Brett Ratten must now realise that the Blues’ unexpected loss to the Gold Coast Suns was not the signal for his demise at Princes Park. The very speed with which his replacement has been accomplished suggests that the deal with Malthouse was in place, at least in principle if not in fact, for a considerable period.

For other recently ‘replaced’ coaches, the situation has seemed less . . . organised. Dean Bailey comes to mind. Perhaps Matthew Primus.

There was certainly the same whiff of conspiracy around Matthew Knights’ demise at Essendon.

Does it matter? Some of us continue to believe that a contract is to be honoured. Not paid out, but honoured.

In the end, the question for those involved comes down to ends and means. Do the ends justify the means? And can you sleep with your conscience?

Another point we noted from the final quarter of the Swans-Adelaide Qualifying Final replay was the indecent rush to the exits by an extraordinary proportion of the Crows ‘faithful’ once it became clear the Crows would not win.

It happens to be the Crows this time, but the same can be pointed out of all supporter groups.

AussieRulesBlog is firmly of the opinion that true supporters stay on right to the final siren. It’s easy when your favourite team is handing out a shellacing. It’s easy when the finish is neck and neck and the excitement is pulsating. And it’s hard to sit through your team copping a hiding, but true supporters see it as their duty to do so.

We hate hearing the opposition’s song blaring from the PA, especially when our boys have copped a whipping, but the players can’t pack up their gear and leave at the ten-minute mark because they’re being thrashed. They have to stay. And AussieRulesBlog thinks it’s every supporter’s duty to back their team siren to siren. Be packed and ready to leave the moment you hear that final siren, by all means. But not before. That’s our role in the team and the club.

Teamwork is everything. Be a faithful supporter, not a faith-less one.

AussieRulesBlog has been getting an early start on the off-season by watching replays of all the matches from week one of the finals. We’re just watching the final quarter of the Swans-Adelaide game and noticed Crow Patrick Dangerfield reeling from a blow to the head after an attempted smother by Swan Jude Bolton.

In commentary, Premiership Captain Tom Harley says Bolton has nothing to worry about because the high contact to Dangerfield wasn’t malicious. The MRP agrees, noting on the AFL’s MRP results web page:

“It was the view of the panel that Bolton’s action to brace for contact was not a striking motion [and therefore] no further action was taken.”

We have one serious question for the MRP. Is the head sacrosanct or not?

Pretty much everyone who follows AFL footy agreed that Jack Ziebell’s contact with Aaron Joseph wasn’t malicious and had occurred incidentally to both players attempting to take possession of the ball. Nevertheless, the MRP saw fit to charge and suspend Ziebell for that incidental contact. The justification for this nonsense decision was, among other things, the AFL canard that the player’s head must be protected.

And yet Jude Bolton’s contact that left Dangerfield dazed is apparently OK because it didn’t look like a strike.

We are dazed too. Dazed and confused. Once again, the MRP’s logic emanates from a parallel universe.

For AussieRulesBlog, last night’s Qualifying Final between Hawthorn and the Barcodes brought one question into sharp focus.

Although we were only seeing the game on television — which robs the spectator of almost all context — it seemed pretty clear that the Barcodes’ primary objective was to upset Lance Franklin, and they weren’t too fussed about how they achieved that objective.

Seeing two or three Barcodes virtually physically assaulting Franklin before the opening bounce and then more physical attention at every opportunity for the rest of the first half, it was clear that these actions were premeditated.

We regard ourselves as having a fairly modern and up-to-date outlook, notwithstanding the date on our birth certificate, but in football terms we’re firmly ancient. The end most definitely does not justify the means.

The question? We’re interested to hear from readers. How far is too far? How far over the line do you want your team to go in pursuit of a victory? Does sportsmanship — respect for one’s opponent — figure at all any more?

For the record, despite not having any affection for the Hawks, we mightily enjoyed watching the Barcodes reap the results of their, to us, unsportsmanlike approach.

It’s a hardy perennial. No amount of ‘herbicide’ can kill it. When the calendar clicks around to September, you can be sure it’ll pop its old and wizened head up, just it like it did last year and the fifty or so years before that. It’s the yearly whinge of some President or other that their members are being diddled out of finals seats by the AFL’s seat allocation policies.

This year, getting an early start before the Grand Final is even a twinkle in anyone’s eye, it’s Barcode President Eddie “Everywhere” McGuire.

Give Eddie his due though. This year he’s come up with a rather novel stance. The AFL are trying to steal Barcode members apparently.

AussieRulesBlog will out ourselves as a paid up AFL Member. Silver in our case, and firmly an Essendon Club Support package. It’s a carryover from the Waverly days and came into its own for us when the Bombers relocated their home games from Windy Hill to the MCG. Now that the Dons play indoor footy at home, we’re seeing less value, but we keep it going anyway.

If you support one of the big clubs that call the G home and you’re not an AFL member, you’re a mug. More especially so if you occasionally like to pop along and watch teams other than your own go around.

According to McGuire, the AFL are trying to aggregate all club members into AFL membership. How? Well, the AFL allow AFL members to buy a limited number of Guest Passes — 1000 at $75 a pop, adult tickets elsewhere in the stadium range from $46 to $85 — for this Friday night’s game.

As is usual, many supporters find themselves unable to access tickets to the game. The AFL sells tickets to its members plus some guest passes, so therefore the AFL is the big, bad bogeyman.

This is getting boring in the extreme. A big club makes it to a final and some supporters who’d like to be able to go can’t get a ticket. Shock, Horror!Short of building a stadium with infinite capacity, there’s not a solution. The next obvious target is the MCC Members.

We’ll tell you what, Eddie. You could donate the tickets that you and your board and your sponsors are using and allow the poor downtrodden fans you pretend to be so concerned about to buy them . . .

For goodness sake! The hyperbole being uttered in the wake of the Steve Johnson suspension is almost beyond belief.

Geelong Premiership player, James Kelly, apparently opened his mouth and the following drivel issued forth:

"These days it is getting harder and harder to be an AFL footballer and especially out on the ground, with so much happening and so many decisions you have got to make in such a short space of time," Kelly said.

"It's getting really, really hard to know what you can and can't do."

No it’s not. Not hard at all. You can’t shirtfront an opponent thirty metres off the ball. It’s against the Laws of Australian Football. Has been for as long as you’ve been playing the game at any level, James.

Perhaps young James and his AFL playing colleagues could devote some time to reading the laws of the game over the off-season? Then he’d be less likely to get his tongue dirty by putting his boot firmly in his mouth.

Even the contentious and controversial holding the ball rule looks pretty straightforward when you read it. Getting hold of the copy of the laws that The Giesch and his chums use is pretty difficult as it’s always in revision, but the basics remain relatively straightforward and playing to them gives the Giesch’s boys less room for extemporising.

Still, we do feel for James. It must be simply awful collecting a few hundred ‘k’ a year and being expected to know the laws of the game as well.

If media reports turn out to be correct and Carlton and Mick Malthouse agree terms and sign a contract within days of the conclusion of the home and away rounds, Malthouse’s insistence that he hadn’t spoken with Carlton up until Ratten’s sacking looks disingenuous at best.

As with the Hird and Thompson ascendency at Essendon two years ago, the timing and the seeming inevitability of the end result make so much smoke that there can only be a raging fire at its centre.

It matters not whether it was Malthouse’s management or he who dealt with Carlton. For all practical intents and purposes, they’re one and the same and if that distinction is the basis for Malthouse’s denials, then he’s worthy to argue angels and pin heads with the finest Christian scholars of the 5th Century.

The half-truths, if that’s what they turn out to be, didn’t kill the story — if that’s what was intended. A flat “No comment.” wouldn’t have killed the story either, but it also wouldn’t play us all for mugs.

Martin Blake writes in today’s Age under the extraordinary headline

Johnson decision an example of the nanny state:

It is such a contradiction to think that a little shoulder into the sternum of an approaching player, intended as a block for that player's opponent (in this case, the passing Joel Selwood), can draw a suspension from a final when there is so much more overtly dangerous conduct going on around it.

You’ve got this one wrong, Martin, on at least two counts. A “little shoulder into the sternum” it isn’t and it’s in full and clear breach of the Laws of Australian Football and has been since God’s dog was a pup.

Law 15.4.2 Shepherd states:

A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:
    (a)    a Player who does not have possession of the football 
and who is no further than 5 metres away from the 
football at the time when the push, bump or block occurs;

Beyond anything else, it’s clear from the lines in the image that the ball is at least twenty-five metres away. Rule 15.4.5 specifies a free kick for infringing the shepherding rule, but when force is taken into account, there’s no question that Johnson is applying more than a shepherd or a block. He’s doing his best to take out the guy tagging his Captain.

Thirty years ago a “shirtfront” to an opponent was accepted as a legitimate tactic, but most of us have moved on. And a shirtfront most definitely is not a bump — it’s a weapon used to put an opponent out of the game.

Now, the perfect example of the “nanny state” decision was the ruling against Joel Selwood a few weeks ago when he pushed his brother after surviving a heavy tackle.

Johnson is a wizard with the ball and it would generally be better that he played than sat outside the arena, but equally there’s no room in the modern game for snipers.

AussieRulesBlog would have no issue with a shepherd or a stationary block within five metres of the ball, but this was a shirtfront twenty-five metres off the ball. At the very least, it’s unsportsmanlike conduct and, in our view, that makes the charge and the suspension appropriate.