Saturday, May 08, 2010

Blinded by PINK

AussieRulesBlog has been unconvinced of the need for clash strips until last night’s Melbourne–Western Bulldogs game. One of two clear cases of mistaken identity may have cost the young Melbourne side a famous victory over an early-season Premiership favourite.

 

The AFL’s support of the Breast Cancer Network is most laudable. The field of women is a graphic depiction of the numbers of people touched in some way by breast cancer and its awareness-raising potential is huge.

 

Likewise, with President Jim Stynes engaged in his own fight against cancer, Melbourne’s decision to replace the red yoke on their playing strip with pink was pretty much a no-brainer and a further valuable exposition of the cause.

 

The problems arise when some numbskull at AFL headquarters, where someone must have approved the Melbourne strip beforehand, decided that the umpires could also support the cause through being decked out in pink shirts with navy blue shorts.

 

Pink yoke with royal blue body and shorts with pink socks. Pink shirt with navy blue shorts and pink socks. Nah, it’ll never be an issue. Royal blue and navy blue are SO different. NOT!

 

At least twice during a tense and closely fought game, Melbourne players gave the ball off instinctively to a peripherally-sensed teammate — who turned out to be an umpire decked out in a facsimile of the Melbourne uniform.

 

These are not trivial matters and someone at AFL House must be on the lookout for similar possibilities. For goodness sakes, they insist on North wearing an Argentine shirt when playing Collingwood. So, was someone asleep at the wheel in this case?

 

And let’s leave aside for now the spectre of boundary umpires guessing or assuming that the ball crossed the boundary line on the full from a player’s boot or lower leg. Let’s also leave aside for the moment the pathetic, pestering, posturing pedant that is Steve McBurney.

 

Finally, respect and kudos for Melbourne in taking it right up to a better-credentialed opponent.

No comments:

Blinded by PINK

AussieRulesBlog has been unconvinced of the need for clash strips until last night’s Melbourne–Western Bulldogs game. One of two clear cases of mistaken identity may have cost the young Melbourne side a famous victory over an early-season Premiership favourite.

 

The AFL’s support of the Breast Cancer Network is most laudable. The field of women is a graphic depiction of the numbers of people touched in some way by breast cancer and its awareness-raising potential is huge.

 

Likewise, with President Jim Stynes engaged in his own fight against cancer, Melbourne’s decision to replace the red yoke on their playing strip with pink was pretty much a no-brainer and a further valuable exposition of the cause.

 

The problems arise when some numbskull at AFL headquarters, where someone must have approved the Melbourne strip beforehand, decided that the umpires could also support the cause through being decked out in pink shirts with navy blue shorts.

 

Pink yoke with royal blue body and shorts with pink socks. Pink shirt with navy blue shorts and pink socks. Nah, it’ll never be an issue. Royal blue and navy blue are SO different. NOT!

 

At least twice during a tense and closely fought game, Melbourne players gave the ball off instinctively to a peripherally-sensed teammate — who turned out to be an umpire decked out in a facsimile of the Melbourne uniform.

 

These are not trivial matters and someone at AFL House must be on the lookout for similar possibilities. For goodness sakes, they insist on North wearing an Argentine shirt when playing Collingwood. So, was someone asleep at the wheel in this case?

 

And let’s leave aside for now the spectre of boundary umpires guessing or assuming that the ball crossed the boundary line on the full from a player’s boot or lower leg. Let’s also leave aside for the moment the pathetic, pestering, posturing pedant that is Steve McBurney.

 

Finally, respect and kudos for Melbourne in taking it right up to a better-credentialed opponent.

0 comments: