AGB Footy

NON SEQUITUR

Last Monday at U-Pundit, Anthony from Chippendale gently chiacked Patrick Smith over an apparent inconsistency in that Smith first said James Hird should be suspended then, after Hird's Anzac Day B.O.G, legendized him.

10. No wonder people hate Patrick Smith. Today he pours truckloads of praise on James Hird. No problem with that. Hird played a great game. But if Smith had had his way the Bomber Skipper wouldn't have even been playing.

Tuesday night on Talking Footy, Steve Price -- no doubt smarting over other recent criticisms -- did the same thing.

By the way, is there some connection between Price and Anthony? Anthony? A little help here?

Anyhoo, far as I'm concerned, Smith operated well within his purview when he criticized Hird's Footy Show comments and called for a suspension. On the flip side, he was justly laudative about the quality of Hird's Anzac Day performance, which, let's face it, was a belter.

Most importantly, there's no reason he shouldn't do both.

There's no doubt had Hird been suspended, he'd have missed the Anzac Day game, and so Smith wouldn't have been able to talk up his game. But he'd have had plenty of opportunities to strut his stuff at a later date. He'd also have had some time to reflect on his wayward comments.

The unacceptable extension of both Anthony's and Price's criticisms -- Mild as they were. OR. Was that a sneer in Price's "Four weeks to two" comment? -- is that the prospect of Hird playing a brilliant game means he shouldn't be suspended for doing something wrong.

Smith can be unjustifiably personal in his criticisms, and people may indeed hate him, but mostly that's their problem, not Smith's. In this instance he was right to call it as he saw it, and neither of his articles compromised the other.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Today it was revealed former Carlton premiership player Adrian Whitehead was being denied life membership of the club because of legal action he's undertaken against Carlton.

Naturally, the Carlton president at the time of Whitehead's complaint was Big Jack Elliot, under whose stewardship Carlton lost millions of dollars and was fined another million for salary cap breaches.

This morning on SEN Elliot, in response to today's article, was asked whether he thought Whitehead should receive the life membership....

"No. Of course not. He cost us too much money."

GARDINER NO CHANCE

One thing yesterday's down time DID do, was cruelly deprive me of the opportunity to showcase the above champagne headline....

Knee injury ends Gardiner's season

ALL-Australian Eagle Michael Gardiner is confident reconstructive surgery will return to full strength the right knee that has troubled him since late last season.

West Coast's ruckman yesterday decided to write off the 2004 season after he yielded to medical advice that the posterior cruciate ligament required a major operation.

Footy ... I like to watch.

TALKING EDS

This morning on the radio Gary Lyon and Tim Watson were arguing about whether or not Eddie McGuire should receive a "Please Explain" over his comments on Thursday night that Brent Fewkes was "the goal umpire from hell".

Gary Lyon, a Channel Nine employee, was inflexible....

"He's first and foremost a commentator. So, NO."

Watson, a Channel Seven employee, was just as insistent....

"He's the Collingwood president, there's no excuse. So, YES."

Then in response to Watson's repeated questioning as to whether or not Eddie was EVEN the Collingwood president, Lyon obfuscated and just continued to incant....

"He's a Com-Men-Ta-Tor."

Billy Brownless, a Channel Nine employee, finally popped up....

"Fine Eddie? No chance. They've got no balls."

Rather indiscrete, Billster, but on the money....

League will not sanction McGuire for umpiring comments

THE AFL will not sanction Collingwood president Eddie McGuire for lambasting a goal umpire during the television commentary of the Magpies' 10-goal loss to Brisbane last Thursday.

After a blatant officiating error in the second quarter of the match at the Gabba, McGuire described a first-game goal umpire as "the umpire from hell".

An AFL spokesman said today that the league did not feel that the incident warranted sending McGuire a "please explain" letter.

How the AFL can in Patrick Keane's words....

"That would be an issue for Channel 9, as to how he is perceived as a broadcaster."

....pass the buck in such a shameless -- and yes Bill, gutless -- fashion is totally beyond me. Eddie should have at least been asked in "for a chat".

The comments of Lyon, disingenuous to the point of lying, Watson, provocative as only an opposition broadcaster can be and Brownless, offhanded as is his want, should all be taken with a grain of salt due to them being vested interests. However, they do serve to starkly highlight the problem seen by Tim Lane last year when he refused to work with Eddie McGuire. Namely, there's an obvious conflict of interest.

Then to further spotlight the COI problem, Eddie McGuire, the Collingwood President and Footy Show host, is allowed to get away with abusing an umpire, whilst James Hird, the Essendon Captain and panelist on the self same Footy Show, gets pilloried (Penalty pending) for doing the same thing -- admittedly worse.

It's merely another of the blatant inconsistencies apparent in the AFL that are contributing to my gradual, but inexorable, drift away from the game I once loved, but now approach with a corrosive cynicism.

Just a quick word on McGuire. I don't particularly have a problem with his calling Collingwood games. As long as he's held accountable for what he says.

Up to now I haven't detected any outrageous bias in his commentary, however over the last few weeks I've noticed him "leaning" on missed Collingwood free-kicks in the same way fans do while standing in the crowd cheering on their teams.

All footy fans know what I mean. You almost beg/hope for frees when you're team's involved, but when you're watching a game where you have no emotional investment, you see it in a much more clinical light and virtually never urge for the frees that could have "gone either way".

Overall though, what his commentary highlights is the lack of calling depth in Aussie Rules. It's regularly held by his supporters that he knows how to convey the excitement of a game, but so what? Judging by his screaming style, every third Aussie footy fan could do that.

Where is the smooth, clear voiced, humorous and excitement infused delivery of a Tim Lane or Dennis Cometti?

After Lane and Cometti, virtually every other commentator is either an American hipster style shill a la Clinton "Dished it off "Grybas and Jason "Junk Time" Bennett, or a loud screeching barker, a la Eddie McGuire, Brian Taylor or Rex Hunt. The latter two who often become unitelligable when the game's in the balance.

Me thinks it's time to teach Martin Tyler or Joe Buck about the finer points of Aussie Rules.

TAKE A GOOD HIRD LOOK AT YOURSELF

Yesterday while listening to Francis Leach, one of his guests was asked whether he'd seen the previous night's Footy Show:

"Real footy fans don't watch The Footy Show."

Bingo. That perfectly captures the feelings of me and my maties regarding the bloated, gimmick laden, over-hyped, unwatchable retail opportunity that is The Footy Show.

It also explains why I missed James Hird's cowardly bleatings on Wednesday night....

The cheap shot with costly repercussions

The inescapable conclusion from James Hird's performance on Wednesday night's The Footy Show is that the game's famously clean and brave footballer stepped off the field and committed a dirty and gutless deed.

Only one element of Hird's attack upon umpire Scott McLaren resembled his on-field style and that was its method, which, it must be said, was as highly skilled as it was effective.

Certainly, it worked better than his coach Kevin Sheedy's somewhat ridiculous attempts to deflect attention from what can only be described as a football crisis for the club, having been humiliated by Port Adelaide and then out-muscled by St Kilda. Could it be that after only two games and a two-year contract offer, Sheedy is at the crossroads again?

First, he ridiculously said on Monday that Nick Riewoldt was being protected by the umpires. Then on Tuesday's Talking Footy, Sheedy threatened payback time - he used the word "war" - the next time Essendon met the Saints. Sheedy's reasoning was that his players would wage war because Matthew Lloyd was reported and Aaron Hamill was not.

But all those deflections from Essendon's poor form proved to be Keystone Cops' stuff compared with Hird's attack upon the defenceless McLaren. The Bombers' captain took on a man who could not answer back with anywhere near the credibility of the Brownlow medallist.

McLaren will face sledging from crowds at every game at which he officiates, thanks to Hird. The AFL rightly fears that young children around the country - and The Footy Show averaged 500,000 viewers on Wednesday night - will be further turned off umpiring as a result of Hird's bleating.

The AFL has come down hard on the player. Andrew Demetriou's colleagues can rarely remember him so angry. Umpiring is one area that Demetriou has struggled to fix and the problem is being targeted by his replacement, Adrian Anderson. After two rounds of the season, the problem is as bad as ever or worse. Who would be an umpire now?

Because Hird and Essendon have not stopped bleating about the umpiring since the loss to St Kilda, their bad sportsmanship has hidden what clearly remains a problem - the fact that the quality of umpiring decisions at key moments in big games is not good enough.

But Hird's decision to target McLaren - and remember that Ian Robinson once sued the late Herald chief football writer Alf Brown - has taken the heat off the umpiring and placed the spotlight on Essendon and its paranoia. The club lost, for heaven's sake. And it would have lost however skilled the officiating. Does Hird truly believe that Essendon has been targeted by a particular umpire? Such a comment is bordering on stupidity.

Then again, he has form in this area. Two seasons ago he attacked the surface at Telstra Dome and then attempted to place some blame on the Herald Sun journalist who ghost wrote for him? Listening to Hird's alleged bemusement at the attention he has caused early on Thursday on radio SEN was a little pathetic.

The Bombers' captain took on a man who could not answer back ...Essendon's response was a little pathetic, also. Clearly, it did not influence its captain to bag an umpire. But it should do more than push the player and umpire to sort things out, man to man. It should sanction Hird.

The AFL has a problem also. It is looking at deregistering one of the game's most respected footballers at a time when a 20-year-old Carlton player could be allowed to play in round four, despite arriving at training on Monday high on ecstasy. Not to mention the fact it has made it clear it would allow players charged with rape to play an AFL game. James Hird has been a bully and a bad sport but surely he is not in that category.

Again, Caro ... err ... bingo. Whatever.

What with the AFL suffering all manner of difficulties at the moment, James Hird -- it may be just me, but under that urbane exterior, it's always seemed as though there's a total wanker waiting to materialise -- in a fit of rabid self (?) indulgence breaks the AFL rules so flagrantly it's hard to believe he acted alone.

Now, I'm not implying Hird was "told" to say what he said, I'm suggesting merely, that he was not discouraged. No doubt the prevailing climate at Essendon was one of extreme displeasure towards McClaren. Hird would have been party to this feeling. Was he ever warned: "Now be careful, Jim Bob. Don't slag off at the umpire."

And at the production meeting prior to the Footy Show, any contribution from Hird would no doubt have been debated. Subsequently his displeasure with the umpire would have arisen, any in-show comments canvassed and their impact debated. Once again, was Hird ever cautioned?

Never the less, I'd be very surprised if Hird was suspended. The more likely result is a hefty fine. And I'd be even more surprised if it was Hird who paid it.

But you know what pisses me off most, The Footy Show -- once again -- has been able to garner publicity by being controvertial for controvertial's sake.

I suggest readers avoid next week's follow up when the James Hird defence collective will attempt to justify his outburst and somehow impugn the umpire.

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.

COMETTI'D TO MEMORY

Last night, Melbourne v Richmond as The Demons moved to a 70 point lead early in the last quarter and it looked like a gruesome Tiger debacle:

"Just like a new date at closing time ... it's getting ugly."

Update: Today I had lunch with an old friend who asked what the hell "Comet Tied" was supposed to mean. When I told her she suggested it would make much more sense with an apostrophe instead of the second E.

I agree there's something NQR, but the apostrophe doesn't look QR either. Whaddaya reckon out there? Any suggestions?