Let’s not beat around the bush. Brett Ratten’s whining about Sam Lonergan’s “drive” tackle has presumably provided some less-principled Blues supporters with some sort of de facto justification for their tweeted threats against Lonergan.

AussieRulesBlog understands that coaches are emotional after a game, particularly a loss when a win was presumed. Nevertheless, in the world of instant communication and social media, emotional comments can be interpreted more strongly than perhaps they were intended and actions taken that might be thought better of in the cold hard light of day.

Ratten’s comments on the threats, reported today, are in stark contrast to his comments after the game:

“I think that's really unfair on the individual,” Ratten said in Perth before tonight's clash with Fremantle. “Players go out there to play their best and there's collisions and tackles and these types of things.”

“The feedback [on the video review system]so far has been very positive” according to Adrian Anderson.

The first thought that comes to mind is Vlad parading around the G with not a stitch on and those providing the feedback on the video system telling him how fine he looks in his new threads.

In the wake of the epic Anzac Day game, debutante Barcodes coach Nathan Buckley chose to comment on the goal line video referral ‘system’, but his claim that the AFL have changed their process is simply incorrect.

From the start, where a video referral has been made, an inconclusive video has resulted in the lesser scoring result. As we noted two days ago, this underlying process results in the completely whacky premise that the lesser result is chosen not because there is any conclusive evidence that it is correct, but because there is no conclusive evidence that it is not correct.

An AFL spokesman quoted in the story on Buckley’s comments suggests that an inconclusive video goes back to what the umpire considered was the correct decision at the time. This is a lovely theory, but we can’t recall a single instance we’ve seen where it has happened [we acknowledge that we haven’t seen every game]. On any number of occasions, goal umpires about to signal a score have been halted by field umpires, boundary umpires have been consulted and a video referral made. An inconclusive video results in the lesser option, regardless of the goal umpire’s initial inclination.

We’d like a reference to any instance of an inconclusive video referral resulting in a decision to award a goal as originally decided by a goal umpire, but we don’t think it has happened.

The further the season goes, the more obvious it is that this video referral ‘system’ is ill-considered, immature and under-resourced. It’s a crock!

It seems it is only aggrieved coaches who highlight the failings in Adrian Anderson’s video review system for goal line decisions. Once again, the most glaring deficiency is the application of video review to determine whether a ball is touched off the boot out in the field.

The technology being employed is simply incapable of providing definitive evidence of balls being touched off the boot.

We were also told that players cannot call for a video review, yet it seems clear that field umpires are deciding to refer to video when there’s a clamour amongst players that the ball has been touched.

The trade-off in this ‘system’ is that an inconclusive video generates the lowest score. So, a Jobe Watson ‘goal’ in the pre-season and the Todd Goldstein ‘goal’ this last weekend have both been declared behinds, not because there was any evidence the ball had been touched, but because there was no conclusive evidence that it hadn’t been touched.

Lewis Carroll could have included this scenario in Through the Looking-Glass and it wouldn’t have looked out of place amongst the Mad Hatter, the Cheshire Cat and the Queen of Hearts.

Well, it’s official. With tonight’s Tribunal clearing Lindsay Thomas of a rough conduct charge, the Match Review Panel members must be wondering why they bother — and why the guidelines they work to generate such ludicrously incorrect assessments.

As AussieRulesBlog noted yesterday, the MRP’s awarding of a three-week penalty to Thomas over the incident in which Gary Rohan’s leg was rather graphically broken was flat-out wrong. The matter should have been thrown out at the MRP stage and the Kangaroos would now be well-entitled to demand compensation from the AFL for their time and effort in defending Thomas.

But, as much opprobrium as the MRP deserve, some media figures deserve truckloads more, notably ex-Swans coach Paul Roos (and the Herald-Sun’s Mark Robinson not too far behind).

Prior to Roos joining Fox Footy Channel’s On the Couch last year, we considered him a moderate and rational person. We found him so irritating and irrational that within a few weeks last year we stopped watching On the Couch, previously a must in our weekly footy schedule.

Roos out-did himself on Monday night’s On the Couch [which we watched because James Hird was on prior to tomorrow’s Anzac Day game]. We can only think that jet lag hadn’t yet cleared Roos’ mind after his recent trip to the US. He said [and we’re paraphrasing here] he had watched the Thomas incident and then watched the previous week’s Goodes slide tackle. Then he said, if Goodes was suspended, Thomas had to be suspended because he’d injured an opponent.

The logic on display here is breathtaking. Taken to its logical conclusion, if we are in a marking contest and an opponent makes a spectacular, but mistimed, leap and crashes to the ground injuring himself in the process, we should be penalised by the Match Review Panel. Why? We, inadvertently, injured an opponent.

Roos’ credibility is absolutely shredded, as is Adrian Anderson’s Match Review Panel system.

Alistair Clarkson’s musings over high tackles are interesting, and the free kick statistics (which we don’t have to hand, but we heard on Foxtel) show that the Eagles benefit from the umpire’s decisions more than anyone else does.

While we don’t put much store in Gieschen’s defence of his umpires, the image (below) gracing the AFL’s story on the issue somewhat destroys Clarkson’s ground.

With Franklin’s eyes determinedly closed as he applies the tackle, it’s hardly surprising that he’s about to give a free kick away!

Tackling is no less a skill than kicking, handballing or marking. None of these happen effectively unless there’s full concentration on their implementation.

Perhaps Clarkson should be closely examining the footage and trying to determine whether or not his players are actually watching their targets as they tackle . . .

The release recently of the ‘Buddy Ball’ has AussieRulesBlog rather perplexed.

We understand marketers’ desire to associate Lance Franklin with some saleable merchandise and young fans’ desire to be associated with a charismatic figure. In our own callow youth, we wore the then-fashionable Ron Barassi footy boots in the sincere belief that they imparted magical powers.

‘Buddy’ boots, we wouldn’t have much of a problem with. ‘Buddy’ socks or shorts, even less so. But a Buddy Ball?

Despite the near universal hailing of Franklin, AussieRulesBlog sees at least one serious flaw — his kicking. The huge sweeping arc of his approach and the slicing, glancing contact of his boot on the ball which imparts the famous ‘reverse swing’ on his kicks aren’t techniques we should be lauding to impressionable young boys.

A ‘Gazza’ Ball? No problems. Young Gary runs in straight, kicks straight through the ball — and is a reliable goal kicker.

Franklin himself is never sure where his kicks are going to go. When they’re good, they’re terrifyingly wonderful, but when they’re not, like the little girl down the lane, they’re absolutely awful.

It’s about percentages and repeatability. It’s about reliability in the heat of a close finish with the pressure of expectation weighing heavily. Let’s give our up and coming players a role model whose technique stands up under pressure.

One thing’s for sure: Aussie Rules stirs passions and passionate opinion. And then there’s what you can see with your own two eyes.

Both sliding tackles and ‘drive’ tackles have generated a fair degree of hyperbole since the weekend and, frankly, AussieRulesBlog is bemused by it all.

If you can take your eyes off Gary Rohan’s leg being snapped, it’s as clear as day that Lindsay Thomas isn’t executing a slide tackle, albeit that his right knee is on the ground as his left foot impacts Rohan’s leg.

Contrast Thomas’ position with that of Adam Goodes executing the definitive slide tackle that saw him suspended.

The clear difference is that Goodes is leading the ‘tackle’ with both knees and using his knees and legs to impact his opponent. Thomas’ position is clearly and obviously not a slide tackle.

Rohan’s awful injury was nothing more than unfortunate circumstance. Not only are the media guilty of hyperbole, the Match Review Panel seem, most unfortunately in our view, to feel bound to cite almost any incident that excites controversy.

The other incident sending some into overblown hyperbole — especially Brett Ratten — is Sam Lonergan’s tackle of Andrew Carrazzo. Regular readers will already be aware of our affection for the Bombers, but we declare it again here.

Lonergan no more drove Carazzo into the turf than we are the blogging equivalent of William Shakespeare! Fell into his back? Yes. Drove him into the tackle? Absolutely not. It was unhappy circumstance, once again, which saw Carazzo’s arm in such a position when it crashed into the turf that it caused a fracture in the shoulder blade.

Ironically, the player AussieRulesBlog would most associate with tackles intentionally driving an opponent’s shoulder into the turf is none other than the Blues’ own Jarrad Waite.

Simply, much of the florid controversy is knee jerk reaction, often driven by passionate support of one team or player or another. We can forgive fans, although the AFL should be taking steps to educate people, but overblown media reactions from the footy journalists is quite another thing.