Perhaps it has always been thus, but the selection of Brendan Fevola for the Allen Aylett Medal as best player in the Hall of Fame Tribute Match emphasises, yet again, media representatives' preoccupation with goals.

"Highlights" packages of games routinely feature goals only. It's as if the players who don't kick goals have done nothing worthwhile. Of course there are goals worthy of inclusion. Steve Johnson's first in the Tribute Match was as spectacular and freakish as anyone could want (and I called it before the ball had bounced; before Johnson even touched the ball!), but Fevola kicking from 50 or 55 is hardly remarkable these days.

Of course the forwards have to be good enough to beat their opponents to the ball in order to kick the goals, but the rebounding defenders and midfielders get the ball and deliver it with sufficient precision... While we're on the topic, midfielders racking up 30-odd possessions is little justification for BOG honours as well in these days of tempo football.

So, who was better than Fevola? Adam Goodes, Brent Harvey, Andrew McLeod, Sam Mitchell, ...

The 2008 Hall of Fame Tribute match between Victoria and The Rest (aka The Dream Team) is done and dusted. The media representations have been, by and large, gushingly enthusiastic and positive, the AFL's slightly less so in order to dampen any groundswell for a return of State of Origin football.

The Tribute Match was a disaster as a spectacle. Almost 70,000 people were bored to snores. The main interest in the second half were a couple of fights at the city end and an enthusiastically-embraced Mexican wave.

The football itself was pretty good, with regular (and surely to-be-expected?) flashes of brilliance. The missing element was passion in the crowd. With teams based on confected eligibility (when was Adam Goodes a Victorian?) and confected allegience (surely the the All-Australian team is the real Dream team?), there was nothing to get excited about.

State-of-Origin (Australian Rules) football meant something before the national AFL league, when the SANFL and WAFL were elite competitions. The VFL's long-standing penchant for robbing the SANFL and WAFL of their best players, and for selecting those imports into the Victorian team for interstate matches, meant that, for South Australians and West Australians especially, there was a real passion to beat the hated Vics. Since the National competition and the emergence of two teams each in Adelaide and Perth, there is considerably less passion. As evidenced by the Tribute Match, in Victoria there's almost zero passion.

Not even EJ could have got really excited about a Tribute Match that teased with promise, but delivered little.

I'm watching the Tiges go ’round tonight on TV. Even after he misses the ball, Richo's first thought is to look to the big screen to watch himself! Narcissism gone mad.

Watching the telecast tonight, I noticed, not for the first time, that 'number' now appears to be a synonym for 'player'.

Not that long ago, as we all suffered through flooding, teams were regularly reported to be "getting numbers back". Tonight I heard Anthony Hudson describe a passage of play thus: "There's a number free [on the wing]..."

It's not quite of the quality of Peter Landy's famous "each of two" description of level scores, but not bad.

King of the Tongue-Twisters at the moment would have to be David Schwartz. The Ox wants to be considered educated and regularly mangles expressions. A recent favourite referred to a player being "a former shadow of himself".

I cheerfully admit to not having watched more than about 30 seconds of any episode of The Footy Show since around 1996 (it started in 1994). I became bored with Sam Newman's boorish, locker room humour and penchant for humiliating those least capable of standing up for themselves. Without Newman's influence, the rest of the show is pleasant enough in a blokey but muzak-like style (unlike the nonsense that is the NRL version of The Footy Show).

It's clear that Newman is an intelligent person — he would not have retained his prominence over more than a decade were he not. It's also clear that he courts controversy. Caroline Wilson, Newman's latest 'target', like most 'serious' journalists, can be a little precious at times, but that does not excuse Newman's boorish behaviour.

Today's Age reports that the show's ratings went through the roof on the back of this latest Newman-based controversy. It's hard to escape the conclusion that Newman is on a pretty long 'leash' from management and may indeed have a brief to generate controversy as a means of maintaining audience share.

The (AFL) Footy Show takes the lowest common denominator as its high-water mark for audience. Those who watch, or take public offence at its shenanigans, do little more than provide life-giving oxygen. Without an audience, Newman and co would be off the airwaves quicker than you can say Sam's Mailbag.

Last year I became aware that punters like me could get hold of the DVD that was sent to clubs to apprise them of the umpiring interpretations to be in vogue for the season about to commence. This year, I determined to get hold of one and to see whether, as a player, coach or spectator, I was any the wiser after viewing it.

All I can say dear friends is don't waste your time. One thing is clear though! The umpires and the umpiring department clearly don't refer to the DVD each week!!

From a rules standpoint, I think the biggest blights on the game currently are the so-called "hands in the back" rule — or at least the nonsensical zero tolerance interpretation being employed — and the holding the ball interpretation where a player "dives" on the ball and it's then held to him by an opponent. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen umpires pay free kicks when they can't see the ball. Must have an aspirin and lie down before I get too upset. More on this topic later...

With 2 drawn games in consecutive weeks, nearly everyone seems to have some preferred method for breaking the draw. What with extra time and golden goals being touted, it wouldn't surprise to see the team captains settling down to a quick game of stud poker to decide the winner!

This is nonsense. Can we leave the game alone for a little while and see where it is headed? For 150 years, teams have managed to deal with the hollow feeling of a draw — for those who thought they would win, anyway.

What is it about the noughties that there has to be a winner? There are bigger problems with the game than an occasional draw — like the consistency of umpiring interpretations from quarter to quarter for instance!

I'm sure the AFL would vigourously deny it, but many will see equivalence between the three-week suspensions of Daniel Kerr and Josh Carr. What will stick in many a craw will be the notion that Kerr's headbut of Scott West was therefore equivalent to Carr's attempt to cork Gary Ablett Jnr's thigh. By its restructuring of its judicial arrangements to be process-driven rather than incident-driven, the AFL has unwittingly created the scenario where equivalence may be assumed.