Friday, April 27, 2012

Coach’s whine spawns tweet abuse

No comments:

Let’s not beat around the bush. Brett Ratten’s whining about Sam Lonergan’s “drive” tackle has presumably provided some less-principled Blues supporters with some sort of de facto justification for their tweeted threats against Lonergan.

 

AussieRulesBlog understands that coaches are emotional after a game, particularly a loss when a win was presumed. Nevertheless, in the world of instant communication and social media, emotional comments can be interpreted more strongly than perhaps they were intended and actions taken that might be thought better of in the cold hard light of day.

 

Ratten’s comments on the threats, reported today, are in stark contrast to his comments after the game:

 

“I think that's really unfair on the individual,” Ratten said in Perth before tonight's clash with Fremantle. “Players go out there to play their best and there's collisions and tackles and these types of things.”

Read More

The Emperor’s new clothes

No comments:

The feedback [on the video review system]so far has been very positive” according to Adrian Anderson.

 

The first thought that comes to mind is Vlad parading around the G with not a stitch on and those providing the feedback on the video system telling him how fine he looks in his new threads.

Read More

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Video ‘system’ a crock

No comments:

In the wake of the epic Anzac Day game, debutante Barcodes coach Nathan Buckley chose to comment on the goal line video referral ‘system’, but his claim that the AFL have changed their process is simply incorrect.

 

From the start, where a video referral has been made, an inconclusive video has resulted in the lesser scoring result. As we noted two days ago, this underlying process results in the completely whacky premise that the lesser result is chosen not because there is any conclusive evidence that it is correct, but because there is no conclusive evidence that it is not correct.

 

An AFL spokesman quoted in the story on Buckley’s comments suggests that an inconclusive video goes back to what the umpire considered was the correct decision at the time. This is a lovely theory, but we can’t recall a single instance we’ve seen where it has happened [we acknowledge that we haven’t seen every game]. On any number of occasions, goal umpires about to signal a score have been halted by field umpires, boundary umpires have been consulted and a video referral made. An inconclusive video results in the lesser option, regardless of the goal umpire’s initial inclination.

 

We’d like a reference to any instance of an inconclusive video referral resulting in a decision to award a goal as originally decided by a goal umpire, but we don’t think it has happened.

 

The further the season goes, the more obvious it is that this video referral ‘system’ is ill-considered, immature and under-resourced. It’s a crock!

Read More

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

More video cock-ups — touched up

No comments:

It seems it is only aggrieved coaches who highlight the failings in Adrian Anderson’s video review system for goal line decisions. Once again, the most glaring deficiency is the application of video review to determine whether a ball is touched off the boot out in the field.

 

The technology being employed is simply incapable of providing definitive evidence of balls being touched off the boot.

 

We were also told that players cannot call for a video review, yet it seems clear that field umpires are deciding to refer to video when there’s a clamour amongst players that the ball has been touched.

 

The trade-off in this ‘system’ is that an inconclusive video generates the lowest score. So, a Jobe Watson ‘goal’ in the pre-season and the Todd Goldstein ‘goal’ this last weekend have both been declared behinds, not because there was any evidence the ball had been touched, but because there was no conclusive evidence that it hadn’t been touched.

 

Lewis Carroll could have included this scenario in Through the Looking-Glass and it wouldn’t have looked out of place amongst the Mad Hatter, the Cheshire Cat and the Queen of Hearts.

Read More

Thomas decision highlights MRP failings

No comments:

Well, it’s official. With tonight’s Tribunal clearing Lindsay Thomas of a rough conduct charge, the Match Review Panel members must be wondering why they bother — and why the guidelines they work to generate such ludicrously incorrect assessments.

 

As AussieRulesBlog noted yesterday, the MRP’s awarding of a three-week penalty to Thomas over the incident in which Gary Rohan’s leg was rather graphically broken was flat-out wrong. The matter should have been thrown out at the MRP stage and the Kangaroos would now be well-entitled to demand compensation from the AFL for their time and effort in defending Thomas.

 

But, as much opprobrium as the MRP deserve, some media figures deserve truckloads more, notably ex-Swans coach Paul Roos (and the Herald-Sun’s Mark Robinson not too far behind).

 

Prior to Roos joining Fox Footy Channel’s On the Couch last year, we considered him a moderate and rational person. We found him so irritating and irrational that within a few weeks last year we stopped watching On the Couch, previously a must in our weekly footy schedule.

 

Roos out-did himself on Monday night’s On the Couch [which we watched because James Hird was on prior to tomorrow’s Anzac Day game]. We can only think that jet lag hadn’t yet cleared Roos’ mind after his recent trip to the US. He said [and we’re paraphrasing here] he had watched the Thomas incident and then watched the previous week’s Goodes slide tackle. Then he said, if Goodes was suspended, Thomas had to be suspended because he’d injured an opponent.

 

The logic on display here is breathtaking. Taken to its logical conclusion, if we are in a marking contest and an opponent makes a spectacular, but mistimed, leap and crashes to the ground injuring himself in the process, we should be penalised by the Match Review Panel. Why? We, inadvertently, injured an opponent.

 

Roos’ credibility is absolutely shredded, as is Adrian Anderson’s Match Review Panel system.

Read More

Monday, April 23, 2012

Tackling skills falter

No comments:

Alistair Clarkson’s musings over high tackles are interesting, and the free kick statistics (which we don’t have to hand, but we heard on Foxtel) show that the Eagles benefit from the umpire’s decisions more than anyone else does.

 

While we don’t put much store in Gieschen’s defence of his umpires, the image (below) gracing the AFL’s story on the issue somewhat destroys Clarkson’s ground.

 

 

scottselwood316r4a2[1]

 

With Franklin’s eyes determinedly closed as he applies the tackle, it’s hardly surprising that he’s about to give a free kick away!

 

Tackling is no less a skill than kicking, handballing or marking. None of these happen effectively unless there’s full concentration on their implementation.

 

Perhaps Clarkson should be closely examining the footage and trying to determine whether or not his players are actually watching their targets as they tackle . . .

Read More

Breeding a generation of hook-foots

No comments:

The release recently of the ‘Buddy Ball’ has AussieRulesBlog rather perplexed.

 

We understand marketers’ desire to associate Lance Franklin with some saleable merchandise and young fans’ desire to be associated with a charismatic figure. In our own callow youth, we wore the then-fashionable Ron Barassi footy boots in the sincere belief that they imparted magical powers.

 

‘Buddy’ boots, we wouldn’t have much of a problem with. ‘Buddy’ socks or shorts, even less so. But a Buddy Ball?

 

Despite the near universal hailing of Franklin, AussieRulesBlog sees at least one serious flaw — his kicking. The huge sweeping arc of his approach and the slicing, glancing contact of his boot on the ball which imparts the famous ‘reverse swing’ on his kicks aren’t techniques we should be lauding to impressionable young boys.

 

A ‘Gazza’ Ball? No problems. Young Gary runs in straight, kicks straight through the ball — and is a reliable goal kicker.

 

Franklin himself is never sure where his kicks are going to go. When they’re good, they’re terrifyingly wonderful, but when they’re not, like the little girl down the lane, they’re absolutely awful.

 

It’s about percentages and repeatability. It’s about reliability in the heat of a close finish with the pressure of expectation weighing heavily. Let’s give our up and coming players a role model whose technique stands up under pressure.

Read More

Can we stop the hyperbole, please?

No comments:

One thing’s for sure: Aussie Rules stirs passions and passionate opinion. And then there’s what you can see with your own two eyes.

 

Both sliding tackles and ‘drive’ tackles have generated a fair degree of hyperbole since the weekend and, frankly, AussieRulesBlog is bemused by it all.

 

If you can take your eyes off Gary Rohan’s leg being snapped, it’s as clear as day that Lindsay Thomas isn’t executing a slide tackle, albeit that his right knee is on the ground as his left foot impacts Rohan’s leg.

 

thomas-rohan

 

Contrast Thomas’ position with that of Adam Goodes executing the definitive slide tackle that saw him suspended.

 

goodes-slide

 

The clear difference is that Goodes is leading the ‘tackle’ with both knees and using his knees and legs to impact his opponent. Thomas’ position is clearly and obviously not a slide tackle.

 

Rohan’s awful injury was nothing more than unfortunate circumstance. Not only are the media guilty of hyperbole, the Match Review Panel seem, most unfortunately in our view, to feel bound to cite almost any incident that excites controversy.

 

The other incident sending some into overblown hyperbole — especially Brett Ratten — is Sam Lonergan’s tackle of Andrew Carrazzo. Regular readers will already be aware of our affection for the Bombers, but we declare it again here.

 

Lonergan no more drove Carazzo into the turf than we are the blogging equivalent of William Shakespeare! Fell into his back? Yes. Drove him into the tackle? Absolutely not. It was unhappy circumstance, once again, which saw Carazzo’s arm in such a position when it crashed into the turf that it caused a fracture in the shoulder blade.

 

Ironically, the player AussieRulesBlog would most associate with tackles intentionally driving an opponent’s shoulder into the turf is none other than the Blues’ own Jarrad Waite.

 

Simply, much of the florid controversy is knee jerk reaction, often driven by passionate support of one team or player or another. We can forgive fans, although the AFL should be taking steps to educate people, but overblown media reactions from the footy journalists is quite another thing.

Read More

Friday, April 20, 2012

And talking of outbursts. . .

No comments:

The former Premier and former Hawthorn President has been caught uttering more words in the short interval between changing feet.

 

Now, Jeff has always had a penchant for sharing his opinions as widely as he could — it’s one of the key selection criteria for politicians after all.

 

Unfortunately ‘journalists’ — well, those bereft of original ideas anyway — keep asking him for opinions, and he’s only too happy to oblige them with some petty and controversial remark.

 

It was fair enough to seek his thoughts when he was Premier, though it did take him away from his key task of dismembering and selling the State’s public assets. It was fair enough to seek his thoughts as President of a recently revived and now rudely healthy AFL club. But now?

 

Just bugger off quietly, Jeff. There’s a good chap.

Read More

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Once a showman . . .

No comments:

No-one should be surprised by Eddie McGuire’s outburst over Mick Malthouse’s frank assessment of the Barcodes circa round 3, 2012. Eddie is, and has always been, first and foremost a showman. It’s the sizzle that excites McGuire, not the sausage.

 

Here at AussieRulesBlog Central, we haven’t managed to get past the adverts for McGuire’s eponymously-titled new TV vehicle. It’s clear that EMT takes a lowest common denominator approach — not unlike The Footy Show, a former McGuire vehicle — and isn’t interested in anything much other than sizzle.

 

Nathan Buckley, on the other hand, has his feet firmly planted on the ground, regardless of his FIGJAM reputation. No wonder then that he backed his predecessor's right to comment as he felt was appropriate.

 

And, of course, the ‘controversy’ was turned up to ‘High’ by that soul of sober reflection, The Age’s Caroline Wilson.

 

Did anyone really expect that Malthouse wouldn’t be asked his opinion of the 2012 Barcodes? More especially since he’s employed to provide insightful comments on football?

 

McGuire isn’t quite the shrinking violet that Jeff Kennett is, but they both generate far more column centimetres than they’re entitled to.

 

Storm? Meet teacup.

Read More

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Good onya, Skasey and Doc!

No comments:

For a little while back there in the mists of time — the mid 80s — the then Victorian Football League flirted with entrepreneurial ownership of football clubs.

 

In 1985 the Sydney Swans were ‘acquired’ by flamboyant medical entrepreneur Geoffrey Edelsten. Within a couple of years, despite a spending spree that included Tom Hafey, Bernard Toohey and Greg Williams, Edelsten was gone, replaced by a consortium including TV host Mike Willessee and Just Jeans boss Craig Kimberley.

 

By 1992, the Swans were a basket case and the AFL stepped in to prop up its bridgehead into NRL territory

 

In 1986, a consortium bankrolled by high-flying entrepreneur Christopher Skase was awarded the licence for a VFL team based in Queensland.

 

When Skase’s house of cards collapsed in late 1989, the AFL took over and re-sold the ‘Bears’ to Gold Coast businessman Reuben Pelerman. Within a couple of years, with Pelerman losing money hand over fist, the Bears reverted to a traditional membership-based club structure, although only with significant funding input from the AFL.

 

And so the AFL must be feeling a lot like it has avoided the fate of the FFA, now embroiled in a stoush with “billionaire” businessman, Nathan Tinkler, over the Newcastle Jets and without the resources to write off the exercise to ‘experience’.

 

And the NRL must be watching rather nervously given Tinkler’s recent ‘acquisition’ of the Newcastle Knights NRL team.

 

FFA has also recently had to deal with another “billionaire” businessman in Clive Palmer wanting the sandpit to be run his way or no way.

 

And, of course, rugby league was split asunder when Rupert Murdoch decided he wanted to control a whole competition.

 

For all its manifold faults and inadequacies, the VFL/AFL has been, Edelsten and Skase notwithstanding, mercifully free of meddling by super-rich owners. Not even John “Pig’s arse” Elliott at the height of his powers could truly thumb his nose at AFL House and the consequences be damned. His attempts to do so eventually netted his beloved Caaarrlt’n a series of Wooden Spoons and a decade in the football wilderness.

 

At some point, the AFL must have considered some sort of private ownership for the Suns and Giants. Thankfully, their brush with Edelsten and Skase would have given them pause to reconsider and find a more reliable way to do things.

 

And so, fellow Aussie Rules fans, we should be grateful to Skasey for buggering off to Majorca when he did and to the Doc for taking his pink helicopter off to wherever he parked it.

 

In the meantime, there was all the fun and games of the Chase for Skase and more recently the Doc and his new beau have given the glitterati at the Brownlow something to titter over.

Read More

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Umpire’s balance awry

No comments:

Having seen more than half of the first two rounds’ games live or on TV, AussieRulesBlog’s considered opinion is that umpiring interpretations are out of balance — too many incidental contacts being free kicked, too many similar incidental contacts being either missed or let go.

 

And then, last night on Foxtel, we watched Chooseday Night Football. The game was the round 6, 1993 game between Geelong and Essendon. This memorable game, won by the Bombers to the tune of four goals, featured Gary Ablett Snr and Paul Salmon as the full forwards. Ablett bagged 14 goals from 20-odd kicks and Salmon kicked 10.

 

The game was in the two-umpire era and featured two of the competitions most experienced whistle-blowers at the time, Peter Cameron and John Russo.

 

Two things were noticeable around the dazzling display of Ablett: the “controlling” umpires were much further from the ball than we’re used to in 2012; and the commentary (Peter “Each of two” Landy, Ian Robertson and Gerard Healey) focused heavily, and not positively, on the number of free kicks paid for incidental contacts.

 

Not much, it seems, has changed! Free kicks for incidental contact remain a blight, at least from a spectator perspective, and 2012 has seen a significant increase in umpiring decisions made at longer distances from the ball.

 

Thankfully the Giesch has spared us the “we’re going to crack down on x” strategy leading into 2012. Instead, every rule is being interpreted enormously strictly it seems. Notably, the interpretation that pays a free kick when a marking player’s arm is swept away preventing him from clutching the ball with two hands has morphed into a free kick for merely brushing that player’s arms. This interpretation is umpiring defenders out of the game.

 

Hopefully, as has been the case in recent years, interpretations will be relaxed as the season unfolds and we’ll see some more sympathetic approaches emerging.

Read More

Credulity stretched to breaking point

No comments:

So AFL community engagement manager Jason Mifsud so misunderstood a conversation with Melbourne’s Aaron Davey that he gave Grant Thomas a story that Melbourne coach Mark Neeld was engaged in some sort of racist discrimination against indigenous players. And now that Mifsud and Davey have — finally — spoken, Mifsud offers a total apology and retains his job.

 

Pull the other one! Someone, and perhaps everyone involved, is telling porkies.

 

If Mifsud so misconstrued Davey’s comments as to accuse Neeld in the fashion he did, it beggars belief that he remains in his job. If AussieRulesBlog were in Vlad’s shoes, Mifsud would only be collecting a pay cheque from the AFL if he were managing a broom — and that only under very close supervision.

 

There’s another angle to these events which apparently hasn’t been considered and makes a lot more sense than anything we’ve heard from either media shills or the AFL. Perhaps Neeld did conduct a group meeting with the indigenous players on his list. So what? He’s surely perfectly entitled to conduct a meeting with whomever he likes. He might also have conducted one-on-one meetings with other players in the same timeframe. Again, so what? It’s not hard to imagine that there could have been perfectly legitimate reasons for doing both. And conducting two sorts of meetings, one with indigenous players and one with the rest of the list, doesn’t automatically qualify Neeld as a racist.

 

Part of the problem here has been the rush to brand any sort of different treatment of indigenous players as “racist”. Has anybody out there heard of “affirmative action”? Isn’t it possible that different treatment of indigenous players could be calculated to advance them in some way?

 

The whole industry would be vastly improved if everyone involved took the time to find out exactly what was involved in an incident before rushing to label it.

 

As it is, we’re left with more questions than answers from Mifsud’s first few months of 2012.

Read More

Wednesday, April 04, 2012

Serial misjudements

No comments:

Jason Mifsud’s apparent role in the latest controversy over indigenous AFL players should make his position as the AFL’s community engagement officer completely untenable, but AFL House clearly doesn’t enjoy admitting error so he is reprimanded and counselled.

 

Nevertheless, AussieRulesBlog wouldn’t have swapped places with Mifsud at his press conference as his boss savagely cut across him to stop him putting his other foot in his mouth.

 

Just to refresh readers’ memory, Mifsud joined — a week later — with The Age’s Caroline Wilson in accusing James Hird and Paul Roos of advocating race-based recruiting. This accusation was nonsensical, as we commented at the time.

 

Then, more recently, Mifsud mysteriously took two months to report a conversation with Matt Rendell that had “deeply offended” him. Three strikes. The dust still has not settled on this one with reports that the AFL are to offer Rendell a job.

 

Whatever his other qualities may be, Mifsud has demonstrated a spectacular lack of judgement and seriously damaged the industry’s standing as a leader in indigenous issues.

Read More

Sunday, April 01, 2012

Video application unclear

No comments:

Notwithstanding the AFL’s scrimping on useful technology, AussieRulesBlog was reminded again last night at Docklands of another of Adrian Anderson’s scheme’s failings.

 

The announcements and stories about video referral generally label it as “goal line” decision assistance. That’s far from accurate. In fact it appears the system is scoring decision assistance, but the change of emphasis doesn’t mean it does the job any better.

 

Last night, Bombers’ skipper Jobe Watson snapped at goal through a veritable forest of hands. The goal umpire appeared ready to signal a goal and the controlling field umpire certainly hadn’t called the ball as “touched, play on”. Nevertheless, a video referral was called for — not for a goal line decision, but to determine whether the ball was touched off the boot.

 

AussieRulesBlog has made this point before, but a football just kicked might be travelling at 40 metres/sec off the boot. If the television footage is being captured at around 25 frames per second. There’s 0.04 seconds between frames. At 40m/s, a football would travel 1.6 metres in one frame. And these umpires think they can detect whether the ball has been touched off the boot? To borrow a line from The Castle, “Tell ‘em they’re dreamin’.”

 

So, the upshot is that even though the goal umpire was happy to signal a goal and the field umpire didn’t call the ball touched, video footage that could optimistically be called inconclusive means the decision is a behind under the “if there’s doubt let’s choose the lesser” dictum.

 

Nonsense. There’s no other word. Nonsense. If, and it’s a big if given the AFL won’t spring for goal line cameras, there were high-speed cameras capturing the action, it’s possible video footage could be used to determine a “touched” decision . . .  but it’s a very big if.

 

To take this incident to its logical conclusion, and broadcasters often do this of their own volition anyway, let’s have video review of contentious field umpiring decisions across the field. We imagine that suggestion will go down a treat at Gieschen House.

Read More

Coach’s whine spawns tweet abuse

Let’s not beat around the bush. Brett Ratten’s whining about Sam Lonergan’s “drive” tackle has presumably provided some less-principled Blues supporters with some sort of de facto justification for their tweeted threats against Lonergan.

 

AussieRulesBlog understands that coaches are emotional after a game, particularly a loss when a win was presumed. Nevertheless, in the world of instant communication and social media, emotional comments can be interpreted more strongly than perhaps they were intended and actions taken that might be thought better of in the cold hard light of day.

 

Ratten’s comments on the threats, reported today, are in stark contrast to his comments after the game:

 

“I think that's really unfair on the individual,” Ratten said in Perth before tonight's clash with Fremantle. “Players go out there to play their best and there's collisions and tackles and these types of things.”

The Emperor’s new clothes

The feedback [on the video review system]so far has been very positive” according to Adrian Anderson.

 

The first thought that comes to mind is Vlad parading around the G with not a stitch on and those providing the feedback on the video system telling him how fine he looks in his new threads.

Video ‘system’ a crock

In the wake of the epic Anzac Day game, debutante Barcodes coach Nathan Buckley chose to comment on the goal line video referral ‘system’, but his claim that the AFL have changed their process is simply incorrect.

 

From the start, where a video referral has been made, an inconclusive video has resulted in the lesser scoring result. As we noted two days ago, this underlying process results in the completely whacky premise that the lesser result is chosen not because there is any conclusive evidence that it is correct, but because there is no conclusive evidence that it is not correct.

 

An AFL spokesman quoted in the story on Buckley’s comments suggests that an inconclusive video goes back to what the umpire considered was the correct decision at the time. This is a lovely theory, but we can’t recall a single instance we’ve seen where it has happened [we acknowledge that we haven’t seen every game]. On any number of occasions, goal umpires about to signal a score have been halted by field umpires, boundary umpires have been consulted and a video referral made. An inconclusive video results in the lesser option, regardless of the goal umpire’s initial inclination.

 

We’d like a reference to any instance of an inconclusive video referral resulting in a decision to award a goal as originally decided by a goal umpire, but we don’t think it has happened.

 

The further the season goes, the more obvious it is that this video referral ‘system’ is ill-considered, immature and under-resourced. It’s a crock!

More video cock-ups — touched up

It seems it is only aggrieved coaches who highlight the failings in Adrian Anderson’s video review system for goal line decisions. Once again, the most glaring deficiency is the application of video review to determine whether a ball is touched off the boot out in the field.

 

The technology being employed is simply incapable of providing definitive evidence of balls being touched off the boot.

 

We were also told that players cannot call for a video review, yet it seems clear that field umpires are deciding to refer to video when there’s a clamour amongst players that the ball has been touched.

 

The trade-off in this ‘system’ is that an inconclusive video generates the lowest score. So, a Jobe Watson ‘goal’ in the pre-season and the Todd Goldstein ‘goal’ this last weekend have both been declared behinds, not because there was any evidence the ball had been touched, but because there was no conclusive evidence that it hadn’t been touched.

 

Lewis Carroll could have included this scenario in Through the Looking-Glass and it wouldn’t have looked out of place amongst the Mad Hatter, the Cheshire Cat and the Queen of Hearts.

Thomas decision highlights MRP failings

Well, it’s official. With tonight’s Tribunal clearing Lindsay Thomas of a rough conduct charge, the Match Review Panel members must be wondering why they bother — and why the guidelines they work to generate such ludicrously incorrect assessments.

 

As AussieRulesBlog noted yesterday, the MRP’s awarding of a three-week penalty to Thomas over the incident in which Gary Rohan’s leg was rather graphically broken was flat-out wrong. The matter should have been thrown out at the MRP stage and the Kangaroos would now be well-entitled to demand compensation from the AFL for their time and effort in defending Thomas.

 

But, as much opprobrium as the MRP deserve, some media figures deserve truckloads more, notably ex-Swans coach Paul Roos (and the Herald-Sun’s Mark Robinson not too far behind).

 

Prior to Roos joining Fox Footy Channel’s On the Couch last year, we considered him a moderate and rational person. We found him so irritating and irrational that within a few weeks last year we stopped watching On the Couch, previously a must in our weekly footy schedule.

 

Roos out-did himself on Monday night’s On the Couch [which we watched because James Hird was on prior to tomorrow’s Anzac Day game]. We can only think that jet lag hadn’t yet cleared Roos’ mind after his recent trip to the US. He said [and we’re paraphrasing here] he had watched the Thomas incident and then watched the previous week’s Goodes slide tackle. Then he said, if Goodes was suspended, Thomas had to be suspended because he’d injured an opponent.

 

The logic on display here is breathtaking. Taken to its logical conclusion, if we are in a marking contest and an opponent makes a spectacular, but mistimed, leap and crashes to the ground injuring himself in the process, we should be penalised by the Match Review Panel. Why? We, inadvertently, injured an opponent.

 

Roos’ credibility is absolutely shredded, as is Adrian Anderson’s Match Review Panel system.

Tackling skills falter

Alistair Clarkson’s musings over high tackles are interesting, and the free kick statistics (which we don’t have to hand, but we heard on Foxtel) show that the Eagles benefit from the umpire’s decisions more than anyone else does.

 

While we don’t put much store in Gieschen’s defence of his umpires, the image (below) gracing the AFL’s story on the issue somewhat destroys Clarkson’s ground.

 

 

scottselwood316r4a2[1]

 

With Franklin’s eyes determinedly closed as he applies the tackle, it’s hardly surprising that he’s about to give a free kick away!

 

Tackling is no less a skill than kicking, handballing or marking. None of these happen effectively unless there’s full concentration on their implementation.

 

Perhaps Clarkson should be closely examining the footage and trying to determine whether or not his players are actually watching their targets as they tackle . . .

Breeding a generation of hook-foots

The release recently of the ‘Buddy Ball’ has AussieRulesBlog rather perplexed.

 

We understand marketers’ desire to associate Lance Franklin with some saleable merchandise and young fans’ desire to be associated with a charismatic figure. In our own callow youth, we wore the then-fashionable Ron Barassi footy boots in the sincere belief that they imparted magical powers.

 

‘Buddy’ boots, we wouldn’t have much of a problem with. ‘Buddy’ socks or shorts, even less so. But a Buddy Ball?

 

Despite the near universal hailing of Franklin, AussieRulesBlog sees at least one serious flaw — his kicking. The huge sweeping arc of his approach and the slicing, glancing contact of his boot on the ball which imparts the famous ‘reverse swing’ on his kicks aren’t techniques we should be lauding to impressionable young boys.

 

A ‘Gazza’ Ball? No problems. Young Gary runs in straight, kicks straight through the ball — and is a reliable goal kicker.

 

Franklin himself is never sure where his kicks are going to go. When they’re good, they’re terrifyingly wonderful, but when they’re not, like the little girl down the lane, they’re absolutely awful.

 

It’s about percentages and repeatability. It’s about reliability in the heat of a close finish with the pressure of expectation weighing heavily. Let’s give our up and coming players a role model whose technique stands up under pressure.

Can we stop the hyperbole, please?

One thing’s for sure: Aussie Rules stirs passions and passionate opinion. And then there’s what you can see with your own two eyes.

 

Both sliding tackles and ‘drive’ tackles have generated a fair degree of hyperbole since the weekend and, frankly, AussieRulesBlog is bemused by it all.

 

If you can take your eyes off Gary Rohan’s leg being snapped, it’s as clear as day that Lindsay Thomas isn’t executing a slide tackle, albeit that his right knee is on the ground as his left foot impacts Rohan’s leg.

 

thomas-rohan

 

Contrast Thomas’ position with that of Adam Goodes executing the definitive slide tackle that saw him suspended.

 

goodes-slide

 

The clear difference is that Goodes is leading the ‘tackle’ with both knees and using his knees and legs to impact his opponent. Thomas’ position is clearly and obviously not a slide tackle.

 

Rohan’s awful injury was nothing more than unfortunate circumstance. Not only are the media guilty of hyperbole, the Match Review Panel seem, most unfortunately in our view, to feel bound to cite almost any incident that excites controversy.

 

The other incident sending some into overblown hyperbole — especially Brett Ratten — is Sam Lonergan’s tackle of Andrew Carrazzo. Regular readers will already be aware of our affection for the Bombers, but we declare it again here.

 

Lonergan no more drove Carazzo into the turf than we are the blogging equivalent of William Shakespeare! Fell into his back? Yes. Drove him into the tackle? Absolutely not. It was unhappy circumstance, once again, which saw Carazzo’s arm in such a position when it crashed into the turf that it caused a fracture in the shoulder blade.

 

Ironically, the player AussieRulesBlog would most associate with tackles intentionally driving an opponent’s shoulder into the turf is none other than the Blues’ own Jarrad Waite.

 

Simply, much of the florid controversy is knee jerk reaction, often driven by passionate support of one team or player or another. We can forgive fans, although the AFL should be taking steps to educate people, but overblown media reactions from the footy journalists is quite another thing.

And talking of outbursts. . .

The former Premier and former Hawthorn President has been caught uttering more words in the short interval between changing feet.

 

Now, Jeff has always had a penchant for sharing his opinions as widely as he could — it’s one of the key selection criteria for politicians after all.

 

Unfortunately ‘journalists’ — well, those bereft of original ideas anyway — keep asking him for opinions, and he’s only too happy to oblige them with some petty and controversial remark.

 

It was fair enough to seek his thoughts when he was Premier, though it did take him away from his key task of dismembering and selling the State’s public assets. It was fair enough to seek his thoughts as President of a recently revived and now rudely healthy AFL club. But now?

 

Just bugger off quietly, Jeff. There’s a good chap.

Once a showman . . .

No-one should be surprised by Eddie McGuire’s outburst over Mick Malthouse’s frank assessment of the Barcodes circa round 3, 2012. Eddie is, and has always been, first and foremost a showman. It’s the sizzle that excites McGuire, not the sausage.

 

Here at AussieRulesBlog Central, we haven’t managed to get past the adverts for McGuire’s eponymously-titled new TV vehicle. It’s clear that EMT takes a lowest common denominator approach — not unlike The Footy Show, a former McGuire vehicle — and isn’t interested in anything much other than sizzle.

 

Nathan Buckley, on the other hand, has his feet firmly planted on the ground, regardless of his FIGJAM reputation. No wonder then that he backed his predecessor's right to comment as he felt was appropriate.

 

And, of course, the ‘controversy’ was turned up to ‘High’ by that soul of sober reflection, The Age’s Caroline Wilson.

 

Did anyone really expect that Malthouse wouldn’t be asked his opinion of the 2012 Barcodes? More especially since he’s employed to provide insightful comments on football?

 

McGuire isn’t quite the shrinking violet that Jeff Kennett is, but they both generate far more column centimetres than they’re entitled to.

 

Storm? Meet teacup.

Good onya, Skasey and Doc!

For a little while back there in the mists of time — the mid 80s — the then Victorian Football League flirted with entrepreneurial ownership of football clubs.

 

In 1985 the Sydney Swans were ‘acquired’ by flamboyant medical entrepreneur Geoffrey Edelsten. Within a couple of years, despite a spending spree that included Tom Hafey, Bernard Toohey and Greg Williams, Edelsten was gone, replaced by a consortium including TV host Mike Willessee and Just Jeans boss Craig Kimberley.

 

By 1992, the Swans were a basket case and the AFL stepped in to prop up its bridgehead into NRL territory

 

In 1986, a consortium bankrolled by high-flying entrepreneur Christopher Skase was awarded the licence for a VFL team based in Queensland.

 

When Skase’s house of cards collapsed in late 1989, the AFL took over and re-sold the ‘Bears’ to Gold Coast businessman Reuben Pelerman. Within a couple of years, with Pelerman losing money hand over fist, the Bears reverted to a traditional membership-based club structure, although only with significant funding input from the AFL.

 

And so the AFL must be feeling a lot like it has avoided the fate of the FFA, now embroiled in a stoush with “billionaire” businessman, Nathan Tinkler, over the Newcastle Jets and without the resources to write off the exercise to ‘experience’.

 

And the NRL must be watching rather nervously given Tinkler’s recent ‘acquisition’ of the Newcastle Knights NRL team.

 

FFA has also recently had to deal with another “billionaire” businessman in Clive Palmer wanting the sandpit to be run his way or no way.

 

And, of course, rugby league was split asunder when Rupert Murdoch decided he wanted to control a whole competition.

 

For all its manifold faults and inadequacies, the VFL/AFL has been, Edelsten and Skase notwithstanding, mercifully free of meddling by super-rich owners. Not even John “Pig’s arse” Elliott at the height of his powers could truly thumb his nose at AFL House and the consequences be damned. His attempts to do so eventually netted his beloved Caaarrlt’n a series of Wooden Spoons and a decade in the football wilderness.

 

At some point, the AFL must have considered some sort of private ownership for the Suns and Giants. Thankfully, their brush with Edelsten and Skase would have given them pause to reconsider and find a more reliable way to do things.

 

And so, fellow Aussie Rules fans, we should be grateful to Skasey for buggering off to Majorca when he did and to the Doc for taking his pink helicopter off to wherever he parked it.

 

In the meantime, there was all the fun and games of the Chase for Skase and more recently the Doc and his new beau have given the glitterati at the Brownlow something to titter over.

Umpire’s balance awry

Having seen more than half of the first two rounds’ games live or on TV, AussieRulesBlog’s considered opinion is that umpiring interpretations are out of balance — too many incidental contacts being free kicked, too many similar incidental contacts being either missed or let go.

 

And then, last night on Foxtel, we watched Chooseday Night Football. The game was the round 6, 1993 game between Geelong and Essendon. This memorable game, won by the Bombers to the tune of four goals, featured Gary Ablett Snr and Paul Salmon as the full forwards. Ablett bagged 14 goals from 20-odd kicks and Salmon kicked 10.

 

The game was in the two-umpire era and featured two of the competitions most experienced whistle-blowers at the time, Peter Cameron and John Russo.

 

Two things were noticeable around the dazzling display of Ablett: the “controlling” umpires were much further from the ball than we’re used to in 2012; and the commentary (Peter “Each of two” Landy, Ian Robertson and Gerard Healey) focused heavily, and not positively, on the number of free kicks paid for incidental contacts.

 

Not much, it seems, has changed! Free kicks for incidental contact remain a blight, at least from a spectator perspective, and 2012 has seen a significant increase in umpiring decisions made at longer distances from the ball.

 

Thankfully the Giesch has spared us the “we’re going to crack down on x” strategy leading into 2012. Instead, every rule is being interpreted enormously strictly it seems. Notably, the interpretation that pays a free kick when a marking player’s arm is swept away preventing him from clutching the ball with two hands has morphed into a free kick for merely brushing that player’s arms. This interpretation is umpiring defenders out of the game.

 

Hopefully, as has been the case in recent years, interpretations will be relaxed as the season unfolds and we’ll see some more sympathetic approaches emerging.

Credulity stretched to breaking point

So AFL community engagement manager Jason Mifsud so misunderstood a conversation with Melbourne’s Aaron Davey that he gave Grant Thomas a story that Melbourne coach Mark Neeld was engaged in some sort of racist discrimination against indigenous players. And now that Mifsud and Davey have — finally — spoken, Mifsud offers a total apology and retains his job.

 

Pull the other one! Someone, and perhaps everyone involved, is telling porkies.

 

If Mifsud so misconstrued Davey’s comments as to accuse Neeld in the fashion he did, it beggars belief that he remains in his job. If AussieRulesBlog were in Vlad’s shoes, Mifsud would only be collecting a pay cheque from the AFL if he were managing a broom — and that only under very close supervision.

 

There’s another angle to these events which apparently hasn’t been considered and makes a lot more sense than anything we’ve heard from either media shills or the AFL. Perhaps Neeld did conduct a group meeting with the indigenous players on his list. So what? He’s surely perfectly entitled to conduct a meeting with whomever he likes. He might also have conducted one-on-one meetings with other players in the same timeframe. Again, so what? It’s not hard to imagine that there could have been perfectly legitimate reasons for doing both. And conducting two sorts of meetings, one with indigenous players and one with the rest of the list, doesn’t automatically qualify Neeld as a racist.

 

Part of the problem here has been the rush to brand any sort of different treatment of indigenous players as “racist”. Has anybody out there heard of “affirmative action”? Isn’t it possible that different treatment of indigenous players could be calculated to advance them in some way?

 

The whole industry would be vastly improved if everyone involved took the time to find out exactly what was involved in an incident before rushing to label it.

 

As it is, we’re left with more questions than answers from Mifsud’s first few months of 2012.

Serial misjudements

Jason Mifsud’s apparent role in the latest controversy over indigenous AFL players should make his position as the AFL’s community engagement officer completely untenable, but AFL House clearly doesn’t enjoy admitting error so he is reprimanded and counselled.

 

Nevertheless, AussieRulesBlog wouldn’t have swapped places with Mifsud at his press conference as his boss savagely cut across him to stop him putting his other foot in his mouth.

 

Just to refresh readers’ memory, Mifsud joined — a week later — with The Age’s Caroline Wilson in accusing James Hird and Paul Roos of advocating race-based recruiting. This accusation was nonsensical, as we commented at the time.

 

Then, more recently, Mifsud mysteriously took two months to report a conversation with Matt Rendell that had “deeply offended” him. Three strikes. The dust still has not settled on this one with reports that the AFL are to offer Rendell a job.

 

Whatever his other qualities may be, Mifsud has demonstrated a spectacular lack of judgement and seriously damaged the industry’s standing as a leader in indigenous issues.

Video application unclear

Notwithstanding the AFL’s scrimping on useful technology, AussieRulesBlog was reminded again last night at Docklands of another of Adrian Anderson’s scheme’s failings.

 

The announcements and stories about video referral generally label it as “goal line” decision assistance. That’s far from accurate. In fact it appears the system is scoring decision assistance, but the change of emphasis doesn’t mean it does the job any better.

 

Last night, Bombers’ skipper Jobe Watson snapped at goal through a veritable forest of hands. The goal umpire appeared ready to signal a goal and the controlling field umpire certainly hadn’t called the ball as “touched, play on”. Nevertheless, a video referral was called for — not for a goal line decision, but to determine whether the ball was touched off the boot.

 

AussieRulesBlog has made this point before, but a football just kicked might be travelling at 40 metres/sec off the boot. If the television footage is being captured at around 25 frames per second. There’s 0.04 seconds between frames. At 40m/s, a football would travel 1.6 metres in one frame. And these umpires think they can detect whether the ball has been touched off the boot? To borrow a line from The Castle, “Tell ‘em they’re dreamin’.”

 

So, the upshot is that even though the goal umpire was happy to signal a goal and the field umpire didn’t call the ball touched, video footage that could optimistically be called inconclusive means the decision is a behind under the “if there’s doubt let’s choose the lesser” dictum.

 

Nonsense. There’s no other word. Nonsense. If, and it’s a big if given the AFL won’t spring for goal line cameras, there were high-speed cameras capturing the action, it’s possible video footage could be used to determine a “touched” decision . . .  but it’s a very big if.

 

To take this incident to its logical conclusion, and broadcasters often do this of their own volition anyway, let’s have video review of contentious field umpiring decisions across the field. We imagine that suggestion will go down a treat at Gieschen House.