We note that Brisbane Lions captain Jonathan Brown, in commenting on the Fevola sacking, extolls the unity and the purpose of the team above the needs of the individual. Brown was apparently one of Fevola’s closest friends at the Lions.

Lions Coach Michael Voss says, “You recruit on the premise that you think they can make you better. That's what we hoped to get. Clearly we didn't get that.”

What’s clear is that Brisbane took the decision to recruit Fevola looking only at the potential on-field benefit and utterly omitted consideration of the individual concerned.

We are not defending Fevola, but we firmly believe that Brisbane have a moral obligation to Fevola in a way that they don’t have to Albert Proud for instance.

Notwithstanding the circumstances of the Fevola deals which lost Brisbane an experienced and capable forward and a future elite midfielder, Brisbane appear to have all but ignored the personality baggage that clearly came with Fevola in single-minded pursuit of on-field success.

Proud, on the other hand, was recruited via pick 22 of the 2006 AFL Draft, delisted at the end of 2010 and rookied in the 2010 pre-season draft. He has known only Brisbane at the elite level. After four seasons, his delisting and subsequent selection as a rookie illustrated another chance being offered. Further indiscretions have resulted in his sacking.

Fevola, by contrast, was a known serial offender against AFL and community standards and was repudiated by his former club. Did Brisbane think that a good dose of Queensland sunshine would straighten him out? It’s disingenuous of Brown to say that the problems began in January of last year — mere months after Fevola arrived at the club. That was nothing more than a continuation of established behaviour and Brisbane must have known that.

It’s all very well for clubs to take a hard-headed professional approach, but these are human beings we’re discussing, not inanimate objects.

Brisbane Lions’ decision not to honour its contract with Brendan Fevola seems a strange one given their recruiting of him only a year ago.

It cannot have escaped the notice of various Lions officials at the time of recruiting him that Fevola had recently had a number of public ‘errors of judgement’. Goodness knows what he’s done in more private circumstances. Brisbane can not have harboured any illusions about task they were taking on. It was a high stakes gamble — a generous contract with the promise of high on-field returns, but with the likelihood of a sting in the tail.

In the circumstances, and whatever Fevola’s misdemeanours may have been, AussieRulesBlog finds it incredible that Brisbane can attempt to wash their hands of Fevola. They didn’t create the monster — that responsibility lies with various Carlton coaches and administrations — but they cannot deny that they knew what they were taking on.

Notwithstanding that there are light years of difference between the two in many ways, the positive end to Ben Cousins’ career and Richmond’s show of faith in him contrasts starkly with the situation Fevola now faces. A storied career appears set to end in tatters.

More importantly, and here is a point of synergy with Cousins, football has been the area of Fevola’s life — perhaps the only area — where he has been able to express himself in a way the community has (generally) approved of. It has been clear that the chance to return to AFL football was an important component of Cousins’ rehabilitation. Fevola, it now seems, won’t be allowed that opportunity.

And what of the Lions’ officials who landed this big fish? Beyond some internal embarrassment, will they bear any opprobrium?

Brisbane may be ridding themselves of a distraction, but they are abrogating, presumably with encouragement from AFL House, a high-profile responsibility they took on only a year ago.

Twice in two years, AFL clubs have taken on a player with known negative issues. Twice in two years those clubs have walked away from their responsibilities, contractual or otherwise. Once could be seen as an accident, but two in two years starts to look like a problem.

The AFLPA has some hard thinking to do, but we think they and their members have a responsibility to see that AFL clubs don’t get used to the notion that they can tear up players’ contracts when it suits them.

Today’s vigorous attack on North Melbourne President James Brayshaw, penned by Caroline Wilson, misses the mark on so many levels.

Let’s start by calling a spade a spade and acknowledging that Wilson’s job is to write opinion pieces and to create controversy. That’s what she has done.

She contrasts Brayshaw with the Barcodes’ Eddie McGuire and Melbourne’s Jim Stynes, writing that the comparisons are unfair, but continuing nevertheless. The problem is that by avoiding comparison and contrast of the respective contexts, she ends up comparing apples with oranges and mangoes.

So, let’s do what Wilson failed to do.

McGuire heads up a financial, marketing and sponsorship behemoth at the Barcodes. Sure, Presidents in the past went close to sending the club to the wall, but without denigrating McGuire’s achievements, even Wilson could run this club successfully. The 40k crowd at Docklands on Saturday night seemed to have more than a fair share of Barcodes, for instance. On-field success has made the normally vocal Barcode army howl with expectation.

Stynes’ Demons have many, many connections to wealthy establishment Melbourne. It’s not accidental that they have wiped out the club’s debt. Stynes’ force of personality was certainly a factor, but no amount of personality would satisfy the banks. A goodly number of Demons supporters have pretty deep pockets (and the long arms to reach the cash!).

By contrast, Brayshaw’s North Melbourne has neither the organisational size, nor the marketing muscle to be able to make the grand gestures so beloved of Eddie Everywhere. Nor does North have the connections to affluent Melbourne that Stynes has been able to tap. North’s background has always been solidly working class.

So, clearly, comparisons of the three are fraught exercises, and we haven’t even touched on the issue of personal style.

The obvious fact that both Brayshaw and McGuire work in the media doesn’t make for any automatic alikeness. It is disingenuous of Wilson to imply that it does.

AussieRulesBlog doesn’t set out to defend Brayshaw. He’s done a pretty effective job of that for himself, so he hardly needs our help.

On the other hand, pundits like Wilson, Mike Sheahan and the annoying Patrick Smith get to pontificate on everyone in football from the AFL Commission chairman to the lowliest bootstudder at the bottom club, all without the danger of actually having to do the job themselves.

We wonder how well Wilson would do as President of the Kangaroos? Or Sheahan as coach of the Bulldogs? Or Smith as anything that required a logically-constructed argument?

AFL Umpiring Director, Jeff Gieschen, was happy with the video review of the Barcodes’ Chris Dawes’ goal on Saturday night. All we can say to that is that Gieschen is easily pleased!

For those who missed the spectacle, Dawes snapped for goal and an opponent’s hand was in the same postcode. The field umpire, the closest official to the kick and attempted smother, called “All clear!”. At that point, the goal umpire ran out onto the field and suggested he wasn’t sure if the ball had been touched off the boot — despite a closer official ruling it all clear!

Next, we endured six or seven replays of varying speeds from a couple of different angles, none of which was conclusive. This process stretched over what felt like the best part of a minute.

Once again, AussieRulesBlog draws attention to the inequities of the initial process involved. Had the score been adjudicated as a behind, there is no opportunity for a video replay because the opposition will have grabbed a spare ball and kicked it into play. To deny them this capability, by holding up play to review the video, disadvantages them enormously.

Gieschen seems to think that getting the decision right is the acme of achievement.

Well, yes it is — in certain circumstances. Will we eventually fit high-powered lasers to the goal posts so that a ball that would brush an infinitely high post would be singed or burst, thus signifying a behind? We think there’s a point (no pun intended) where getting the decision right becomes less important than retaining basic fairness and keeping the momentum of the game.

In this implementation of the video review, teams awarded behinds incorrectly are disadvantaged and teams awarded goals are overly advantaged, because even if the original call of a goal is overturned they can set up their best defensive zone.

Thus far, we’ve only fleetingly mentioned the time involved in the review process. As we have pointed out previously, games like cricket and NFL have natural rhythms which facilitate video review. AFL does not.

In a lower-scoring game, where each score assumes much greater importance, there would be some justification for assistive technology being employed. In AFL, even if scores are within a few points at the final siren, there have generally been many scores and scoring chances, so that one error isn’t as critical.

“You wouldn't want to cut off the review without seeing all of the replays. If something bobbed up later then you'd look silly if you'd made the call on the first couple of replays,” Gieschen is quoted as saying.

If it’s so important to not look silly, Jeff, what about introducing video review of field umpiring gaffes. There are far more of these than goal umpiring errors. Adrian Anderson told us last year the goal umpiring error rate was less than ten in ten thousand, and yet we’re going to this ludicrous effort to reduce that rate?

The truth is, there’s just nowhere that this video review notion stacks up. In true AFL tradition, it’s using a bulldozer to knock over a single blade of grass.

Tonight those of us with Foxtel have been able to watch the first example of the AFL’s new round-robin format tonight.

It’s hard to get a decent form line when the squads are so ‘experimental’, but the AFL chose to experiment with one small piece of insanity in this first round of the pre-season competition — a free kick against the last player to touch the ball before it goes out of bounds. This rule is a turkey. End of story. May it never be seen again after this round of the competition.

The extra two quarters made the night on the couch seem interminable.

Overall, AussieRulesBlog isn’t sure about this new format, although we don’t have any alternative to propose.

We welcome comments from other fans who had the chance to watch the game.

No, not a reference to cell phones!

In September 1939, Great Britain and France declared war on Hitler’s Germany following the German invasion of Poland. It was May 1940 before Germany launched its westward invasion through Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland. The intervening period was known as the “Phoney War” in Britain because nothing much warlike was happening.

Well, we can’t escape the feeling here at AussieRulesBlog Central that we’re similarly entwined in a misleading period of peace and tranquility — a phoney season — before the hostilities of the AFL season begin with ‘war games’ on February 11 as a prelude to full battle on March 24.

We’re not in the business of prognostications, so don’t look for them. We’ve found Supercoach and Dream Team to be singularly unexciting and uninteresting. We take little notice of the optimistic assessments trotted out to club faithful at this time of the year.

We just want the footy to start . . .

AussieRulesBlog wishes to join the AFL community in marking the passing of St Kilda great, Darrell ‘Doc’ Baldock.

We are, sadly, old enough to clearly recall watching the Doc plying his trade as an under-sized centre half-forward. His agility and balance made up for his lack of inches and he was undoubtedly an inspiration to his teammates.

A wonderful player and a genuine champion of the game.

The Saints’ denial of a “culture problem” after four young players were suspended and fined for drug and alcohol abuse has more than a whiff of a little Dutch boy with his finger stuck in the dyke about it. Or perhaps King Canute is a more appropriate analogy?

Reporting comments by coach Ross Lyon, The Age writes:

He said St Kilda was already overhauling its development program, so that young players not studying or in full-time work would "earn or learn" to avoid "escapism" and depression.

Overhauling? The requirement for study or work wasn’t in place already?

Perhaps CEO Michael Nettlefold is correct. It’s not a culture problem. Perhaps it’s just ordinary management. It’s not like there hasn’t been a plethora of poor management over the past few years for the Saints.