CAT SCRATCH FEVER

During Friday night's Melbourne/Richmond game, there was an incident involving Demon wingman Travis Johnstone and Tiger skipper Wayne Campbell that caused the media to break out into a hot flush....

In the second term, Tigers skipper Wayne Campbell was forced from the field under the blood rule. He received a cut to the nose after tangling with Travis Johnstone and then James McDonald, the second an uncharacteristic blow-up that threatened to explode on the southern wing.

The AFL will investigate it, no doubt, and knowing how Campbell is so honest when it comes to these matters, someone may be required to explain it all to Brian Collis.

Standing in the Ponsford Stand -- or whatever it's to be called -- I couldn't see what was going on, but when I got home I watched the replay and, wondering what the second quarter rumpus was all about, paid particular attention to the relevant footage.

Naturally, Channel 9 didn't let me down. They love a good scuffle so they spent plenty of time highlighting the incident in normal speed, slow motion, high resolution & stills, and from as many angles as they could muster. One, as it turned out.

However, when an issue's there to be vertically accentuated, one's all it takes.

At this point I'll just note that the footage they were continually replaying CLEARLY showed -- no dispute from me -- Travis Johnstone with his hands on Wayne Campbell's face.

Eddie McGuire and Dennis Cometti cooed all the usual concerns. First there was Eddie's ominous revelation -- barely disguised boast -- "We think our cameras have caught something". There followed a "That doesn't look good" and of course, the standard pre-emptive "I think the tribunal will want a look at that".

Then the next day there was a mention of it in the papers, and on Saturday afternoon's MMM footy show, I listened to Sam Newman, Brian Taylor, Jason Dunstall and ... err ... Craig Hutchison(?) debate what had happened.

The Trim crowd were just as concerned as their Channel Nine maties. Jason and BT suggested Johnstone was "kneading" Campbell's face. And Hutchy was assigned the "It doesn't look good" duties.

Also, it must be pointed out, they stated there was NO suggestion of "gouging".

Never the less, Sam, when pressed on the issue -- scratching's a particularly nasty footy offence -- asserted "Yes. Johnstone was sctratching Campbell's face."

Now today in the Herald Sun Mark Stevens implies similar nastiness....

Despite footage of the incident looking damning, Campbell yesterday said: "I certainly didn't feel at any stage I was being gouged".

The judges, juries and insinuators have spoken. Johnstone's gone bang to rights. It's a fair cop.

But is it?

I say NO. There was NO scratching from Johnstone. Categorically NO. In fact, I was almost moved to ring up MMM and becoming a ... gasp ... "talkback caller". Almost. Let's keep a level head here.

The first point to note is that Campbell had a scratch on the nose which caused him to go off under the blood rule.

However, at NO point did the Channel Nine footage show Johnstone's fingernails anywhere near Campbell's nose.

Second, Campbell was not scratched anywhere else on the face. Including where Johnstone's fingernails were closest.

No surprise there. Not only did the footage NOT show Johnstone scratching Campbell's nose, it clearly showed him NOT scratching anywhere else on Campbell's face. In fact, it clearly showed him making a deliberate effort NOT to dig his fingers into Campbell's face.

The worst that can be said is that Johnstone was holding Campbell down and had the umpire seen it, he would have been well within his purvue to pay a freekick for head-high contact.

How the "pundits" could construe otherwise is beyond me.

I put it that Sam Newman, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the "experts" are either liars or incompetent for the way they misrepresented the footage. And as such, have ceded their right to be considered credible football commentators.

However, given Campbell left the ground under the blood rule, I concede a trip to the tribunal would constitute a satisfactory progression of events. But, unless there is other evidence -- Campbell said Johnstone didn't scratch him (thanks Chris) -- I would expect a verdict of not guilty. Because at NO point during Channel Nine's coverage was it possible to construe -- as the "experts" have done -- that the scratch on Campbell's face was in any way related to the attention from Johnstone.

Comments

[chris88]

As a Tiges fan, I thought I should reply on this one with the response of "Couldn't agree more!"

What happened between Johnstone and Campbell was little more than a scuffle which ended up seeing Johnstone on top of Campbell holding him down by exerting pressure on his facial region.

I don't believe there was any scratching or eye-gouging. At worst, Johnstone should've got done for head-high contact on Campbell, or the ball should've been taken off his Melbourne teammate as part of a free kick awarded.

Campbell has come out and said there's nothing in it, as the "players code" dictates. But I also think he is being honest as well.

Interestingly, I don't hear any Richmond coaches or officials (or Campbell himself) bleating about this or saying "he should be cited" ... unlike a certain top-of-the-table team has done in the past with incidents relating to a big blonde-headed star player of theirs.

The thing that got me with that was that blonde-headed player - Mr Reiwoldt - apparently highlighting the incident with Matthew Scarlett to the ump at the time, yet then fronting up as a witness at the tribunal and sticking to the "players code" (don't know what happened, wasn't much in it, etc.)

You can't swap horses mid ride like this.

For what its worth, I hope Johnstone doesn't get cited.

[Tony.T]

Thanks for making me remember the Age link, Chris.

I haven't heard whether Johnstone has been cited. They said on the radio on Saturday that a notice of investigation had gone in. Whatever that means. But I've heard Matthew Lloyd has been put up. Not Travis though.

Actually, you'd think the other teams would leave Riewoldt alone. He took some top pressure marks on Sat-dee night, one in particular where he got smooshed in the chest as he grabbed the agate. Never the less, there's plenty of bleating goes on out there. Not the least from Sheedy who seems to start most of the trouble.

[Dirk Thruster]

I can remember a Carlton - Essendon match in the eighties which reulted in about seven or eight reports and had Parkin and Sheedy bleating in the rags on the following Monday about how the other mob were lowering the standards of modern football by indulging in such reprehensible behaviour etc., etc. As someone who is old enough to remember both Sheedy and Parkin playing, I was fairly amused. Sheedy is a hypocitical mouth-on-a-stick, always has been, always will be.

[Adsy]

Nice to see the Tiger's faithful take the moral high ground on this issue, allowing one of their players to be savaged (by whom no one knows), letting that one go and jumping on Riewoldt for getting more hits than a junkie in a dark alley. I've heard of the Tigers turning on their own but wouldn't you want to find out who went after your club captain?

McDonald had a stoush with Cambo after that, but I dunno if that was related to any facial activity talked about previously. If it wasn't Johnstone, then could it have been McDonald?

As to Riewoldt highlighting the Scarlett incident to the umpire, I think he is well within his rights copping one behind the ball when he wasn't looking. Fair enough if your meleeying, jumper punches are usually landed from both sides, but being hit like that is a bit rich. I reckon Riewoldt was just being kind to Geelong in going quiet at the tribunal: imagine the scene at Optus if the Blues had won by 20 goals!!

As for Sheedy, the less said the better. Still arrogant after getting beaten by 15 goals and 6 goals. Any other coach would have kept his mouth shut, but his remarks today:

“At the moment we just want to get a reasonable amount of free kicks like (Nick) Riewoldt gets and at the moment you can’t touch Riewoldt, so we just need that sort of stuff our way sometimes.”

are laughable, not ha-ha laughable either. Thomas' response:

"Kevin doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good story"

"The fact is Nick Riewoldt has been given only two free kicks this year: one against Geelong and the other against Essendon..."

Can't argue with that logic. I think a lot of other coaches in the league could use Sheedy's comments about a certain Matthew "Mr. Nice Guy But When I Get Near The Ball I Drive My Forearm Into People's Skulls But Still Manage To Scam Free Kicks" Lloyd....

[chris88]

Not jumping on my captain Adsy, just being honest - I hope being a Richmond fan doesn't preclude me from that quality!

I wouldn't mind who is responsible for making Campbell leave the field with blood on his face -and if it was Johnstone (or McDonald), well then it is up to the video scrutineers to cite him.

But if they do, they've seen more in the incidents than what I did from both the replays and the 10th row of the wing at the G where I was sitting. I still hope Johnstone isn't cited.

If I was Richmond right now, I'd be more worried about making sure I put in decent effort against the aforementioned Saints on Easter Monday, or it could get uglier for Danny and the boys.

I also don't doubt Riewoldt had a right to highlight the Scarlett hit, and I reckon Scarlett should've been rubbed out for it. What I'm saying is that if it is good enough for Riewoldt to highlight it on the day, then its good enough to be consistent and follow that same line at the tribunal a couple of days hence. Not doing so cheapens things.

I do agree with you about Sheedy though Adsy - absolute martian ... and as for "Pretty Boy" Lloyd, let's hope this report is the start of a trend that sees him booked much more - he's acts all nice, and then he'll do something with his forearms or take a "soccer style dive" to scam a free.

It was interesting to watch him struggle on Saturday when the ball wasn't being delivered to him lace out by his midfielders - maybe he is one-dimensional after all.

[Tony.T]

Dirk, Sheeds was a supersniper player, and he's not much different as a coach.

He's the first to bleat about favourable treatment for the opposition, and the first to bleat about dodgy treatment of Essington players.

And So He Should.

Never the less, I get sick of him wanting it both ways, especially when he instigates all the Essington agro. And I wish the media would start putting the spotlight on some of his more nonsensical utterings, rather than just saying "Ohh that Sheeds. Heh. Heh. What a wild and crazy guy."

As Ads notes, it's good that Thomas is sticking it to him. Sheeds talks a lot, but not a whole lot is sensible and/or credible. It's just that stupid that stupid people react to it. Or suck up him. Don't forget, the media rely on access, so they're not going to be aggressively critical.

Whats more, when he gets pinged, he generally goes nasty and plays the man. Or woman, if it's Caro Wilson.

And Ads, I wonder if Lloyd and Essington will plead self-defence in that he raised his arm to protect himself.

If they do and he still gets suspended, where does that leave the Hird incident? He pleaded self-defence in that he raised his arm to protect himself?

Personally, I reckon the Hird incident should have gone up to the tribunal. Once again the inconsistent reporting process has made a rod for "their" back.

And I believe the footy media pack was disgraceful in their analysis of the Hird incident. There was not one pundit -- as far as I know -- other than Tim Lane who said, "Well, hang on. He still raised his arm." Imagine if it was Greg Williams.

Ads, Chris is right -- although he's wrong for barracking for Richmond -- the point is that "from the available footage", there was NO WAY anyone could state that Johnstone scratched Campbell's face.

And Chris, the Tiges were bloody awful on Friday. Worse than Melbourne in Round 1. If they keep up with that shit Danny mightn't even last to my predicted Round 9.

And as for Lloyd "taking dives". I never have a problem with that, it's part of the game. What I get upset with is the way umpires get sucked in.

And I don't reckon Lloyd is a "good player in a good side". Things aren't going right for the Bombrés at the moment, but there's no way they will be down the bottom for long. Although I wish they were.