With a disappointing season only minutes behind them, the Saints have made a spectacularly unpromising start to the off season with Ross Lyon’s announcement of four retirements.

Within hours, Steven Baker and Robert Eddy had revealed they had done no such thing.

After the disruptions of the photo scandal and the “seventeen-year-old schoolgirl” over last off-season, AussieRulesBlog would have thought that the club would be making every effort to present a quietly determined and united front to avoid distractions. Not so it seems, or the club’s communications advisers only paused to decide which of the club’s feet they would shoot next.

It will remain to be seen whether the exit of veteran Baker in obviously controversial circumstances will further tear the internal fabric of the playing group. Once rent, it is a (football) generational change exercise to repair.

Watching the final against the Swans, we took particular note of Malcolm Blight’s observations that Lyon had played one or two extra in defence during the first half, but structured up man on man after half time. The contrast between the Saints’ ineptitude in attack in the second quarter and threatening revival on the scoreboard in the third quarter was marked. Perhaps it’s not too big a call to suggest that the game was lost in the coaches’ box on game day.

Even in the midst of agonising disappointment, current AFL players should pause and give thanks to providence that modern medical technology is what it is.

Seeing Daniel Menzel and then Lance Franklin leaving the ground in the opening game of the 2011 final series with what appeared to be serious knee injuries left AussieRulesBlog feeling rather empty. These two young men had spent almost twelve months preparing and were almost in sight of their goal when fate struck.

There were many others, but the story of John Coleman should give both Menzel and Franklin some comfort. Coleman had played in just 98 VFL games for 537 goals and was aged only 25 when a knee injury ended his career. With today’s medical technology, we can only wonder what might have been.

Menzel and Franklin, and all those others who have suffered serious knee injuries in recent years, have the opportunity to return to the game they love. It’s a silver lining to what must seem like a very dark time.

Ed.: That Franklin’s injury is ‘only’ bone bruising doesn’t diminish the sentiment.

Quite how Essendon assistant coach Dean Wallis could claim to have been only “vaguely aware” of rules against players and officials betting on AFL matches beggars belief.

Having placed bets in June, July and August, according to the reports, and the Heath Shaw/Nick Maxwell issues having been dealt with by the AFL in mid-July, Wallis’ August bet, at the very least, must have been made with full knowledge of the potential consequences. It’s simply not credible that someone working in an AFL club through that time would not have been aware of the Shaw-Maxwell reporting.

To make matters worse, Wallis reportedly initially denied making the bets, then denied they were his bets, and one of the bets involved the club he is employed by. In AussieRulesBlog’s view, the bets being quadrella-type and thus not specific to the Bombers’ on-field performance other than, presumably, winning doesn’t diminish the stupidity involved. Wallis’ initial denials eloquently scotch his defence that he was only vaguely aware of the AFL’s betting rules.

So, in that context, Wallis can consider himself extremely fortunate thus far. We’re not at all sure that there’s any consistency between Shaw’s $20k, eight-week penalty and Wallis’ $7.5k, fourteen-week penalty, notwithstanding that one is a player and the other a minor assistant coach. Had AussieRulesBlog been deciding the penalty, we would have thrown the equivalent of the large-print edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica at Wallis.

It remains to be seen how his club will view the issue and whether he will continue to be considered appropriate for involvement in the development of young players on the Bombers’ list.

The AFL would be naive to believe that this is the totality of the problem amongst players and officials. If there were never another incident, there has already been sufficient cause for substantial action to reduce the amount of gambling on AFL matches, whether by legislation or by the AFL withdrawing its approval for any contact between the AFL and related organisations and people and betting agencies.

A second year with a brand new club set to debut and a second ‘marquee’ player seemingly keeping a deal under wraps until the current season is done and dusted. It’s not a good look, but is the alternative any more palatable?

AFL fans who are upset about the Gary Ablett Jnr/Callen Ward silences should cast an eye to AAMI Park or to Penrith. Melbourne Storm’s Adam Blair announced mid season that he would be playing with Wests Tigers next year. Penrith’s Petero Civinoceva likewise announced he would move to the Broncos while still turning out for the Panthers — but such is not the way of the AFL.

None of us can take the King Canute path and simply deny that money and salary caps and other reasons induce players to change clubs. And we’d do well to remember the old-fashioned concept of player loyalty when we blithely opine about some player or other being potential “trade bait”. Loyalty isn’t a one-way contract.

AussieRulesBlog is feeling quite fortunate. At least recently, the Bombers haven’t lost a required player to one of the competition’s new clubs, although they’ve done their bit in the past with Roger Merrett to the Brisbane Bears and Gavin Wanganeen to Port Adelaide.

Mention of the Bears raises the AFL’s previous strategy for creating a team in a greenfields environment. When the Bears were formed, each club was required to release at least a couple of players, from memory, to the newcomer with the balance then being recruited from the VFA, SANFL and WAFL. History suggests that attempt to give the fledgling club an immediate on-field presence wasn’t a lot more successful than the Gold Coast Suns with the Bears’ only finishing higher than 12th once in their first eight seasons.

Strategically, the Suns and GWS Giants give the AFL a team in all major population centres around the country — a prospect that NRL can only dream about. If it’s a given that these new clubs have to exist, and AussieRulesBlog would certainly argue that that is the case, then playing stocks have to come from somewhere.

The Bears’ early years show clearly that a group of seasoned elite-level players need time to build camaraderie, elan and club spirit. The Suns showed in 2011 that a small core of very good players (Ablett, Rischitelli, Bock), supported by some less-exalted experience (Fraser, Brennan, Harbrow, Harris) and fleshed out by some of the best young talent available will still take time to find its feet. It’s not hard to imagine that the early years for the Giants will be more difficult again, but players of the likes of Callen Ward will be key to building a team that can be genuinely competitive over time.

A long time ago, someone told AussieRulesBlog that there were three features about any transaction: price; quality; and delivery — choose the best in any two,  but you can never have all three. We think the issue of loyalty to and by clubs in this modern era is a similar sort of relationship. We can have most of the good things about the modern competition, but there’ll always be a price to pay somehow.

That said, most of the hand-wringing about Ablett and Ward has been a media construct and perhaps we just shouldn’t be taking much notice of that.

It wasn’t our intention for focus again on boundary-line ruck contests, but watching the Brisbane— West Coast game on TV certainly put it front and centre in our mind.

Nic Naitanui is a fearsomely talented player. His natural leap and athleticism must give him an automatic advantage over ninety per cent of the other players at AFL level. Why then, for most of the second half of the Brisbane game, would he resort to grabbing the back of his ruck opponent’s guernsey and holding it for all he was worth?

More to the point, where is the much-vaunted all-round coverage by the umpires? On a couple of occasions, Leuenberger’s guernsey had been pulled halfway up his torso and still there was no free kick!

The current umpiring cop-out in ruck contests that both are holding just doesn’t wash for AussieRulesBlog. There are rules. If they’re broken, apply penalties as appropriate. Currently, when ruck free kicks are awarded, neither the ruckmen nor fans have any idea of why. A genuine contest is all we ask for.

And while we’ve got the sights on the umpires, we wonder when Steve McBurney is taking delivery of a specially trained Labrador. In the closely fought last quarter of the Brisbane–West Coast game, a West Coast defender applied a genuine full nelson to a Brisbane forward in a marking “contest” in Brisbane’s attacking goal square, locking both his arms, about fifteen metres in front of McBurney. Not even the hint of a free kick. . .

If, as reported, Adrian Anderson and the AFL are keen to strengthen sanctions against “staging” for free kicks, they’re going to have to do a far, far better job of defining it and selling it to the football community.

One of the features of the introduction of sanctions against staging a couple of years ago was the paucity of media explaining to fans what was involved and how it would work. The result? Massive confusion and a lot of unrealistic expectation that simply was never going to be met. Most importantly, the fiasco — and that’s what it has become with only one player reportedly having been investigated for staging — further tarnished the already worn reputation of the AFL with fans who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, seek out the explanatory material provided.

What Anderson and his fellow Rules Committee members need to be extremely wary of is creating a scenario where umpires lose the ability to make a judgement. It’s all very well to suggest targeting players who exaggerate contact to emphasise it and gain a free kick, but that line glosses over the fact that there is illegal contact in the first place.

If Anderson and the rules committee want to get all hairy-chested, perhaps they could turn their attention to the real blight on the game — non-centre bounce ruck contests. The level of blatant holding and blocking that goes on within ruck contests is scandalous.

Let’s make a ruck contest a genuine contest between the two ruckmen. Allow body contact and body positioning, but use of the hands on any part of the opposing ruckman draws an immediate free kick.

With a weekend off due to an interstate game for the Bombers, AussieRulesBlog took the opportunity to  check out AAMI Park and the Melbourne Storm game against the Dragons.

The stadium is a delight. With the benefit of such a small playing arena — seemingly about the size of a man-sized tissue — there’s an intimacy about the place that AFL simply can’t match. Sitting in a slightly upmarket section of the stadium, we were also struck by the comparatively generous leg room. All very positive.

Some curious elements to the evening included the announcement of the Storm team, via the very nice screens at each end of the pitch, well before the players had even run out for their on-field warmup. Each Storm player’s name being announced and picture being displayed generated enthusiastic applause which seemed quite strange when the players remained firmly ensconced in their changerooms. The “cheerleaders” provided a splash of colour and movement in a dance routine out on the turf, but we are reminded how grateful we are that the Bluebirds and Swanettes have passed into history!

Fortuitously, it was Billy Slater’s 200th game. After the away team had run out to, pretty much, a non-reception, the Storm had their cheerleaders manically waving their pom-poms as they ran out before the man of the evening broke through an AFL-style crepe banner celebrating his 200 games. One can’t fault the enthusiasm of the crowd!

Then there was the game. Oh that we could have been at Skilled Park on the Gold Coast the previous week — weather considerations aside — for Storm’s 40–16 drubbing of the Titans. Instead we were treated to an 8–6 slogfest that was — yawn! — pretty boring. Actually, we don’t think even the 40–16 scoreline would create sufficient excitement for us to return.

More curiosities, included the Storm’s mascot belting a cowbell for all he was worth to keep the beat for the obligatory MEL-BOURNE! Dong Dong Dong chant and the decidedly pro-Storm crowd making an inordinate amount of noise as Cameron Smith lined up his two goals for the night. Actually, cowbells are almost a de rigeur accessory it seems, with three or four of them getting a significant seeing to for much of the game time.

Mixing with the crowd after the game left us with the firm impression that NRL people are generally from less affluent circumstances than we routinely experience at AFL games.

An interesting exercise, and we’ll continue to monitor the Storm from the comfort of our easy chair, but the resounding result of the experience is THANK GOODNESS FOR AUSSIE RULES!!!! For those who aren’t rusted-on rugby league fans, the GWS Giants will eventually provide a far superior entertainment.

In light of the renewed focus on footy crowd behaviour, it’s strangely coincidental that AFL Umpiring boss, Jeff Gieschen, has confirmed the fifty-metre penalty against Bulldog Ben Hudson last weekend.

Hudson’s ‘crime’ was to raise his arms and loudly ask “What?” a couple of times in response to a free kick awarded against him.

AussieRulesBlog wants to take a slightly left-field look at this incident, but first we should all remember that rule 18.1 — the rule defining when fifty-metre penalties can be imposed — clause (d) reads:

behaves in an abusive, insulting, threatening or obscene manner towards an umpire or disputes the decision of an umpire;

No-one could realistically suggest that Hudson did anything other than dispute the decision. His actions and his voice cannot seriously have been construed as abusive, threatening, insulting or obscene.

We can’t fault the logic of imposing sanctions on AFL players for abuse, insult or threat as a role model for lesser competitions, yet the penalty against Hudson does feel somewhat at odds with what’s happening in the game in general at AFL level. We don’t have any research to support our anecdotal recollection.

The left field element comes from the NRL. We’ve been watching a bit of ‘british bulldog for big boys’ recently having acquired a taste for a winning team — Melbourne Storm — during the Bombers’ mid-season run of losses*. One aspect of NRL that is in stark contrast with AFL is players’ reactions to penalties against them. It’s not that there’s no dissent — and there isn’t — but there’s a level of deference and respect shown to referees that Andrew Demetriou and Jeff Gieschen could only dream of.

To muddy these waters still further, there’s the example of ‘Association’ football, or soccer, where referees are routinely confronted by excited players, manhandled by players.

As noted, we don’t have an issue with the elite competition providing a behaviour template for players (and others) in lesser competitions. Our issue is consistency. The Hudson penalty seems out of kilter with other, similar incidents; more an exception than an example of the prevailing application of the rule.

As always, consistency is the gold standard and, as usual, the AFL’s umpiring department doesn’t seem capable of providing it.

* We attended every game (in person in Melbourne and on TV in Perth) and stayed to the final siren regardless of the score.