternate guernsey is this innovative design:

 

 

It takes an act of will beyond AussieRulesBlog’s abilities to see that the addition of yellow side panels and some yellow around arms and neck makes this guernsey materially lighter than the standard Tigers strip.

 

So, there’s one immovable rule for the Bombers and fifteen other teams, and a separate one each for the Barcodes and the Tigers.

The issue isn’t grey, it’s black and white

There’s a predictable storm in a teacup as our beloved Bombers reveal their new alternate guernsey, a mix of tradition and various enhancements designed to placate all but the most vociferous opponents.

 

2347

 

The Bombers already feature grey in the logo and in various apparel items including training gear. Let’s be grateful they decided on grey and not the TrueValue Solar blue!

 

The real issue isn’t the Bombers. Essendon have fought a brave rearguard action to avoid the inevitable, but have bowed to it with (public) good grace. Not so the Barcodes.

 

AussieRulesBlog has visited this issue previously, but now is a good time to raise it again. This isn’t a matter of clashing colours. The AFL have made it abundantly clear that they want one team in dark or vibrant colours, and the other in light or muted tones. It’s not the end of the world — that comes in December according to the Mayans!

 

Manchester United and Liverpool, just to name two hugely popular EPL clubs, play in a seeming rainbow of strips through their season without problems. Even Newcastle United turn out in strips other than their famed black and white vertical stripes. But not our precious Barcodes. Here’s their ‘clash’ guernsey:

 

COLL1281[1]

 

Oh, and here’s their ‘normal’ guernsey for comparison:

 

 COLL1110[1]

 

AussieRulesBlog can hardly believe that they represent the same club! It’s astonishing. Sharp-eyed readers will note that the clash guernsey is the inverse of the normal guernsey. How devilishly clever!

 

And if there’s a really obvious clash, such as with North Melbourne (?), who we remind you look like this:

 

Jumper_Large[1]

 

then the Barcodes roll out their alternative clash guernsey which looks like this:

 

COLL1270[1]

Perhaps Vlad and his mates at AFL House could puff out their chests and bludgeon Eddie into accepting that his Barcodes should look like this for their away games?

 

Washed_out_woods[1]

 

We’re not going to hang by our thumbs waiting for the announcement.