Players' media boycott a lesson well taught

I actually feel guilty writing a piece about football this week. There's been an overload of posturing, pontification and plain waffle sprayed across TV, radio and papers. If so much of it wasn't so lightweight, the entire football media may have collapsed under its own self-importance. In the midst of such heightened opining, one issue has pulled the journalistic community together. Despite wildly differing views on the illicit drug menace (bravely publicised by Dylan Howard, who faces no drug testing at his workplace), every single journalist agrees that those mean players boycotting poor wittle Channel Seven is sooo unfair.

It's been fascinating to see the tremor run through the entire industry. The realisation eventually dawned on all that if the players could turn on Seven, no-one was safe. Any outlet could, at any time, be stripped of access to heavily media-trained players able to converse in cliche on demand. Caro, Hutchy, even Francis Leach on SEN, went from objecting strenuously to wailing hysterically as they witnessed the players take the position of strength.

There's nothing wrong with what the players are doing. Most criticism from journalists insists that, as media rights pay for football, the players have an obligation to dance on demand until the content tank is full. This implied contract shouldn't require the fixed grin to be maintained when personal medical records are published. No-one can honestly defend the publication of those stolen medical records, so it's not unreasonable if some retribution is taken. The defence has been offered that the football department of Seven shouldn't be punished for the actions of the newsroom. The cross-promotion Seven indulges in destroys this defence fairly quickly.

Personally, I'm not upset by the boycott. It's only fair that the media be held accountable for its actions, even if only a powerful group like the AFLPA can undertake such a task. I'm just hoping that someone realises that, after missing a few inane interviews and un-illuminating press conferences, how little was lost. Unfortunately, such a media vacuum could never be maintained.

Read more!

Move quickly? Depends on who yelled go?

The more observant of you who have stumbled across this site may have noticed that when it was last updated, Richmond hadn't won a game, Collingwood were a finals threat and Garry Lyon didn't have an opinion on anything. Fortunately, some things change, and some stay the same. It has meant that I've skipped over a prime example of the AFL supplying the sort of awkward posturing and painful contortioning usually only seen at grade 1 calisthenics concerts.

Anyone who wanted Chris Judd to get suspended for his exploration of Campbell Brown's face doesn't really love footy. It wasn't the vindictive, dangerous action Jeff Farmer indulged in pre-season. It wasn't smart, and anyone who has a younger brother knows that fingers up the nose in a wrestle is pretty effective as well. It didn't deserve loss of the Brownlow, and we all knew what Brown was doing at the tribunal. The AFL probably had to act after Brown confessed to Father Mike Sheahan and the Foxtel congregation, but if they act that quickly once, it's going to give the average fan the idea they can do it more often.

I hadn't picked Collingwood or Hawthorn to be any good this year, but by round 3 I'd worked out I was wrong. That was ten weeks before the mis-fixtured twilight match between the two teams, and about seven years after the AFL promised big games would be moved from the ground. That may have given the AFL time to change its mind (and to fall deeply in lust with Foxtel) but apparently didn't leave enough time for those involved to get their story straight. All sorts of excuses why the game couldn't be moved were offered. My personal favourite was that fans wouldn't turn up if it was cold. If I've sat through a 25 goal loss to Geelong this year, forgive me for a close game in the rain sounding like luxury.


Eventually, the head honchos confessed: TV and stadium contracts dictated the game should stay, so stay it would. We now know how such a shocking display of honesty is rewarded, and I'm happy to accept the $15,000 fine on the behalf of all fans. (With the AFL's record, they don't deserve to have it half suspended!) I promise to put it all on the bar, next time we're stuck at the pub watching a game because Docklands isn't big enough for corporates, TV executives and fans.

Read more!

Not angry? It's not through lack of trying

It's not in the nature of the average footy fan to rebel against authority. It has always taken a massive push against what is held closest before outrage really escapes. Not the effective, but still stage-managed anger of Don Scott at the Hawthorn merger meeting, but the real thing in the stands after the merger match three weeks earlier. You see it in the occasional "Up yours Oakley" sticker still tenuously gripping the bumper of an aging corolla. It's rare though. We don't have the history of the pitch invasions of European soccer, or anything like the idiot rugby fan in South Africa who king hit the referee. Strange that, because apparently we have no shortage of subjects to which we should channel our authority.

There were two games of football Saturday night, decided by a total of one point. While the quality of the football is debatable, a close game lifts players, and can't help but generate intense individual efforts, crashing contests and spectacular highlights. None of which were worth talking about on Sunday morning. The Footy Show wanted to highlight Adam McPhee maybe, possibly being a millimetre out of bounds before kicking a goal, before moving on to the weighty issue of the thickness of the goal posts denying the Swans the win. The arrival of Matthew Richardson only moved the discussion onto implementing extra time after drawn games. 3LO were no better as they ranted, in their own restrained way, about the allegedly controversial Everitt point.

Any issue leading to the chance to bag Garry Lyon makes me happy, and he is a master of the indignant discussion of the unimportant. His proposal for a penalty shootout in next year's Wizard's cup is merely his way of avoiding occupying an opinion on something important. It’s not what drives the majority of our glut of commentators, alleged opinion formers and hangers-on populating the football media. In their head, they see themselves forming opinion, dragging the big issues into the open, and giving a great big kicking it to those who deserve it (unless they played with them, share a common sponsor, or currently are employed by the same media outlet.) It must take monumental effort, but convincing themselves that faking indignation over the trivial, and wallowing in the inconsequential, is far easier than actually providing insight and analysis into our game.

It’s our loss. Not only do we have to listen to this drivel, but this fake outrage every weekend drowns out everyone when the big issues bite. Attempting to maintain the controversy every weekend saps the energy from the fans when something important lobs on the agenda. As the media leaves themselves with no gear to shift into, it’s difficult to feel that the big, season dominating issues, like the hands in the back rule, occupy the media space they deserve. When the next merger or relocation comes along, you won’t see the anger from the last time. We just won’t have the energy.

Read more!

Network kite-flying weighing down fans

Anyone watching the bidding process for the AFL TV rights could see the eyelid fluttering, undertable footsies and general flirting taking place between the AFL and the Channel 9-led consortium. It's unsurprising that the AFL have realised they get the same warm fuzzy feeling from the $780m Channels 7 and 10 waved their way. Apparently, the bonding has taken place over a mutual enjoyment of kite-flying, as first Ten, and then Seven, float telecasting ideas that could increasing ratings while possessing a tiny possibility of alienating the fans.

Last week Channel 10 floated the idea of a twilight grand final, promising a bigger spectacle, including better pre-game entertainment. Andrew Demetriou has previously ruled out a night grand final, and a twilight final differs only because the first half will be played in gloom rather than darkness. This hasn't stopped some eyelid fluttering towards Channel 10 from Demetriou, who promised to consider the idea, which cheered up only Channel 10's shareholders and those who love crappy firework displays. Slotting the second half of the Grand Final into the peak viewing hours may push up the ratings, but if Channel 10 aren't making a bucketload per advertising second already, they would be better off with a Jim's Mowing franchise.
The night / twilight grand final debate isn't new. Channel 7 has made things uglier today, resurrecting a Channel 9 proposal to allow it to change the fixture mid-season to maximise Friday night ratings. Rugby League, stuck in an abusive relationship with its Channel 9 masters, already endures this, with schedule changes occurring at as little as four weeks notice. The already familiar AFL response was wheeled out, promising to investigate the proposal while playing down the possibility of its adoption.

Of course, this proposal requires the network to be able to accurately predict which game will be worth showing, and a quick glance at the tipping scores of most "experts" shows the folly of this. The true flexibility of the fixture is limited for a variety of reasons, as on-sold home games must be fixed, Sydney home games can't be scheduled against Friday night League, and six-day breaks must be maintained. This leaves the predictable result of the rotation of the high-drawing Victorian clubs through Friday night, to the financial pain of the smaller clubs and exasperation of their supporters.

This plan shows nothing but contempt towards the average fan. The complaints about organising long trips are obvious, but worse, it assumes that we only care about seeing the spectacle of big games. It ignores the connection we all have to our teams, and the anticipation this brings for every game. Letting Channel 7 decide four weeks out that we're only worth a Sunday twilight timeslot places fans at the bottom of the food chain. Most of us will still attend, and most of us will watch, but a few will feel more disconnected from the game, and wander away. That's not a process that can be repeated indefinitely.

The fixturing proposal may be kite-flying, already slapped down by the AFL. This time. The same has happened every time the night grand final has been proposed, but each time I hear more fans sigh "It's inevitable, really." The networks rely on this attitude spreading further to break through opposition to their ratings grabs. Only through continued protest can the night grand final be avoided, but the continual cuddling of the networks by the AFL only helps to turn our rage into resignation.

Read more!

Protected species don't require an open season of criticism

Anyone with a sense of self-preservation, unless they possessed a strong vindictive streak, avoided mentioning the words "in", "back", "rule" and "hands", in any order, to a Richmond fan over the weekend. It was probably best not to discuss the definition of prior opportunity with the same people a month ago. If you had indulged in these provocations, you're probably still slipping photos of Scott McLaren into the letter boxes of all the Bombers fans you know. There's an festering umpire-inflicted wound barely covered in the psyche of every footy fan, and poking it often induces a lengthy rant, usually featuring the observation that the umps are "a protected species nowadays." This is true, and protected they should be.

Allowing players and coaches to sound off at the umpires won't do anything to improve the standards of decision-making. It may make the fans feel better to hear their captain slam the free kicks paid or not paid, but at best, all it achieves is to wedge that criticism in the back of the umpires' collective minds next time they're assigned a game featuring their team. It's anyone's guess if this results in more or less free kicks, but the impression of influence is obvious to all.

The English Premier League essentially allows open slather on the referees, and the result is every manager blaming every loss on a conspiracy against their team that prevents penalties being paid. The ranter usually claims free speech as a defence, but the only intention is to ensure the decision goes their way next time. It's reinforced by the players surrounding the referee after every decision, yelling in their face and grabbing at their shirts. This intimidation is the inevitable end product of allowing players and coaches free criticism.

Policing comments and abuse from players and coaches doesn't mean the umpires are above criticism. When they get it wrong, it needs to be acknowledged, and when improvement is required, it needs to be made clear. Unfortunately, when we look for this leadership, we only see Adrian Anderson and Jeff Gieschen. In their unstinting defence, bordering on irrationality, of every decision made this year, they have succeeded only in destroying the credibility of the umpires. If they could bring themselves to admit the mistakes made, instead of the shrill protestations we hear, then the outcry from the fans is immediately blunted. There won't need to be any overturning of games or similarly hysterical outcomes, as a simple acknowledgement satisfies those complaining that they have been heard, and everyone can move on.

Unfortunately, there will be no improvement until Gieschen, and possibly Anderson, are booted from their positions. They should be replaced by recent ex-players with a feel for the game, to accentuate the connection all fans feel to all facets of the game. Until then, frustration with what we see on field will continue to unite us all.

Postscript: While writing this, I heard the news that Richo won't receive a please explain from the AFL, on the grounds that he criticised the rules of the game, not the umpiring. As Richo actually acknowledged the free kick was there, under current rules, it differentiates his comments from Kane Johnson's, or any other similar cases this year. It's one of the AFL's more sensible decisions this year.

One down, so many more required.

Read more!

Richo the push for the end of an inglorious affair

I'll put my hand up and say I was delighted when I heard of the new interpretation of the push-in-the-back rule, overturning too many seasons of defenders doing as they pleased in marking contests. I had visions of the banishment of the ugly wrestling demanded of forwards as defenders pushed them under the ball, and molested them out of the contest. Instead, the true contested mark would return as those players with superior reading of the flight of the ball were rewarded.

Saturday night wasn't an epiphany, but the final, irrefutable piece of evidence slapped across my face, condemning a misguided experiment. Despite the alleged new ease of adjudication, slight touches to the back were sometimes, and in the rare game often, (but never always) punished. I tried to use the occasional reward of a forward eased out of a clear run at the ball by errant hands as a way to maintain my commitment. I tried to ignore the blatant inconsistency of the umpires giving the green light to the use of forearms, fists and elbows in the same situation. Most of all, I pretended the whole Mark McVeigh controversy never happened, because my head hurt whenever Jeff Gieschen tried to explain it.

The Richardson contest on Saturday night exposed the folly of the new rule. I know that, under this season's rules, the free kick was there. It simply didn't need to be. Richo didn't push Michael out of the contest. He just used his superior position to ensure Michael was never in the contest. There was no push, just enough pressure to slow the backwards movement and allow a clear mark. Seeing that free kick, I abandoned any attempts to convert others to the cult of no hands, and joined the mob trying to carry KB and the rules committee to the nearest set of stocks.

Fortunately, despite Adrian Anderson's miserable offering in defense, the rule will be gone at the end of the season. In the same contest, the complete lack of common sense employed by the umpires was exposed. It was obvious that the free kick was controversial, and Richardson was entitled to believe the whistle indicated his mark. The engagement of any thought processes would have quickly arrived at the conclusion that the 50m probably wasn't warranted, but any thinking clearly never occurred. This may be one incident, but any fan from any team could come up with several more without drawing breath, and it demonstrates a far deeper problem in the umpiring ranks than any change in interpretation can solve.

You don't need to have played the game at the highest level to have a feel for how the game flows. You just need to watch games, with the aim of understand the way players approach the game. It's a simple philosophy, of which there is zero evidence in the umpiring ranks at present.

Read more!

Speedy criticism misses detail of drug policy

I do feel sorry for the AFL at times. The evolution of the national league has left them as sole keepers of the code. They run the league, regulate the clubs, and shoulder responsibility for the rules. I've seen no evidence of a single employee of the organisation that doesn't relish the spotlight these multiple roles lob their way. Of course, such large weight of responsibilites also presents a juicy, slow-moving target for those with causes to push. Peter Costello's bleating is just the most recent example proving the role of punching bag is being played to an oscar-winning standard for those with barrows to push in the current drug-testing controversy.

I'm not qualified to comment on the respective benefits of zero tolerance against harm minimisation policies. The same seems to apply to a large proportion of the AFL's critics. What must frustrate the AFL is that many of those currently bleating in the media either don't understand the current drug policy, or are willfully misrepresenting it as an excuse to score points off the AFL for political reasons.

The current policy has two clear central pillars. In-competition testing that returns a positive test results in the application of sanctions according to the WADA code. Additional testing, taken outside competition days, that returns test positive to recreational drugs leads to the currently controversial three-strikes policy. These tests are undertaken despite not actually being required by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority.

It's worth remembering how the current policy arose. The AFL attempted to separate the punishments for testing positive to recreational drug use from those for performance enhancing drugs. The outcry was lead by WADA head honcho Dick Pound, who seems to have a talent for undoing so much of his positive work does by treating every issue with the same blustering indignation, regardless of it's impact or importance. The Federal Government threatened the withdrawal of funding unless the mandatory two year sanctions required by WADA were written into policy. Completely outflanked, the AFL caved in, but commendably maintained the harm-minimisation strategy for its out-of-competition testing. This is the part of the story that the current media storm seems to be ignoring.

It must be tempting for the AFL to heed the strident criticism, and move their testing regime in line with that practised by the Olympic sports. This may make the problem of positive tests for recreational drugs disappear, but the strong position already assumed by the AFL makes any reduction in tests a public relations disaster. Instead, their only option is to continue restating the details of the policy, in the hope this can override the misleading criticism in the media. For once, the AFL shouldn't be the large target it seems to present.

Read more!