The controversy of the first day of the Boxing Day Test at the MCG is only a controversy because Channel Nein insisted on deploying its technology despite it not being available to either teams or umpires.

Test cricket has survived for more than 100 years without high technology assistance. Sure, there were dodgy decisions from time to time, but that was part and parcel of the process. Umpires are (allegedly) human and are expected to make decisions based on what they are sure that they see.

AussieRulesBlog will never impugn the integrity of the officials, but, despite there being very specific written processes for umpiring games, individuals will always have distinct idiosyncratic interpretations of those processes.

We raise this “controversy” generated by Channel Nein since it demonstrates why there have been controversies in AFL in relation to scoring decisions. Those controversies would have little of the widespread impact they have had were it not for the broadcasters’ highlighting of the ‘error’.

We weren’t watching Channel Nein yesterday, but, on past form, we assume they played and replayed and replayed the controversial footage ad nauseum, as is their wont. That was certainly the way the AFL scoring issues played out.

It’s also worth noting here that broadcasters’ technology rarely, if ever, shows the incident from the perspective of the umpire. The image of the ‘hot spot’ on Hussey’s shirt is from side on (below). Let’s see the same incident from the umpire’s perspective at the bowling end stumps and see how clear cut the technology makes it from there!

The issues, for both cricket umpires and Aussie Rules umpires are really rooted in human frailty. For the cricket umpire, judging the bowler’s front foot placement in relation to the popping crease and then judging nicks and LBWs at the other end a fraction of a second later is a big ask. For Aussie Rules goal umpires, judging the position of the ball in relation to a goal or behind post whilst in the jumble of a 360º game is also a big ask.

But, and here’s the rub in these controversies, the technology can’t give a 100% guarantee of being right either. And it probably never will — unless the games are completely virtual and a computer can assess against its own data.

These cricket incidents demonstrate the dangers of allowing broadcasters to deploy technology that is not available to officials. Umpires would be well within their rights to refuse to stand in these tests while Channel Nein deploys these technologies that are not available to them. Whether it is the Indian Board or any other reason that the technology is not employed, its use in these circumstances is absolutely and entirely inappropriate.

AussieRulesBlog was quite surprised to see a small additional item at the end of an unrelated story mentioning that Richmond had awarded life membership to 24-year-old, 150-game player, Brett Deledio.

We have nothing against Deledio. In fact, we’re sure he’s a most estimable chap. But life membership? At twenty-four? One wonders what the Tigers’ board are smoking.

We could countenance offering life membership to a player toward the end of a storied and sparkling career. Even a workmanlike career perhaps, as long as there were at least 250 games clocked up. We’d also want to be pretty sure the player wasn’t going to hive off to a hated enemy once free agency raises its ugly head, and it’s hard to be sure that there couldn’t be some free agency involved in Deledio’s future.

It all seems a bit grasping and (a lot) premature.

Ed.: We note that Richmond awards life membership automatically on achievement of 150 games. Other clubs require ten years’ continuous service.

Each year at this time, the AFL makes its announcement of changes for the following season. The changes for the Tribunal and Match Review Panel for 2012 are remarkable not so much for the “changes” as for the language used.

For example:

any striking action with a raised forearm or elbow will be classified as intentional, unless there is clear evidence the strike was not intentional;

This is nothing more than an attempt to look to be hard on transgressions without actually changing anything. Black will be considered yellow unless there is clear evidence that it is not yellow! What nonsense!

There is further pain for the MRP with the addition of “excessive exaggeration of contact in an unsportsmanlike manner” to the existing staging definition of “feigning contact”. Really, how does the MRP decide what’s excessive exaggeration? And, is excessive exaggeration OK as long as it’s done in a sportsmanlike manner?

This change smacks of an attempt to cover the Angus Monfries revelation that he “took a dive” when hit by Jordan Lewis. That the MRP thought Lewis’ action sufficiently serious to deal out a three-week suspension suggests they’d find it difficult to also hand out a suspension to Monfries for the same incident.

Other critics of the staging sanctions focus on exaggerated contact in marking contests. If you’re one of these, don’t hang by your thumbs waiting to see a forward who exaggerates a push in the back get reported for “staging”. It’s not going to happen.

The cops could surround these changes with chequered tape and have a constable advising browsers to “move along, there’s nothing to see here.”

Can we just quietly mention that we’re mightily pissed off at the Cats?

Having given Chris Scott and Ron Cook a congratulatory mention for ignoring the herd-like stampede to high-altitude training camps, we discover the Cats have been in Falls Creek.

Thanks for nothing, guys.

Despite everything, AussieRulesBlog can’t help but feel sorry for Brendan Fevola. The lyrics of Joni Mitchell’s Big Yellow Taxi are, we think, appropriate to Fevola’s situation.

 

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone

Through season after season, his on-field talent had got him out of tight off-field scrapes. Kicking goals was a cure for all ills — until . . .

We can feel the cogs turning in Michael Voss’ mind: “Surely he’s seen that he’s almost had this extraordinary opportunity taken away. We throw him a lifeline and he’ll be so grateful he’ll become a Pentecostal preacher!” Ok, there’s a bit of licence at the end, but you know what we mean.

Without a trade deal, it’s looking increasingly likely that Fev will not be playing AFL again. And, despite the NFL rehabilitating players who’ve transgressed, such as Michael Vick, Fev is not going to be a potential game changer, as Vick is. Fev’s NFL cards might also be marked, no matter how good a punter he could eventually turn out to be. Punting is just not that crucial to NFL teams to take a chance on a loose cannon.

Both Andrew Lovett and Leon Davis look to have also finished their elite level careers, for quite different reasons. ‘Neon’ Leon has, quite simply, miscalculated. Lovett missed his best chance by turning the Bombers against himself.

All three will have a quite powerful feeling when they hear Joni’s clear voice ringing out.

You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.