Should the AFL apply history consistently across State Leagues?

Rick Davies - SANFL Champion and AFL Hall of Fame inductee

source: www.australianfootball.com

Each year when the AFL Hall of Fame inductees are announced, I face a paradox in my thoughts about how the AFL treats its history. The general line of my thinking goes something like this. If the AFL is so keen on recognising the contributions that people make to the game of Australian Rules football, why does the AFL still state its records in terms of VFL/AFL history?

Let’s take the highest number of games coached by an individual as an example, Mick Malthouse (718 games) was celebrated as this person when he beat Jock McHale’s (VFL/AFL) record of 714 games in 2015. However both John Todd (721 games WAFL, West Coast) and Jack Oatey (777 games SANFL) have each coached more games than Malthouse in their respective state leagues.

Another example, Port Adelaide are allowed to recognise their 36 SANFL Premierships along with their sole AFL Premiership, but if you asked any Victorian club supporter they would state that Port have only won one premiership when they beat Brisbane in 2004 and the SANFL flags do not count. They will also claim that Essendon have won 16 Premierships, however only two flags (1993, 2000) are in the post 1990 AFL era.

As you can see in these two examples, there is no consistency when discussing history. The dilemma for the AFL is that by not recognising the contributions to the game made by people in states outside of Victoria, it potentially alienates those supporters who genuinely think that the AFL is too Victorian centric. Alternatively, by giving the football history of states other than Victorian greater weight, it risks distancing some Victorian supporters from the game.

When I have this discussion with Victorians, the point is often raised that the VFL was a better standard than other state leagues such as the SANFL and the WAFL in the past and therefore the recognition of history should remain in its current form. (That is, history should be VFL/AFL related in content and records should reflect this). While this is true to an extent, it was often due to the ability of Victorian Clubs to offer interstate players more money than their local club rather than relying on local talent alone.

Which brings me back to the Hall of Fame dilemma. In 2013 South Australian Rick Davies was inducted to the AFL Hall of Fame. Rick had an illustrious career at Sturt and amongst his achievements are two SANFL Premierships, four Sturt Best & Fairest medals and a Ken Farmer medal with 151 goals in 1983. If we apply the logic that history should be VFL/AFL related in content, then Rick Davies effectively entered the Hall of Fame based on the 20 games he played at Hawthorn.

It is obvious that this is not the reason, which makes the Victorian logic flawed.

Where does the solution lie? My suggestion is that the AFL could make 1990 its base year for AFL records and history.

This would be a substantial change for the AFL. To give an example, Tony Lockett’s VFL/AFL goal-kicking record would be split as 530 VFL and 830 AFL goals. In terms of AFL records this would be second behind Matthew Lloyd whose 926 goals were all kicked after 1990. 

This change would allow the AFL to recognise all the State leagues' histories prior to and beyond 1990. Even then it does become somewhat tricky with Victoria as the VFL morphed into the AFL. But this should enable some consistency in how we as supporters discuss our game and refer to its history.

Should the Adelaide Crows be allowed to field a reserves team in the SANFL?

image: www.sanfl.com.au

Every true SANFL supporter needs to have a position on the proposal for the Adelaide Crows and Port Power to field reserves teams in the SANFL from 2014. The proposal also involves the SANFL handing over control on the AFL licences to these clubs.

Admittedly I have not heard the entirety of the arguments proposed, however I have been able to form an opinion over the last few weeks/months. Many factors were considered and for a period of time I was in favour of the proposal. However this position changed in recent times due to several concerns/questions that remain unsolved or the answer is insufficient.

In terms of the inclusion of a Crows reserves team in the SANFL, I could see the value in this proposal as it would remove the bye at league level. It would also allow the coaching staff at Adelaide to have full control over positioning of players when they did not play in the senior side. It is not uncommon for AFL players to be dropped from the senior side only to end up in their aligned SANFL club's reserves side because they were not considered good enough to be in their best 21.

An AFL reserves side in the SANFL could allow the senior game plan to be reinforced, which means the players would only have to learn one game plan. However I am of the view that Adelaide would have to also field an Under 18’s side and an Under 16’s side if they entered the SANFL (i.e. the all or nothing approach). The issue with this revolves around the player drain from the other 8 clubs while these players are found (Port Adelaide already have this structure in place and would simply move the remainder of their playing list into the Magpies). This could potentially reduce the competitiveness of the other SANFL clubs in the future.

The removal of the bye could allow for a reduced SANFL season of 18 minor round matches plus finals. A shorter season has significant player welfare benefits with less physical strain on the body and less chance of impact injuries from match conditions. Player welfare has become topical over recent years with the inclusion of the bye at AFL level.

However with a proposal such as this there would be some financial consideration being paid by the clubs for the right to own the AFL licence and/or the payment of a potential licence fee to enter the SANFL. This would have to be considered against the current arrangement of a dividend that is paid to the SANFL clubs. For the SANFL to survive not only would a licence fee be required but there would need to be an annual payment made to each club.

Then it comes down to competitiveness, would an Adelaide Crows reserves team in the SANFL be competitive against the other clubs and how much importance would Adelaide place on performance in the SANFL? Does the SANFL want a club that may not have the desire to win the premiership within its ranks and therefore simply act as a feeder club to its AFL team?

These were the main issues for me and the lack of suitable answers around these points swayed my decision to not support the proposal. There are other issues around club history, tradition, and the potential to attract more supporters to SANFL games to name a few, but I consider the points above to be the most important. Not everyone will agree about this issue but some consensus will need to be made if the SANFL is to survive and remain the second best Australian Rules League in the land.

What type of AFL supporter are you?

Photo Courtesy: www.news.com.au

Over the years, I have watched many AFL games and experienced the highs and lows of the great game called Australian Rules football. There are many different people that you meet and hence many different types of supporters. Listed below are some of the supporter types I have encountered over the years, perhaps you fit the characteristics of one (or more) of these groups.

The Stalwart – this type of supporter is easily identifiable. Usually in their advanced years, they are wearing a scarf or other memorabilia from yesteryear. These people have supported the club for their entire life. Nothing comes in between this supporter and their club. These people will always stay until the final siren even if their team is over 10 goals behind.

The Fanatic – this supporter type will dress up in their team’s colours, paint their face, wear wigs and carry flags to game day, all in the hope of getting their team over the line for the win. To say they are passionate is an understatement for they are committed to their team’s success. Their homes like themselves are full of team memorabilia and they are most likely to be a member of the club. In essence, they are the basically the younger (or more juvenile) version of The Stalwart.

The Commentator – this person will provide commentary on the game as it is being played (although without the panache of Dennis Cometti) and much to the pain of those around them. The commentary is always one-sided, which is annoying if you support the opposition. However to put it simply, I am already at the game and I can see what is happening, if I wanted commentary I would have stayed home !!

The Analyst – this person will watch the game and analyse what is happening on the field. Although they are not as annoying as the Commentator, this type will provide some analysis to others if the occasion warrants it. But if watching the game solo, then they will simply sit and watch the game and make mental notes in the process.

The Bogan – this type is almost self explanatory and is usually identifiable through their lack of teeth, unusual hair-styles and tattoos. This type of supporter yells and screams and rarely puts more than two intelligible words together without including at least one expletive. For example: “Kick the F*cking ball, moron” and “What the F*ck were you F*cking thinking D*ckhead?” are common favourites. Bogans are usually given a wide berth by most of the other supporter types.

The Misguided – these people have simply forgotten which game they should be watching. Wearing supporter gear for a team that is different to the match they are attending, they are really noticeable in the crowd. (Although it is understandable if an non-Victorian team is playing in Melbourne and those supporters are watching another game on the same weekend). Extreme variations of this type are people that attend one game in colours of a team that is playing in the same city on the same day …. Yes it happens !!

The Joker – there is always one in the crowd and these people usually find something amusing to say to the masses that is much to the chagrin of opposition supporters. An example of this is a West Coast supporter calling St Kilda player Stephen Milne a Therapist (which probably crosses the line once you think about it). Of course like any comedian, the Joker must continually update his material otherwise the masses will find it rather boring.

The Abuser - when things are not going as planned (or hoped) for their team, this person decides to abuse the umpires, the opposition and even their own players in the hope that everything will turn around including their own life. But when you think about it, are they really just venting their own frustration on life in general out at the football game. This type of supporter simply needs to chill out, have a meat pie and a beer (or something stronger) and just enjoy the game !!

Unusual AFL Club Guernseys

The Adelaide Crows have released their away jumper for 2013 and I will admit that it will have to see it on the field before I can say that I like it. However a work colleague mentioned the www.footyjumpers.com website that shows all the various jumpers worn by each of the VFL/AFL clubs. Therefore this entry shows the more unusual choices made by clubs over the years.

The footyjumpers.com website was kind enough to include all of Port Adelaide’s previous jumpers on their website and I guess if they call themselves “One Club” then they should be included. So they get a guernsey in the article so to speak.

This is the Port Adelaide 1877-1882 version, a pink lace-up guernsey no less. This was changed from light blue and white hoops. Personally I think the players would have preferred the old guernsey instead.

Next is the 1883-1901 guernsey for Port Adelaide which is only marginally better with magenta replacing the pink and the inclusion of blue stripes. This was the last guernsey before the black, white (and teal for the Power) versions that we know (and in most cases hate) today.

  

The question I have about this is: How do you convince the players of a club with a tradition such as Port Adelaide, playing a tough man’s game that is Australian Rules football to wear Pink or Magenta every week ?

How about Richmond’s c1895-1901 guernsey instead, admittedly it’s a little hard to describe apart from the obvious black and gold hoops. However I’m sure I saw this on henchmen in a Batman episode from the 1960’s or 1970’s, perhaps they were inspired by Richmond's effort.

Below is the Fitzroy jumper from 1893-1896 where they wore Maroon canvas jumpers, with chamois reinforcing. It suggests to me that Fitzroy were doomed from the outset after wearing this guernsey. However it still took around 100 years for Fitzroy to cease operations.

Of course there is Footscray’s effort from 1887 to 1889 which could also pass for a night shirt. I guess convincing the player to wear this every week would be much easier compared to the early Port Adelaide guernseys. However I might consider joining a new club if this was presented to me.

Or perhaps the Hawthorn pre-season guernsey in 1995 that was only worn once in a game against Sydney. Quite rightly too I may add, it almost looks more like a West Coast Eagles guernsey with a hint of brown rather than a Hawthorn guernsey.

Here is the Saints guernsey from 1915-1918, the Saints originally had Red, Black and White as their current colours but changed the White to Yellow to avoid a clash with the colours Germany used in WW1. Ironically the current flag for Germany is Yellow, Red and Black. St Kilda reverted to their original colours after the war and they still use them today. However in my opinion the WW1 version is much better than the 2001-02 away guernsey shown further below.

I guess the one thing that could be said about the 2001-02 St Kilda guernsey is that you could never be excused for not spotting a player further up the field. But depending on the opposition side you were playing it could really limit the colours available for the umpires to wear. Although maybe a brighter version of the 1877-1882 Port Adelaide jumper will suffice.

Does Fremantle have an incentive to “tank” in the last minor round of the 2012 AFL season?

To tank or not to tank ? - that is the question facing Fremantle

For those of you not familiar with the Tanking term, Tanking occurs when a team deliberately loses a match to advance their cause. In the AFL there is often speculation that a lowly ranked team will “tank” matches to secure a first round draft pick in the AFL National draft. The incentive here is secure the services of a highly talented player in order to win more matches in the future.

What if the tanking scenario could be applied to the AFL finals race? The teams playing the 2012 AFL finals series are set but the finishing position of every team in the “Top 8” is not. Based of the Round 23 schedule released by the AFL, Fremantle may have the choice of underperforming in their match in order to secure a final in Perth against the West Coast. This would be a game that Fremantle would consider themselves with more than a fair chance of winning.

The most likely alternative for Fremantle is a trip to Melbourne to play a final. Given the travel involved and their poor record when travelling, the logical option for Fremantle is to perform below standard (or even lose against Melbourne) if this results in a Perth derby.

The final ladder positions will be determined by two games, Hawthorn vs West Coast and Geelong vs Sydney. The winner of the Hawthorn vs West Coast will impact the results of at least 3 other games: Geelong vs Sydney, Essendon vs Collingwood and Fremantle vs Melbourne.

If Hawthorn win, then Collingwood have an incentive to beat Essendon for a Top 4 spot and with West Coast likely to be in fifth position Fremantle have the incentive to underperform against Melbourne in order to play the West Coast in a Perth derby. It should be noted here that Hawthorn have a big incentive to win as this will secure top spot and a home final.

If West Coast win and secure a Top 4 spot, then Adelaide and Sydney will be encouraged to win their games against Gold Coast and Geelong (respectively) to secure Top 2 spots and home games in the first week. Fremantle would look at the GWS vs North Melbourne and Geelong vs Syndey games to see if they wanted to play either Collingwood or Geelong the following week.

For Fremantle, the extra incentive (or disincentive) will arise from the GWS vs North Melbourne match. This game is scheduled to start on Saturday at 4:40pm and Fremantle will know the final result during their game against Melbourne. A big win by North Melbourne (which looks likely) would provide little incentive for Fremantle to play well.

So this weekend it looks like Fremantle will be hoping that Hawthorn win, followed by a convincing win by North Melbourne, then they can “tank” their game against Melbourne so they can play against West Coast in a Perth derby.

It would be reasonable to assume that the AFL would prefer every that teams played each game on their merits and to the best of their ability, but in this scenario a finals team can manipulate results by underperforming.

The Rambling Couch Sitter’s AFL Supporter Awards

image from www.foxsports.com.au

Now that I have been living in Melbourne for the last few years, I thought it prudent to provide an analysis from a personal perspective on supporters from some of the AFL clubs.

The “Hanging Shit on Your Own Team” award – Carlton: All supporters are guilty of this but Carlton supporters walk around with an arrogant air about them and think their club is the best thing since sliced bread. However when the going is tough they will hang shit on their players like no other supporters..... that is except for Juddy of course.

The “Feral Supporters” award – Richmond: I bet you were all thinking Collingwood, but no from personal experience Richmond supporters are the most feral. They scream, swear and bully like a big club’s supporters would and worst of all think the whole world is against them. Not only that I got a big send off for leaving before the end of a game from someone who could barely put two intelligent words together. Collingwood was a close second.

The “Most Dedicated Supporters” award – Hawthorn: The Hawks have a great supporter base that watch the footy week in and week out. The brown and gold is always abundant at the MCG and they are passionate. Mind you it is not difficult to see why when you have players like Buddy Franklin, Rioli and Mitchell in the side.

The “Juvenile Delinquent” award – St Kilda: The Saints supporters will happily “boo” opposition shots at goal and remind you of your clubs off-field indiscretions. The memory often fails the Saints supporters and their jibes often come back to haunt them. They really should remember the line that “Children should be seen and not heard” especially given off-field events of recent years.

The “Scarcity” award – North Melbourne: The Kangaroos have a reasonably modest supporter base to begin with and when your side is not going well some supporters will drop off. But it is rare for North Melbourne to get more than 20,000 people when hosting an interstate club.

The “Sick and Sorry” award – Melbourne: Such is the state of the Melbourne Football Club, its supporters are basically resigned to see their club range from “Woeful to Mediocre” and the strain is starting to show. Melbourne supporters are often resigned to defeat before the game has started.

The “We are the Competition” award – Collingwood: Not sure how many times I have heard the line from a Collingwood supporter “If it wasn’t for us, there would be no AFL” or the like. What rot, it speaks of arrogance and most of all there is not enough recent success to qualify the statement. Unfortunately it will only get worse if they win another flag in the next year or two.

The “Most Relieved Supporters” award – Adelaide: After losing 14 straight games in Melbourne, the Crows finally broke their losing run with a big win over Carlton. Ironically Carlton was the last team that Adelaide beat in Melbourne. Fremantle were a close second here.

So there you have it, congratulations to the winners and if your team did not win an award, there is always next year J

Has the tattoo become a symbol of acceptance in society?

Collingwood's Dane Swan with some of his tattoos
Photo: www.3aw.com.au

Walking down the street on any given day around Australia, you will see many people sporting a tattoo. The sizes and designs vary, but it seems that to be socially accepted you almost need to have one. Yes they are an individual’s choice. However in a society where instant gratification is becoming the norm, it appears perplexing that most people would choose to express themselves in such a permanent way.

Part of the reasoning behind this entry is that I have been in conversations with people in the recent past that have ridiculed my choice not to have a tattoo. But more importantly have laughed at my preference that my partner not have one (or if she does have one … not to get anymore). From my perspective, it appears that I cannot be critical of this cultural change but people with a tattoo can criticise my choice not to have one. This is slightly paradoxical given that people who choose to have a tattoo make such a choice.

There are certain races where the tattoo is a status symbol and has deep meaning and the Maori immediately come to mind. This type of cultural reasoning is logical, but in Australia a cultural change towards having tattoos has gradually been occurring over the last five to ten years. So why has this change been occurring?

Is it the influence of sport on our society? Just consider this, how many AFL or NRL players can you think of that do not have a tattoo. Or to take it further, let’s include Cricketers and Swimmers as well. (Admittedly I am looking at this from a predominantly Australian viewpoint, but we could include sports such as soccer as well). Not too many…I would have thought. Some of these tattoos celebrate an achievement or have some significance which is fair enough.

Such is the fascination about tattoos in Australian Society, an article by Jim Tucker on Australian Diver Melissa Wu in the Herald Sun on May 30, quotes the following: “Wu has her Olympic rings tattoo boldly at the top of her right thigh with a heart-shaped twist on the five interlocking rings.”

I understand Melissa’s choice to have the tattoo, but what relevance does this have to the article in question? None, the article is basically about the coming of age of an elite young sportsperson who has a better understanding of what is required to be competitive at the highest level in her chosen sport. The fact she has a tattoo on her right thigh should not matter.

Or is it simply a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality? If so, has our society been manipulated so much by the media or have we become so listless that we need to identify so greatly with our sport stars or do we have this overwhelming need to “fit” in. Most of my heroes are Sports Stars and I easily identify with their tenacity and determination, but I have enough nous to distinguish between sports and reality.

Personally, I think it is an element of both sport and the desire to fit into society. The “Dumbing” down of Australian Society by the media is a worrying trend that transcends over many aspects of Australian culture. So the message that certain elements in the media are espousing could be summarised as “If you want to be successful like our sports stars and be accepted within society you need to have a tattoo”. To be honest I am not sure that is the correct message to promote!!

How can we attract the best state league teams to participate in the Foxtel Cup?

http://www.neafl.com.au/

The idea of a competition enabling the best teams from the various state leagues to play each other is always appealing to the Rambling Couch Sitter. Especially given that the AFL has now become too professional and has been built around vested Victorian interests. Unfortunately, Australian Rules will never be able to adopt the Divisional model of the English FA simply because the potential travel distance is too great for a suburban club. Also the lack of population and money available in Australia make it difficult for a state league club to rise through the ranks to compete in the AFL.

The Foxtel Cup aimed to alleviate these issues by inviting the best clubs around Australia to play against each other in curtain raisers to AFL games, thereby granting much needed exposure for these clubs. The Cup is a 16 team knockout-based competition with three teams participating from each of the SANFL, VFL and WAFL, two teams from Tasmania and Queensland and one from NT, NSW and the ACT.

The competition itself is not without controversy as when the original invites went out the Top 5 SANFL clubs issued a joint statement on 15/12/2010 declining to participate “citing lack of prize money; sponsorship conflicts, salary cap implications, schedule concerns and removing the focus from their SANFL premiership ambitions”.

The response from these clubs is not entirely unexpected; even if it disappoints yours truly because I don’t get to see my beloved Norwood Redlegs play in this competition. It also devalues the Foxtel Cup because the winner of the Cup has not been able to compete against the best non-AFL clubs in Australia.

The main reason for the stance by the SANFL clubs is that the SANFL is generally considered the next best competition behind the AFL and the Thomas Seymour Hill Cup is very highly sought after by each club. Before the Adelaide Football Club entered the AFL, the total season attendance per capita for the SANFL was better than its VFL/AFL counterpart which adds some weight to this argument.

How do we ensure that the best teams from each league participate in the cup each year? It is a little tricky because the idea of exposing these clubs to a wider audience is very appealing. The answer may be to have weekends during the regular season that are dedicated to the Foxtel Cup, thereby allowing these matches to proceed with little disruption to the various state league competitions. There only needs to be three of these weekends in any given season.

In order to promote the Cup as the competition between the best club sides outside of the AFL, I would suggest that the grand final be played as a curtain raiser to the AFL Grand Final. This does mean that the SANFL will need to bring forward their season by two weeks as their Grand Final is normally played the week after the AFL Grand Final. This removes the obstacle of the SANFL clubs being more focussed on the T.S. Hill Cup. (By the way, this should rightfully be the focus of the SANFL Clubs!!)

Then there is the prize money aspect, I would suggest $100,000 for the winner, $50,000 for the runners-up and $25,000 for each of the losing semi-finalists. Add in the glory/incentive of playing in front of up 100,000 people, thereby providing much needed exposure for both finalists and there may be a chance to promote the game significantly at the grass roots level. But more importantly, the winner can justifiably say that they are currently the best non-AFL club in Australia.

Does the AFL influence Match Review Panel decisions to promote its agenda?

Source: www.adelaidenow.com.au

Once again an AFL tribunal decision has been based on what damage was done to the player and not the intent of the tackle. The incident I refer to is the Taylor Walker tackle on Harry Taylor during the Adelaide vs. Geelong game on the weekend.

Let’s consider this: both Harry Taylor and Taylor Walker are around the same size, so the strength needed to tackle the other is quite large. To put it another way Stephen Milne would have a problem trying to tackle either player given he is of smaller stature. When a player is instructed to tackle by his coaches, the instruction would be to stop the player disposing the ball legally and hence win the free kick for “holding the ball”. If the tackle is not hard enough the player is likely to be dragged to the bench for failing to obey instructions.

The intent is not to hurt the player but to win possession through obtaining a free kick.

Now the AFL will argue that this is a “sling” tackle. A sling tackle involves lifting the player off the ground and then throwing them to the ground (usually head first) in the tackle motion. This is often used in Rugby League and is quite dangerous. But the tackle from Walker on the weekend did not lift Harry Taylor far off the ground and both players fell to the ground in the tackle.

On the AFL website the determination of the number of matches was: “Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Geelong Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a level two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has a bad record of 93.75 demerit points, increasing the penalty to 318.75 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 239.06 points and a two-match sanction”.

The tackle itself from Taylor Walker was not high, but the contact of Harry Taylor’s head to the ground was. However that contact is covered by the medium impact charge. Thus at least two points can be removed from the charge. This reduces the penalty to 228.75 points and an early plea reduces the penalty by a further 25% to 171.56 points and a one-match suspension with 71.56 carry-over points.

In two other similar incidents on the weekend the AFL Match Review Panel (MRP) deemed the following.

“Contact between Richmond's Robin Nahas and the Sydney Swans' Nick Smith from the third quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Smith has his head down after picking up the ball when he is tackled by Nahas. Nahas applies a tackle, without making high contact, and takes Smith to ground with the forward momentum of the Sydney player. Smith's head makes contact with the ground but it was the view of the panel that Nahas did not use excessive force or drive his opponent into the ground. No further action was taken.”

“Contact between Essendon's Nathan Lovett-Murray and West Coast's Matthew Priddis from the first quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Priddis has collected the ball and is tackled by Lovett-Murray. Lovett-Murray takes Priddis to ground and it was the view of the panel the Essendon player did not sling or drive Priddis into the ground with excessive force with his tackle, and that the pair fell to the ground together. No further action was taken.”

In the Nahas case, given that Nahas is a small forward it is unlikely that he would have the strength to excessively drive someone to the ground. In the Lovett-Murray case the Essendon player did not sling the player, but both players fell to the ground in the act of tackling. So the force of the tackle was great enough to make both players fall to the ground… Just like Walker and Taylor !!

The assessment on each case is subjective in nature and consideration is given to the impact of the alleged infringement on the recipient player. But there is always going to be more damage if a larger stature player allegedly infringes on a smaller player based on power to weight ratio at time of impact.

I think there is an inconsistency between the Lovett-Murray case and the Walker case, so let’s look at it from another angle. Taylor Walker is currently leading the Coleman Medal and Adelaide play finals contenders Carlton and Collingwood in the next two weeks. Removing a goal scoring player from Adelaide’s team would provide more chance of winning to Carlton and Collingwood. The AFL needs both Carlton and Collingwood to play finals to maintain interest and a healthy profit base.

It is probable that both these teams would beat Adelaide, but the AFL wants to provide them with a greater chance and the MRP can manipulate the subjective assessments of the charge accordingly.

Similarly, both Nahas and Lovett-Murray would normally be in the starting line-ups for their teams. Richmond and Essendon play in the Dreamtime clash which the AFL uses as one of its showpiece games each year and would want both sides to have the best possible line-ups available for the clash. Therefore, in applying the subjective measures that apply to video reviews the MRP could easily manipulate their findings to satisfy the agenda of the AFL.

Sound a bit of a stretch … Well the precedent was set when Barry Hall was allowed to play in a Grand Final after blatantly punching another player in the stomach during a Preliminary Final. Hall should have received a one match penalty (at least) for the offence, but because a Grand Final might be missed and there was some public outcry, the AFL decided not to penalise Hall.

In reality the Walker case is not worth a three match penalty, in fact at a stretch a one match penalty is probably more appropriate, but there was no intent to harm Taylor so I would debate that any penalty above a free kick is overkill. The tribunal should be deciding penalties on intent rather than “damage” to the other player. Furthermore, the MRP should be independent of the AFL and not subject to being manipulated by the AFL to achieve its agenda.

Should the AFL employ goal-line video technology for AFL matches?

This topic has often come up for debate in recent years and was unfortunately highlighted when a Tom Hawkins shot for goal actually hit the post in a grand final but was awarded a goal. St.Kilda lost the game and it would be easy to imagine that some of their supporters would be aggrieved to this day.

The game itself appears to have sped up in the last few years and yet the umpiring of the most important aspect of the game …scoring…has not changed in light of this. Therefore, assuming that something needs to be done to maintain accuracy, what solutions are available to AFL to remedy any mistakes.

Video Technology… Many sports have gone down this path and while it is successful in some sports (i.e. cricket with run-outs and the use of hot spot, or tennis with the use of Hawkeye or Rugby in general) it has not been as effective in others (e.g. American Football) as it can slow the game down. It is worth noting that an American Football game can take over 4 hours for just 60 minutes of actual playing time.

Does the AFL go down this path? In the knowledge that the game can be delayed by several minutes over the course of the game while contentious goals are reviewed by a fifth umpire, who would need to be employed just to review these decisions.

In my opinion the AFL indicated through its rule changes surrounding holding the ball and its experiment with the kicking backwards rule in the NAB cup that it wanted to keep the game competitive and retain a high action game (i.e. fast). Although it could also be argued that they wanted to slow the game down a little with the introduction of the substitute rule.

Video technology is expensive and not necessarily accurate and there are shortcomings with the use of the technology on Hawkeye for LBW decisions or video replays on low catches in cricket... Well according to the Indian’s anyway!!! 

More Goal Umpires…this may not be as costly to the AFL as the use of Video Technology, although there is problem that decisions are still prone to human error. But both Rugby Union and Rugby League use two umpires that stand behind each post to judge if the ball has passed correctly through the uprights.

Given the speed of an AFL match has increased, this may be an option as it would mean that goal umpires would have less ground to cover in a short time and this may lengthen the life span of a goal umpire (difficult to believe I know… but logically true). Potentially fewer mistakes are made given that the umpire is in position earlier and the game is not stopped to review a decision.

But I can already hear the cries of derision and the first question asked will be how the scoring will be signalled by the umpires to avoid confusion. Some thought has been given to this by yours truly and I think the following will logically work.

Both umpires to raise a flag at the pole to signal a goal (just as is in Rugby)

If it is a goal then one designated umpire at either end to perform the normal flag signal for the goal.

For points the umpire in control of the point region to signal a point with downward flag wave (as per Rugby) and then to signal the point as per the normal flag signal.

The contentious area is for touched or rushed behinds this is to be signalled by a downward flag waving motion by the umpire that sees it (and if both deem the point to be rushed then both signal the behind) this is followed by the normal flag waving signal for a behind by the designated goal scoring umpire.

Personally I favour the “More Goal Umpires” option; however it is all food for thought. Perhaps this is something that the AFL could consider as the game moves forward.

How much longer will Neil Craig be coaching at Adelaide ?

Source: www.adelaidenow.com.au

In May I wrote a piece asking what has happened at the Adelaide Crows and are changes required at Adelaide to arrest the slide in the 2011 season. Well two months down the track and after witnessing Adelaide’s recent performance against St. Kilda it would indicate that the situation has gone from bad to worse.

There are now constant rumours about Neil Craig’s future not only in Adelaide, but in Melbourne as well. This is probably justified as there has been no change to the Adelaide Crows game plan. This suggests that Craig has undeniable faith in his game plan and presumes that as the playing group improves so will the results. Or worse, Neil Craig is unwilling to make changes to a plan that is clearly not working through stubbornness.

Players have gone off the boil and there is a lack of belief in the playing group. The hierarchy will tell you that the playing group is solid, but this is pure spin. Nothing shows up more in team performance than despondency and the coaching staff has not been able to fix this within the playing group. There is no fluency within the play on the field with constant “stop-start” football and the Crows are often exposed by the opposition team’s forward press.

With these facts in mind, the board at Adelaide seriously need to consider Craig’s future and quickly. The Adelaide performances of late have been below standard and look to be getting worse. The supporters want the coach to be dismissed after a string of horrible performances and the playing group are showing signs on the field that the messages from the coach are having no effect. Leaders should demand respect of the playing group and the supporters and it appears that Craig has lost this respect. The best answer to this situation is for Craig to be removed from the post.

Ex-Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett recently wrote an article on leadership to which he held the theory that those appointed to leadership positions should remain in that position for approximately 6-8 years. In that time the person is able to stamp their authority in the position with the impetus to add innovation without the need to defend what has been established. Kennett suggests that after this time there is a shift towards protecting everything that has been previously gained. After that they should distance themselves completely from the organisation to allow the new leader to make his mark. Craig has been at the helm for seven years at Adelaide so from that perspective his time is now up.

If the Adelaide board has someone in mind then appoint them now and give them a few weeks with the playing group before the end of season to determine which players to keep and which to delist. The captain needs to be changed as his exploits on field are not inspiring enough. This did prompt a friend of mine to suggest that Van Berlo is the “softest” captain in the AFL and I could not agree more.

Personally I would delist Tambling (looks all at sea), Van Berlo (softest Captain in the AFL and simply not hard enough), Walker (very talented but does not apply it), Doughty, Symes, Sellar, Knights and Moran (all form based) just to name a few off the top of my head.

It will be interesting to see what decisions are made by the Adelaide board over the next few weeks.

What is happening at the Adelaide Crows?

I must apologise for the length of time between articles. This article looks at some problem areas at the Adelaide Crows and discusses what could be done to produce winning performances from the team.

After witnessing an insipid performance against Melbourne on the weekend I would like to briefly discuss three areas; Leadership, Game Plan and Personnel.

In terms of Leadership, the simple question arises: “Is Nathan Van Berlo the right man for the job?”

Based on the performances that I have seen this year, the answer is no. The word from West Lakes is that Van Berlo is a natural leader, but performances on field do not suggest this to be the case. A leader of men needs to be fearless, uncompromising and passionate about the cause. Leaders command respect just by their presence and motivate their army, their followers and their men to perform great deeds. 

However on Sunday against Melbourne, I saw a Captain who dropped his head at a crucial time. A captain who did not chase the opposition player which every last bit of energy he could muster. It was very disappointing moment and something that no other Adelaide Captain would ever do. This attitude quickly spread through the players as a result. Yes, it is Van Berlo’s first year as captain, but based on this performance the future is not very encouraging. 

So, who should replace Van Berlo if he should be deposed of the Captaincy?

My choices are Scott Thompson, Kurt Tippett and Patrick Dangerfield, although the latter is still very young so we are left with Scott Thompson and Kurt Tippett. For my mind, Tippett has too much responsibility at Full Forward as the spearhead with additional Ruck duties thrown in to be given the Captaincy as well. This leaves Thompson as my choice for Captainm this is based on his determinination and his on-field presence.

Are the playing personnel a problem? 

This could be one aspect in Adelaide’s favour as the playing is fairly young and Adelaide currently has the longest injury list in the AFL. The list will take time to develop and there are encouraging signs with Luke Thompson, Rory Sloane and Sam Jacobs to name a few. Adelaide has also recently lost well over 1000 games of experience with the retirements of Riccuito, McLeod, Burton, Goodwin and Edwards so there is a lack of on-field presence when times are tough. That said senior players currently within the side need to stand up during games and the Captain’s example mentioned above does not set a good precedent.

Does Adelaide’s game plan need tweaking?

It become obvious at the Melbourne game that when Adelaide were in trouble the players went back to chipping the ball around and the game plan of rushing the ball forward became non-existent. Is this because the players on the ground are not able to execute the game plan under pressure?

However, there are still question marks over Craig’s ability to change plan mid-game when circumstances change in a match. There have been times when Craig goes defensive when in an attacking position. The semi-final against Collingwood in 2009 is an example. So are there other game plans in Craig’s repertoire or is it time for new blood?

The Rambling Couch Sitter’s Top Five Least Favourite Sports Teams

Here are my Top Five Least Favourite Sports Teams in order. These are teams that have had a large influence on everything I dislike about sport. I can never truly hate any team..... well maybe one or two from this list can be put into the “Hate” category.

 

Port Adelaide Football Club (AFL) – If there is one team I truly hate it is the Port Adelaide Football Club (PAFC), they are represented by the Magpies in the South Australian National Football League (SANFL) and the Power in the Australian Football League (AFL). This is a team that tried to turn its back on the SANFL in 1990 to join the lucrative AFL competition much to the outrage of South Australia. It resulted in the Adelaide Crows being created by the SANFL to counter the push by Port Adelaide. The culture at PAFC is very much “us versus them” and the socio-demographic of the supporters is working class which further fuels this attitude. 

It was this attitude that drove them in 1990 and if they looked at the “big picture” they would have seen that there were some Victorian clubs in real strife which may have lead to a true club competition in the AFL rather than just an expended Victorian Football League calling itself the AFL. They are often referred to as the collective brain cell by yours truly. So much is my hatred to this club whenever I see supporters in the street I will mutter under my breath “Wharfie Scum” and a trip to Alberton Oval is always a pleasant experience.

Melbourne Victory (A-League) - Rank second and are fast tracking themselves towards the “hate” category. Captained by Kevin Muscat this team plays tough football which is good, but it is often too tough. Their team is arrogant and their supporters are at times scary especially when in a group. So bad is the rivalry between the Victory, Sydney FC and Adelaide United that the visiting supporters are given a police escort while walking to the Victory home ground. Whenever the Victory fall behind there is a great tension in the stadium. The players start whining to the referee and the fans will just whine.... Quite simply, they are very sore losers!!

Sri Lanka Cricket Team – It was tough to decide between third and fourth, but Sri Lanka gets the nod purely around the “Murali” chucking furore. Murali was called for throwing during the Boxing Day test in 1996 based on the Laws of Cricket. Usually this meant that the bowler was banished and never came back to the game until they sorted out their action or never came back at all. The problem was that the Sri Lankan captain Arjuna Ranatunga thought that his bowler was victimised and added fuel to the fire saying that the call was racially motivated. 

This incident threatened to split world cricket with the powerful Asian block of countries (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) and the West Indies threatening to break away from the ICC. The potential loss of revenue resulted in the ICC reviewing the laws around when a bowler is deemed to be throwing and the bowler is referred to coaches for “corrective action”. Murali went on to take 500-600 more wickets to become the highest test wicket taker of all time. Not bad for someone who should be branded a “chucker” and banished from the game.

Italian Football Team – are fourth due to their performance against Australia at the 2006 World Cup. Fabio Grosso did a nice little dive in the penalty box just before full time to earn Italy a penalty. The penalty was converted and Italy won 1-0. Italy was already down to 10 men after Marco Materazzi was sent off in the 50^th minute and Australia due to their superior fitness probably would have won had the game gone to extra time. The referee decision to award the penalty was considered controversial. There was also an incident earlier in the play that the referee should have awarded a free kick but this was missed and hence no advantage was given. If the goal had been scored from that then well done, but scoring one after the dive is sacrilege. 

The Italians did go on to win the World Cup, so the decision ended up being very crucial. After the game, Grosso maintained he was fouled, saying, "I tried to avoid contact, I got past one defender but then my leg got stuck in between the other defender's legs and I had no option but to go down. My aim was to go all the way." But of course Grosso would say something along those lines.

St Kilda (AFL) – Scrape into the Top 5 more from their off field antics rather than their on-field play. While footballers in general have a reputation for being “lads”, the reaction that St Kilda initially had to a 17 year old girl releasing nude photos of some of their players was overdone and a public relations nightmare. The incident was the result of revenge by the girl over the treatment by some of the players towards her. There were rumours of her being pregnant and losing the baby amongst other things. St Kilda threatened to sue her for a large amount of money that she would be paying off well into her 30’s. The morality of the players was never questioned by the club and tragically the girl’s family have disowned her. It is one of those situations where there is no winner and it was clear that the girl needed help. Recently the club has agreed to provide accommodation for the girl in exchange for the photos being removed from the internet. The right outcome has been achieved but the Saints have lost respect from the incident.

This is not the first time that St Kilda have been involved in such an incident. Players Stephen Milne and Leigh Montagna in 2004 were the at the centre of a police investigation of the rape of a woman. No charges were laid, however in June 2010 a former detective who was the lead detective in the case made claims that the case collapsed under internal pressure from within the Victorian police force and powerful club backers as well as another detective alleging the cost of the case was a factor.

Other teams to miss out on the top 5 were Arsenal, Glasgow Celtic, Croatia and Manchester United