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.