As I was having the heretical thoughts to follow, I was reminded of the Hans Christian Andersen story of the Emperor's new clothes.

In essence, the story relates how an Emperor is flattered by a charlatan into purchasing a special new suit of clothes. The courtiers all praise the beauty and quality of the clothes, but a small boy, unwise to the tradition of sycophancy in the Imperial court, exclaims that the Emperor is, in fact, naked. Cute, moralistic story. Oft-referenced.

As I watched the Blues battling the Bombers in Round 3 (Thank you to my footy gods again!), it occurred to me that Chris Judd had got a hell of a lot of the ball, but hadn't really damaged the Bombers.

Judd was roundly praised for his 32 touches, but they were hardly the rapier thrusts and swashbuckling swathes that 32 Ablett touches would likely cut through an opposition. Judd's kicks were more like gentle lobs to a man in a little bit of space. Hardly the stuff of footy nightmare. Thinking back, I can't recall, even vaguely, an incident where the current Judd has torched the opposition.

I'm beginning to think that Judd may have feet of clay, that he may be . . . . . . over-rated.

The Emperor has no clothes!!!

Long-time readers — I'm sure there are some of you out there — will know that I am a devoted Bombers man. I hope you would also realise, from reading AussieRulesBlog, that I care as much, and perhaps more, about our game than I do about my favourite team.

The Round 1 Collingwood-Adelaide game was the last of seven games for the round that I watched. It was an entertaining game and the Magpies lost in a close result, so my footy gods had done their bit. Jack Anthony, as has become his habit, was a very effective marking forward and a beautiful kick for goal. However there was an earlier aspect of Jack's game that impressed me far more.

At the start of the game, it's normal, these days, for opponents to greet each other with a bump. For all I know, the exchange might be along the lines of, "G'day china," — umph — "that was a great pub we saw you at last week." But, from the sidelines, these rituals seem designed to steal the intimidatory march on the opponent.

The aforementioned Jack Anthony however, sought out his starting opponent, Adelaide's Ben Ruttan, and offered his hand. Ruttan was shocked and moved away. It took two or three efforts, but eventually Ruttan shook Anthony's hand.

What's so impressive you may ask. Well, it's simple. Anthony was symbolically saying to Ruttan, "I respect you for being out here. Good luck." What a wonderful way to commence the game! Play it hard, give no quarter, but respect the guy in the other jumper. It's called sportsmanship.

Not for the first time, my attention has been drawn to off-the-play free kicks, this time while watching Adelaide-Saints on the idiot box.

In the first quarter, an Adelaide free was overturned because of an off-the-ball incident. The TV audience and some of the radio audience were aware of the reason for the change, but the punters sitting at AAMI Stadium are left completely in the dark.

We really need some way to provide an explanation for these otherwise inexplicable decisions. Perhaps an explanatory slide on the scoreboard?

This is irrespective of the merits or otherwise of any one specific decision.

Unfortunately, the way the game is moving, these off-the-ball-based, sometimes tiggy-touch-wood interpreted, free kicks can have potentially catastrophic consequences for a team whose supporters at the ground are left in the dark.

It's time that the AFL's paying customers were kept informed on the reasons for these incidents.

The GFC —global financial crisis, NOT Geelong Football Club — is set to have a major effect on the last Saturday in September. As part of AFL budget cuts, 'entertainment' will be curtailed.

Given the paucity of real entertainment delivered at the 2008 Grand Final 'entertainment', one can only wonder if someone is checking Angry Anderson's diary for that weekend.

Memo, Andrew: We do not HAVE TO slavishly ape the NFL with its half-time 'spectacular'. Instead, what about, oh I don't know, a. . . . . . footy match? If not the TAC Cup Grand Final, then a match between two teams of All-Stars selected from teams not involved after week one of the finals.

Anyway, this news serves to illustrate that, within every dark cloud (GFC), a silver lining (reduced Grand Final 'entertainment) can be found!!

Wallace; Skills; Richo
I've always thought that Terry Wallace made a fair bit of sense and had some reasonable thoughts on the game. His tenure at Richmond, and indeed his entire coaching future, must now be under a cloud after the Tigers' insipid opening round performance.

After four seasons and five pre-seasons, the Tigers under Wallace continue to demonstrate deplorable disposal skills in most circumstances. The question, again, is whether Wallace is the reason, the solution, asleep at the wheel, or a passenger in a bus crash.

As a player, Wallace certainly wasn't considered skillful. His was a get-the-ball-forward-any-old-way style that very much suited the roles he played at Hawthorn and Richmond. It's not unreasonable to anticipate that teams will take on some of the instinctive style traits of their coach, and yet the Bulldogs, under Wallace, were not the skills trainwreck that the Tigers have become.

Regular Aussie Rules Blog readers will be aghast to read that I think Wallace is a passenger in a bus crash — and the bus is being driven by Richo!

Notwithstanding his seven hundred-odd goals, or his obvious dedication to the Tigers' cause, or his undoubted physical work ethic, Richo's status as hugely-favoured hero of the Tigers faithful in spite of his apalling disposal, goal-kicking and decision-making at crucial times simply means that there is no real pressure for the Tigers' lesser lights to aspire to anything better. Even those, like Andrew Raines, who arrive at the club with silky skills are, within a few short seasons, reduced to virtual turnover factories. Jordan McMahon looks a shadow of the precise deliverer who once played with the Bulldogs.

It will take a turnover of at least a generation of footballers after Richo retires before the Tigers can contemplate the return to a skills-based gameplan.

Cousins
Whoever gave the nod for Cousins to return to the field in the final quarter, be it club doctor, physio, right up to and including the senior coach if necessary, should be summarily sacked. This is not about Cousins himself, who I think had a fairly ordinary contribution (which is what I'd expected). This is about the reason for all the hype surrounding the Tigers, the figure who generated the interest, the memberships, the expectation, the Cuz buzz!

To sacrifice all of these positives, let alone on-field presence and regaining of match fitness, for an inconsequential run in the last quarter of a clearly lost cause right after a three-quarter-time break where the player's fitness was very obviously in question, is not simply a tragedy. It is incompetence of the highest order!

What's that sound?
In the background you'll hear a sound like a distant waterfall, or a rogue compressed air hose thrashing its jet of high-pressure air about wildly. Don't panic — it's merely the sound of people jumping back off the Richmond bandwagon!

The furore this week over the broadcast by Channel Ten of the Tigers-Blues game has been mystifying.

If you're only interested in listening to the TV commentary[ :-( ], what difference does 30 minutes' delay make?

If you're keen to avoid Hudson, Lane, Quartermain, et al and listen to the radio commentary, with umpires now kitted out with microphones, on 'live' TV there's a delay so that "F**k!" can be bleeped by the techos in the OB van, so the pictures and the radio commentary are disturbingly out of synch.

If someone at the game is going to ring you to sing the winning team's song (I haven't forgotten, CJP!!) or gloat, don't answer the phone or look at text messages.

All the bleating about LIVE coverage is a waste of effort.

Caroline Wilson figures in two incidents this week which have raised my ire. Unusually for Ms Wilson, she's not the provocateur in either.

The other night, somewhat at a loss for something to watch (having Foxtel Platinum doesn't guarantee watchable programming!), I tuned into Footy Confidential (sorry, should be Classified) for the second time — ever. Perhaps, with Craig Hutchison involved, it should be renamed Footy Confrontational. Hutchison launched into Caroline Wilson with a question concerning her sharing the panel with Grant Thomas who, according to Hutchison, Wilson had arranged to be sacked from The Age.

I carry no brief or any great affection for Wilson. She plays for keeps. Nevertheless, she was clearly very discomforted by Hutchison's question. The question was asked with, I thought, malice aforethought — a trademark of Hutchison. With only the barren intellect of Gary Lyon to distract from him, and with neither Wilson or Grant Thomas particularly floating my boat, I won't be tuning in to Footy Confrontational again.

The second incident is a report in The Age of an interview of Ben Cousins*. In the report, Caroline Wilson suggests Cousins was unhappy about the line of questioning from Luke Darcy during a TV interview. Darcy has seemed like a very personable chap with some interesting, if not revolutionary, perspectives on the game. There has been a change in him however, as he has moved into interviewing. One suspects he is either being advised by someone or having questions provided to him. The net effect has been the emergence of another confrontational interviewer.

There are places, times and issues requiring confrontational interviewing, in my view. In neither of these incidents was a confrontational style warranted. Call me old-fashioned, but I regard that as bad manners.

* I did say earlier that I wouldn't mention Ben again until he played. He's playing tonight, so I'm anticipating by about 7 hours! :-) Best of luck, Ben.

Update: The Cousins interview screened at half-time of the game was pretty timid — none of the agro bits made it past the edit suite, it seems — with plenty of opportunity for Cousins to show his positive attitude, and mixture of humility, confidence and reality. Pity his teammates have made such a dismal start to the season.

The 'Chicken Little's of the footy blogosphere ("It's the end of the bump!"; "Wait 'til a team loses a Grand Final on a deliberate rushed behind decision!") can safely look to Joel Bowden as the progenitor of their current hysteria.

In the 2008 Grand Final, Brent Guerra and others sought strategic advantage from the rushed behind — seeking to free up targets for a kickout. It was a measure of Geelong's defensive pressure that the tactic was employed. At no time did the Hawks' antics in their defensive goal square materially effect the game, save to make a part of it incredibly ugly.

Joel Bowden on the other hand, sought to avoid losing a close game by wasting time on the clock, using rushed behinds. As I have opined previously on AussieRulesBlog, time wasting elsewhere on the field attracts a 50-metre penalty, and it seems perfectly logical that timewasting in the goal square should be treated no differently. The effect of a 50-metre penalty from the goal line, even between the goal and point posts, would be to put the player taking the free kick on the goal line dead centre between the goal posts.

It is to the credit of the AFL that they have softened the effect of the rushed behind timewasting penalty — The Bowden Rule — by ruling that the free kick be taken from the spot where the infringement occurs. The one area that remains unclear is whether the attacking team could also be penalised for deliberately rushing a behind. Admittedly, with immediate kick-ins, it's more difficult to imagine a scenario where there would be purely tactical advantage for the attacking team taking this action, unless the countdown clock is publicly accessible.

The Bowden Rule does not unduly disadvantage defenders. Anyone wanting to champion the rights of defenders would do better to look to incidental contact with the forward's arms in a marking contest! The Bowden Rule has shown, in the pre-season competition, that defenders have an opportunity to demonstrate their creativity in moving the ball from deep in defence. In addition, the acid is put on all opposing forwards to apply genuine defensive pressure rather than rely on zoning.

There are so many positive aspects to the Bowden Rule. Well done AFL!