Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Add us to iTunes HERE

Many thanks to Disco for his originality in bringing AFL podcasting to the world, and his continued support over the years.  We would not be here now, six years down the track, without his support and knowledge.

Also a great many thanks go to all the presenters who have graced the microphones over the years, including Wiz, Bushman, Traka, Polly, Moose, Auction, The Plumber, Work Experience Boy, Lucy, Dr Loch and The Watcher, The Dogman from Alcatraz, Bluey Diggit, Le Ferrey, Frodo from The Shire, Odgi (The Lege), and more recently Theo G, The Rookie, Bear, The Falcon, DJ and anyone else that  I have inconveniently forgotten.

Apologies if I have missed anyone but please let me say to all of you that I appreciate the time and effort you have put in over the past 6 years to help us continue to bring a real and unsanitised version of the game behind Australian Rules footy to our listeners all over the world.  Notwithstanding the fact that we continue to grow in Brunei and The Sudan, Footytalk would have stopped a long time ago without your help and your interest so a HUGE thank you and an appreciative handshake from me to you all.

Season 2005.

Show 1

Add us to iTunes HERE

As many of you may have heard this year, the site is in the process of undergoing a major change and re-structuring – much like the Carlton and Essendon Football Clubs. All the boys love bringing you a different opinion on footy each week and we love doing the shows but we do as much for your entertainment as we do for our own ego’s . The big questions is in relation to what you, as valued listeners and supporters of Footytalk over the past three years, really want to see on the site. We would love to be able to bring you not just the things we find interesting and entertaining, but also those things that you really want to see, read and hear as well. Your opinions are all very valid and we would be interested in your feedback on how to make the site better – for YOU.

G’day and welcome to Footytalk.com.au – The World’s First Australian
Rules Footy Podcast with your hosts, Disco & The Explosion.
Sorry this has taken so long to get back up and running again for 2007 but we WILL be around and bigger/better than ever.
I have just signed Footytalk.com.au up into the 2007 Footytips Comp.
The direct link is as follows:-
Footytalk.com.au Footytips 2007
Also, we should soon have all the details of our own ‘DreamTeam
Comp’ which will give Disco NO excuses this year and we can all tear
him down a peg or two.
Thanks for all your continued support over 2005-2006 and we are
looking forward to bringing you all more quality podcasts in 2007.
From Disco & The Explosion (and the whole team of blokes with good heads for podcasting)

2 Comments
Great to see signs of life from footytalk.com.au!
I am in and have taken a lead from The Explosion last year, I have
created a second entry where I have tipped all 22 rounds prior to first
bounce round 1.
Again, good to see you guys back,
Keep up the good work!

Comment by BostonPat – March 23, 2007

I
hope you did well with your tips on the weekend Pat. Both forms – week
by week and the yearly one as well. I think I should just pick the home
teams from now on.

Comment by Disco – April 5, 2007

pro’s/con’s of the priority pick in the AFL National Draft has caused

Disco to rant on our weekly podcasts about this disgrace.

However, rather than just rant, he has gone one step better and has

developed a solution to the problem which will prevent teams playing

for a Priority Pick. (Who are they kidding? We all know it happens

don’t we Denis and Mick)

Anyway, the following idea has been developed by Disco with a few

minor details or alterations thrown in by The Explosion. Love to know

your thoughts.

Drafting a Solution!

i)          At the end of each season, each team is allocated a number of ‘Draft Points’ depending on where they finish on the ladder.

For argument’s sake, lets say 1st receives 1,000 points and 16th

receives 16,000. The idea is that these points are used as ‘currency’

in order to ‘buy’ or draft those players who have made registered to be

drafted.

ii)   Each player will be given a ‘price’ based on any or all of the following

a/. their draft camp results

b/. past playing history

c/. a perceived value to the market agreed upon by the recruitment managers of each club

Eg.  Marc Murphy may have a price of 7,500 points on his head as one of the leading youngsters in the 2006 draft.

Matthew Lappin may have a total of 4,000 points due to his past playing

history and the expectation of how useful he could be to a new club.

Little Joey Patten is a draft hopeful from Glenelg who has struggled in

the U/18 Championships and didn’t get to draft camp. He may have a

price of 350 points.

iii) Teams use their Draft Points in order to bid

on the player/s they want. The draft then becomes a form of Auction

with teams bidding for the players who they feel best suits their

needs. The team who is lower on the ladder will obviously have first

dibs and if they meet the allocated ‘price’ of the player, the player

is then considered to be drafted by that club.

Eg: – Marc Murphy decides to stay in Victoria. The price of 7,500

points is considered too high by Carlton, Collingwood, and Hawthorn who

have up to 12 spaces to fill after delistings. This would leave

Essendon in the box seat to pick up Murphy – spending 7,500 points and

still having 5,500 points to spend on other players later in the draft.

iv) Clubs will fill their available places on their

lists with players who have nominated and will have to carefully use

their allotted points to fill their places within their availably

points. Teams can then choose to spend all their points on 1 player or

spend them on 5 players depending on their needs.

Importantly, all 38 places on the list need not be filled if a club chooses.

iv) Clubs can also trade Draft Points to other clubs for players or trade players to other clubs for more points.

eg. Hawthorn consider that Marc Murphy is a wonderful acquisition

and choose to go all out to draft him before Essendon are given the

chance. Due to a number of retirements and delistings, they have to

fill 8 places with 15,000 points. Murphy will cost them ½ that so they

will somehow have to find 7 players for 7,500 points. In order to

increase their chances, they choose to trade Trent Croad back to

Fremantle for 3000 points plus Jeff Farmer. This will mean that

Hawthorn now have 10,500 points to spend on 7 players (Farmer being the

8th)

Alternatively, Essendon decide that Mark Johnson is asking for too

much money and decide to trade him to Port Adelaide. Port will hand

over the 5,500 points for Johnson to Essendon, giving them a starting

point of 18,500 points to fill their list.

v)          Clubs can also carry over Draft Points in to the next year if they do not spend them.

vi)         Lowest ranked teams can bid first.

As mentioned earlier, Carlton would bid first for Murphy if they

wanted but if they have 12 place to fill and have not been able to

trade for more points due to the poor quality of their current list,

they will consider Murphy to be poor value for money and will choose to

use their first pic to bid/buy Mark Alvey (Footscray/Bomber reject who

is priced at 850 points)

The Market sets the value for the players highest bidder wins (the

AFL could set a minimum value for players if it is necessary), the

position in the draft does not matter anymore and a team that finishes

12th could get the best player in the draft if they want to use all

their Draft Points in one go.

vii) Rookies are not included in this system but

can be promoted at any stage during the year when 3 week injury occurs

to current player.

A possible scenario:-

(Based on an Adelaide v Geelong Grand Final)

Points earned from 2005 Season

Also includes number of places available on the Senior List after delistings.

Adelaide            -  1000  -6 places available

Geelong            -   2000  -7 Places

West Coast            -  3000  -4 places

Sydney -  4000  -4 places

North Melbourne-  5000  -8 places

St. Kilda            – 6000  -3 places

Melbourne            – 7000  -7 places

Fremantle            – 8000  -6 places

Brisbane            – 9000  -9 places

Footscray            – 10000  -5 places

Essendon            – 11000  -8 places

Richmond            – 12000  -5 places

Port Adelaide             – 13000  -8 places

Hawthorn            – 14000  -4 places

Collingwood            -  15000  -10 places

Carlton – 16000  -12 places

From the above table we can see that prior to any trading season,

Adelaide will have only 1000 points to fill 6 vacancies on their list

for 2006. They can spend all 1000 points on one player to bring their

list size to 33 or can spend 166 points on each of 6 players to fill

their list.

Footscray/Bulldogs have 10000 points and can spend all on one player

bringing their list size to 33, or spend an average of 2000 points on 6

players to fill their list.

Collingwood can have 10 players at an average of 1500 points or any derivation of players up to their total amount of 15000.

Let’s say that Adelaide are keen to get a quality backman. They can

trade Perrie to Geelong for Kingsley plus 1000 points. This gives them

6 places to fill still, but an extra 1000 points and increases their

viability in the draft.

Obviously the permutations and combinations of such a system would

need to be worked out in more detail but at footytalk.com.au, we firmly

believe that this system has merit and should be implemented as early

as 2006.

Disco & The Explosion

www.footytalk.com.au

3 Comments

This is an

interesting idea but it would never work and doesn’t go to the heart of

the problem, perseption. Its the only problem with the current

system, the fact that it appears that teams try to lose to get draft

picks. Well in this system teams will be accused of throwing games to

get more points.

If you bring in a lottery, teams get accused of throwing games to get

more chances in that lotto (normally Lotto type draft systems are

weighted).

The only answer (to this issue) is to get rid of the draft and make

it and open system. So lets look at it another way. Is there really a

problem?

I don’t think so. We have just finished one of the most even years in history.

In my opinion, it would be better to make the December/Veterns draft a

lotto for the non final 8 teams. To me this draft is more unfair as it

firmly effects trading and signing of players.

JMTC

Molly

Comment by Phillip Molly Malone  August 30, 2005

Thanks for your continued input Molly.

There are a few things that I think need to be commented on though.

The issue of perception is a small issue I think – more of a mejar

beat-up than a real issue. Yes, a lot of supporters discuss it (ad

nauseum and for weeks on end) however I think most true supporters

still barrack with their hearts and like to see their teams win.

I have had a look at Hawkheadquarters.com.au and Theblueview.org to see

what sort of comments were posted regarding this issue. There are some

crazies who promote the apparent tanking of games for a Priority pick

but probably more who want to see their team win each week. There is -

thankfully – still a great deal of pride in the average supporter.

I personally don’t like the idea of a lottery. Apart from the fact that

it is an American system and we all know my feelings towards doing

things ‘because it is done in  -  -  – ..’ part of the world’. Apart from

that, the question is where to stop and start? Should it be those who

win less than 5 games? (Same problem as now – it is prone to being

manipulated so some teams can finish in the spot for a lottery pick).

It can also have the tendency to reward those who don’t really require

the assistance. (i.e Collingwood this year who have had a plethora of

injuries and should have won more than 5 games – do they deserve a

chance at a young player when they played in two GF’s a while ago).

The allocation of draft points is a more ‘user-friendly’ system

because it is less prone to manipulation on the field. The ability to

trade draft points means that everyone has a chance to build their list

in the way that suits them – if they are prepared to pay in terms of

draft points or players.

It provides a whole new perspective on the trades and draft, and

importantly, isn’t subjected to the same ‘perception’ of teams tanking

games.

At least in my opinion – and since Disco suggested this system, I imagine in his as well.

Comment by Explosion-  August 31, 2005

Scrap

the priority pick, it gives the really badly performing clubs far too

much ‘prizemoney’ when they definitely don’t deserve it. It

artificially props up the competition as well.

The best way to make it fair to everyone is to base it on the number

of games won over a 3 year period. The team that has won the least

number of games get the first pick and then the second worst performed

team has second pick and so on. That way the access to the best talent

isn’t given to a team that has one bad year and those that get the

first 2-3 picks are then more in need of an injection of quality youth.

For example :

2002

Port Adelaide 18

Brisbane Lions 17

Adelaide 15

Collingwood 13

Essendon 12

Melbourne 12

Kangaroos 12

West Coast 11

Geelong 11

Hawthorn 11

Sydney 9

Western Bulldogs 9

Fremantle 9

Richmond 7

St Kilda 5

Carlton 3

2003

Port Adelaide 18

Collingwood 15

Brisbane Lions 14

Sydney 14

Fremantle 14

Adelaide 13

West Coast 12

Essendon 13

Hawthorn 12

Kangaroos 11

St Kilda 11

Geelong 7

Richmond 7

Melbourne 5

Carlton 4

Western Bulldogs 3

2004

Port Adelaide 17

Brisbane Lions 16

St Kilda 16

Geelong 15

Melbourne 14

Sydney Swans 13

West Coast Eagles 13

Essendon 12

Fremantle 11

Kangaroos 10

Carlton 10

Adelaide 8

Collingwood 8

Western Bulldogs 5

Hawthorn 4

Richmond 4

Now, based on those wins over the three year period, the draft order for 2004 should have been :

1. Western Bulldogs (17)

2. Carlton (17)

3. Richmond (18)

4. Hawthorn (27)

5. Melbourne (31)

6. St. Kilda (32)

7. Kangaroos (33)

8. Geelong (33)

9. Fremantle (34)

10. Collingwood (36)

11. Adelaide (36)

12. West Coast (36)

13. Sydney (36)

14. Essendon (37)

15. Brisbane (47)

16. Port Adelaide (53)

Where teams have got the same number of wins, you revert back to their ladder positions from the immediate season.

According to many, he is the most respected football jounalist in

Melbourne – and some would consider in Australia. His piece in this

mornings Herald-Sun titled ‘Don’t take physical contact out of game’,

serves only to show that he either didn’t watch the incident or

considers that sniping is still a good part of the game.

For those of you in Brunei, Hawaii, Poland and the Belgian Republic

who have not seen the incident in question, see if you can find it

online somewhere. Simon Wiggins from Carlton had the opportunity to run

back and take a mark of a high kick on the wing. Showing his usual

amount of courage, he didn’t take any short steps and jumped with the

ball to take a gutsy chest mark. Very courageous. By not taking a short

step, and not looking to see what was coming, Wiggins missed seeing

Pickett making a bee-line towards him but he was NEVER going to be in

the marking contest. Pickett had plenty of time to pull up and simply

grab Wiggins on his way down to prevent him from playing on or dishing

off a handball.

Now what does Pickett do? He decides to simply jump at the man

making the play with a hip and shoulder bump in what can only be

described as a charge. I have no problems with a good legal hip and

shoulder being delivered within play. What I object to is someone

deciding to deliver an illegal bump when he wasn’t in the contest.

Sheahan writes

‘What was Pickett to do as Simon Wiggins hurtled towards him, running with the flight of the      ball?

It was inspiring stuff from Wiggins, yet Pickett did little more than

arrive a little late, turn side on, brace himself for contact, and put

Wiggins on his back.

Contact of sorts was inevitable. What was his alternative? Peel off? Return to stand the mark?’

I’m sorry Mr. Sheahan but your descriptions of events is entirely

incorrect in the eyes of this reporter. Pickett did not just arrive

late, turn side on and brace himself for contact. He purposely tucked

his arm in and jumped off the ground into an open Wiggins with the

intent to place him squarely on his bum! And there was NO need for him

to do it. Even as the ball was in the air, it was obvious to just about

everyone in the crowd that Wiggins would mark the ball and that Pickett

would arrive late. That is SECONDS before either the ball or Pickett

arrived. Pickett KNEW he was not going to make the contest and simply

took the easy way out to snipe at an undefended player with the intent

to hurt him.

‘What was his alternative?’ Sheahan asks? His only legal course of

action was to stand his ground and wrap his arms around Wiggins as he

landed to ensure that he didn’t shoot out a handball.

Mike Sheahan’s attempt to defend this callous action is pure folly.

However, I do agree with some things that Mike Sheahan writes.

‘The sensitivity of the authorities to so-called violence needs to

be kept in check’ and ‘It is time to let the players play. To ignore

minor encounters.’ are views that many football supporters would agree

with in this age of the ‘sanitised’ game. However Mr. Sheahan seems to

be a bit misguided in his interpretation of a ‘minor encounter.’ This

was NOT one.

Posted by The Explosion – 2006

Indigenous Team of the Century reeks of discrimination and is a kick in

the teeth to the many members of different cultures, both Anglo-Saxon

and others, who have helped make Australian Rules Football the greatest

team-sport in the world since 1858.

The Australian Football League would have us think that it is the

champion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders very public

battle for recognition in the real world through its

anti-discrimination and racial vilification laws, however this decision

has done nothing more than to show the Australian public just how out

of touch with reality the AFL actually is.

The AFL has decided to single out a minority group as being more

deserving of accolades than other groups and this is as great a form as

discrimination as anyone would wish to see. To argue my point I refer

to the Greek community who named its own ‘Team of the Century’ in June

2004 – a team in which the AFL C.E.O may well have figured. However,

the AFL did not contribute to any official endorsement of this team and

the Melbourne Greek community went it alone in its night of nights.

Why then would the AFL decide to spend OUR money (yes, yours and

mine) in endorsing a team that has contributed less than 10% of all

players over the last 108 years of official AFL/VFL football. From my

research, there are currently 58 players on senior AFL lists which

represent less than 11% of total senior players. This reeks of

political correctness gone mad.

There is not one football lover who cannot recognise that there are

some indigenous players who have brought a great deal of joy and

excitement to the game we love. From Polly Farmer and Syd Jackson in

the 60’s and 70’s, to Michael Long, Derek Kickett, and Adam Goodes in

the 90’s and the new millennium, there are a large number of indigenous

players who have excited the masses with their skills and abilities.

Has there ever been an indigenous player capable of doing something

that no-one else ever has that deserves special mention? Well apart

from Daniel Wells’ goal in the goal square last year, the answer is no.

I would argue that there are equal numbers of players from other

backgrounds who have excited us just as much, (if not more) than those

with indigenous backgrounds, and to single out this group of players as

providing something special is just wrong, unjust and bemusing. Why is

the AFL pandering to one specific minority group and not to the others??

There are people who argue that the indigenous players have an

innate ability to excite and have a special brilliance about them as a

group. Have there been Aboriginal players who have been able to do more

than players such as Chris Judd, Tony Lockett, Keith Greig, Roy Cazaly,

Alex Jesaulenko, Peter Daicos, Peter Hudson, Stephen Silvagni, Bobby

Skilton, Ian Stewart, Dick Reynolds etc. The answer is of course, a

resounding NO. Why then is the AFL giving special treatment?

This list of indigenous ‘could-a-beens’ is as long as the list of those who have made it.

I speak of the likes of Willie Dick, Troy Bond, Sean Charles, Phil

Narkle, Adrian McAdam, Michael Mitchell and a plethora of others. All

are talented in their own right but every player who has ever played

senior AFL football is exceptionally talented anyway. My point being is

that as a group, not all indigenous players can be branded with the

‘special’ tag or being referred to as being ‘naturals’ as some

commentators would have us believe.

As with players from all cultures, some will make it and some won’t.

It is unfortunately human nature that some players are simply better

than others and deserve recognition on their own merits.

The official AFL ‘Team of the Century’ contained only one indigenous

footballers? ONE! At that stage in history, Polly Farmer had been

judged as being the only Indigenous player to be good enough to be

ranked highly among his peers. I dare say that little has changed in

the past nine years to alter anyone’s view of the official AFL Team of

the Century. If it has, let the Aboriginal players be judged against

ALL players in a new selection process.

It is a sad fact of current society that people are being treated as

being ‘special’ according to the colour of their skin, their religious

beliefs or their gender. Isn’t this what anti-discrimination laws are

supposed to stamp out? Whatever happened to treating people according

to the merits of their own abilities?

The AFL needs to get real and either treat footballers as a group

in its entirety and not set certain groups apart as being special, or

alternatively, give a very public endorsement to ALL minority groups as

they select their own ‘Teams of the Century’. Fortunately, I can’t

imagine that the Italians, Greeks, English, Irish are all that petty to

worry about it.

6 Comments

Seeing as how my

knowledge of Australian culture comes entirely from your podcasts, the

weekly Aussie Rules Highlight Show, and the Crocodile Dundee movies,

take my comments with a grain of salt.

Endorsing one ethnic group over all others does seem to be

discriminatory. The Explosion is right – players should be judged by

their abilities; not their ethnicity. Furthermore, commentators

implying that indigenous players are ‘special’ are treading dangerously

close to racism.

On the other hand, maybe the AFL is doing a service to the Aborginal

community in naming this team. With higher rates of unemployment,

poverty, and health problems (according to Wikipedia), perhaps it is a

good idea to identify indigenous role models and celebrate the

contribution of Aboriginal Australians. One could argue that by being

indigenous, the Aboriginal population *is* unique and therefore *does*

deserve special recognition (although I cannot imagine Major League

Baseball sponsoring a ‘Greatest Native American Team’ in the U.S.).

But The Explosion goes completely wacky with the following statement:

‘It is unfortunately human nature that some players are simply better than others and deserve recognition on their own merits.’

Perhaps you would prefer a world where all players are identical and

all games end in a tie score, but it is not *unfortunate* that

individuals are different from one another. What is important is that

individuals, with different backgrounds and ability levels, have the

opportunity for success through their own hard work and determination.

And maybe that is what the AFL is doing. By endorsing an Indigenous

Team of the Century, the AFL may be reminding young indigenous

Australians that success is possible through their own efforts.

(Hoping I typed nothing offensive)

Comment by Brad Thiessen  >

Brad, you certainly have offended anyone here – well I speak for myself actually and can’t speak for Disco.

My comment ‘It is unfortunately human nature that some players are

simply better than others and deserve recognition on their own merits’

seems to have been misinterpreted and I would like to explain what I

mean. Or perhaps using that term was not the right way to voice my

opinion

I mean that it is unfortunate that certain people or groups seem to

want to equalise the world we live in without recognising differences

whether they be sex, race, religion gender or skill level.

The unfortunate thing is that people are not taught to strive to be

their best anymore; the sanitisation of the world does not seem to

recognise individual differences.

For example, in this state at this point in history, kids are no

longer graded in their education. They are assessed as being

‘competent’ or ‘not yet competent’. Kids don’t fail and aren’t prepared

for their adult life that is not fair. We are not taught how to deal

with things that do not go our way. This is unfortunate.

In the UK, the teachers wish to change the term ‘fail’ into being

‘deferred success’. All we are doing is treating children with kid

gloves and they tend to get a rude shock in life when it becomes hard

and real.

Getting back to sport, I am the last one who wants a world of clones

where people just ‘compete’ and individual skill is ignored. This is my

point. The Indigenous players – as good as some of them are – should be

judged against ALL footballers to earn their accolades and not just

within the boundaries of their own culture.

Comment by Explosion  -  August 3, 2005

Some of those guys never played VFL/AFL so the reference to the AFL team of the century is irrelevant.

Comment by craigm  -  August 3, 2005

Oops – I did misinterpret your comments.  Sorry about that.

On second thought, I didn’t misinterpret -  I just had a ‘deferred

understanding’ of your comments. I agree with everything you wrote in

this reply.

Comment by Brad Thiessen

Great

point Craig. I guess the will try to sell this lemon by saying that AFL

actually refers to the sport itself. This is a complete misnomer as the

term ‘AFL’ is a brand name – the name of a League. A small part of what

footy actually is. I can’t stand the fact that the term ‘AFL’ is used

in reference to the whole sport.

As mentioned in one of our very first podcasts, we use the term ‘Worlds

First Australian Rules Football’ podcast to refer to the sport as a

whole, not just the Australian Football League.

Comment by Explosion  -  August 4, 2005

No

drama’s Brad. I will have to try and explain myself a bit better from

the start in my rants, but sometimes I just get caught in the moment

and the keyboard runs itself.

Comment by Explosion  -  August 4, 2005

scathing attack on the AFL and their unwillingness to fall into line

with the World Anti-Doping Association’s drug code recently. It has

been suggested that I am way out of line with the real world and that I

should get off my soap box and accept life the way it is.

To those people out there with this point of view, I say only one thing  -PULL YOUR HEADS IN!!

Without getting too far ahead of myself The AFL has shown a great

deal of poor judgement in its recent stand on the issue of illicit

drugs in sport and the results could be a lot more far-reaching than

they have considered.

Things to consider: -

Drugs are still illegal within our society and popular usage doesn’t

make their use right or correct. Unfortunately the legal system in

Australia deals with drug use with a soft-handed approach and this only

serves to encourage more rather than discourage.

Many people have been touched by the scourge of drug use in their

own lives  -whether they have had family or friends use them, have been

victims of burglaries or robberies, have been approached by beggars on

the streets, or even have a vested interest in the Schapelle Corby case.

With the AFL choosing to treat drug use amongst it’s athletes with a

kid-gloves approach, the message sent to people (children especially

who still hold AFL footballers in such high-esteem  -(not god’s=”">) is that the AFL condones the use of illicit drugs by its players.

Is it right that the AFL  -the national body responsible for the

promotion of the game  -should not only condone the use of illegal

drugs, but as a result, is seen to be implicitly condoning an increase

in criminal behaviour among the footballing public. It would be folly

to seriously suggest that this is the case but the perceptions of such

a thing do exist within the general public and if for no other reason,

the AFL MUST reconsider its stance

THE AFL IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW  – NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT ANDREW DEMETRIOU, RON EVANS AND ADRIAN ANDERSEN SEEM TO THINK THEY ARE.

Perhaps I am being a doom-sayer but I have to suggest that the link

between illegal drugs in our society and an increase in crime rates

exists. Without having the ability to research this theory in depth

myself, I would instead challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

Let me digress and look at this whole issue from a ‘real world’ perspective.

A kid  -encouraged by his peers at school  -decides to experiment

with marijuana at a party. He is a good junior footballer but because

the AFL policy on drugs is soft, he has heard that his favourite player

smokes it and nothing happened to him. He likes the euphoria it brings

and begins to smoke regularly. The more he wants, the more he gets and

the more he needs. The more he needs, the more he tries to get but

can’t afford it. As a result, he becomes embroiled in the game. In

order to afford more, he either turns to petty theft, or to dealing at

school or on the street.

This increased income allows him to smoke more. Perhaps he will be

persuaded to experiment with harder drugs. (Again the research suggests

that this link exists)

One day on the corner of Russell and Bourke St in Melbourne is caught

in a police sting dealing. He is hauled off to court eventually but is

offered a choice of counselling and education because ‘drugs are a

social problem, not a legal problem’

This soft-handed approach only serves to encourage him and not

dissuade him. From here the spiral downwards is quick and immense. A

life of crime and a drug-riddled death at 24 are what awaits him.

Don’t anyone try to tell me this cannot happen because I have seen it first hand.

You will ask – how can the AFL be held responsible for this. The

answer is that of course, they can’t be. However, by being seen to

condone the popular use of marijuana and other so-called ‘soft drugs ‘

like ecstasy and speed by NOT penalising players caught using them, the

message is clear to others that it is OK to use it and nothing bad

happens.

What risk is there that younger people who have not yet decided

whether to try drugs or not will begin to experiment with these

substances because the AFL have decided that penalising users is not

the right option? That is a question that cannot be answered at this

time but by refusing to come into line with WADA policies, the

Australian Football League is giving its approval for youngsters to

indulge.

In many aspects of life, the reverse is true. It is NOT OK to use it

and on many occasions, something bad does happen. Ask anyone whose life

has been ruined by the scourge of illicit drugs what they think of the

AFL’s stance! I would be interested in the results.

The AFL has an opportunity to be a community leader in the fight

against illicit drugs by acting responsibly and adhering to the WADA

drug code in relation to so-called soft drugs. Rather than condone drug

use in sport and in general society, it should be using its image and

its brand to promote the dangers associated with drug use and to try

and stamp it out. As it stands, the AFL has weakened and succumbed to a

problem because it is too hard and they don’t have the guts to stand

tall and stand tough!!

6 Comments

While Disco’s

podcast comments did seem to show he’s in the AFL’s back pocket, he’s

spot-on with his attack on the AFL for their lax stance on drug use.

The National Basketball Association in the U.S. had a similar

problem in the 1970-80s. League officials, along with coaches and

teammates, would turn a blind eye to players (more often than not,

superstars) who were abusing drugs. This not only hurt the quality of

the game, it undoubtedly influenced young fans of the sport.

When the NBA began testing for marijuana in 1999, Charles Oakley (a

veteran player) stated that ‘You’ve got 60% of your league on

marijuana. What can you do?’

Well, I guess the AFL would have decided to do nothing.

Keep up the great work Disco & The Explosion,

Brad Thiessen

From the state of Iowa in the U.S.

Comment by Brad Thiessen  -  July 15, 2005

Leave

your preaching to the pulpit, buddy. You clearly have no understanding

of recreational drug use beyond some sort of hysterical and cheesy

analogy far removed from the truth. Is this Hillsong’s AFL site?

Mick

From the state of awareness in Victoria

Comment by Mick  -  July 19, 2005

No,

you’re right. I have no idea about ‘recreational/illicit/illegal’ drug use Mick,

because I have never felt the need to escape from my own reality and

‘indulge’. More power to you.

Comment by explosion  -  July 19, 2005

You’ll

be happy to know choir boy that the AFL’s done a backflip on their

original decision. Needed the funding for grassroots footy I suppose.

Following is a leaked memo from Demetriou to the club presidents

before his gutless decision. I maintain the AFL had it right. Up until

twelve hours ago.

Memorandum

To AFL Presidents

cc AFL Club CEO’s, AFL Club Coaches, AFL Executive

From Andrew Demetriou Date 1 July 2005

Re AFL Anti Doping Policies

Gentlemen

As you would be aware the Australian Sports Commission has

determined that the AFL’s anti doping policies as at 30 June 2005 are

not compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code. As a result of this

determination by the ASC they have decided to withdraw all funding that

they provide to the AFL which for the financial year 2005/06 was set at

$458,000.

Attached to this note is a summary of some of the key points in

relation to the AFL’s Anti-Doping policy and the WADA Code together

with a summary of the difference in sanctions between the AFL’s

Anti-Doping Policies and the WADA Code.

Following is a more detailed review of the differences between the

AFL’s Anti-Doping Policies and the WADA Code together with some back

ground on the AFL’s Anti Doping Policies.

Summary on where the codes differ

§ There are presently very few differences between the WADA code and

AFL drug testing position  -the AFL’s position in relation to

performance enhancing drugs such as anabolic steroids, EPO, human

growth hormone etc is exactly the same as the position under the WADA

Code;

§ WADA only requires testing for illicit drugs (including marijuana)

in competition (match day). There is no testing for these types of

drugs out of competition. In many sports this equates to a period of

testing for illicit drugs of only weeks;

§ The AFL regime for testing for illicit drugs is significantly more

comprehensive and approximately 500 tests take place throughout the

year any time when a player is at training or under the control or

direction of his club;

§ The government insists that in order to be ‘WADA compliant’  -any

positive tests for marijuana (in competition) must be dealt with via a

public hearing together with the following sanctions:-

First offence  -0 to one year

Second offence  -two years

Third offence  -life

§ AFL approach is to test far more vigorously (in and out of

competition) but to initially deal with detection of illicit drugs via

confidential counselling as per our drugs and medical advice and

supported by the Australian Drug Foundation. Suspensions would only

take place after a third positive test (up to six matches). Subsequent

positive tests would result in a suspension of between six and twelve

matches;

§ AFL approach to illicit drugs is significantly stricter in the

sense that we test for drugs like ecstasy, cocaine, amphetamines

throughout the year  -not just match days. Expert advice is that our

mode of dealing with these tests is significantly better practice from

a medical perspective;

§ We publicly support what the government is intending to achieve

and the principles behind WADA and will continue to work with the

government to attempt to reach a mutually acceptable position.

Background to AFL Anti Doping Policies

The AFL’s Anti Doping policies are contained in two separate codes:

1. AFL Anti Doping Code; and

2. AFL Illicit Drugs Policy.

The AFL’s Anti Doping Code deals with performance enhancing drugs

including anabolic steroids, EPO and Human Growth Hormone as well as

diuretics and other masking agents.

The AFL’s Anti Doping Code is entirely consistent with the WADC in

relation to the prohibition of performance enhancing drugs and the

sanctions that are applied for a positive test.

Stimulants and narcotics are also dealt with the in the AFL’s Anti

Doping Code and the WADA Code on an in competition (match day) basis

only.

The AFL’s Illicit Drugs Policy deals with stimulants and narcotics

(out of competition) and marijuana (in competition and out of

competition).

The AFL’s Illicit Drugs Policy was implemented at the beginning of

this season following detailed research and analysis and after seeking

the best possible information from around the sporting and medical

world. We were consistently advised that the best way to deal with any

illicit drug problem is confidential counselling and education (i.e.

the emphasis should be on prevention and intervention) with punishment

used only as a last resort.

The Chief Executive of the Australian Drug Foundation advised the

AFL that he ‘supports a graded range of interventions that also ensure

player privacy is protected and welfare is a focus’ and that the AFL’s

‘staged approach with privacy protection is strongly endorsed. Likewise

the varied response to illicit drugs that may or may not be performance

enhancing is also sensible. Marijuana is a good example  -it is highly

unlikely that this drug will enhance performance and will probably be

detrimental.’

Testing Regime

AFL currently undertakes over 500 drug tests on the playing group

each year at a cost of over $400,000. The drug testing is underpinned

by a rigorous annual education program which all players are required

to attend.

The AFL’s testing regime and education program is undertaken by the

Australian Sports Drug Agency (‘ASDA’). The board of ASDA (which is a

government statutory authority) recently resolved to continue testing

for the AFL regardless of whether the AFL is deemed to be WADA

compliant by the Australian Sports Commission.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.

Kind regards

Andrew Demetriou

Chief Executive Officer

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

1. The AFL agrees entirely with WADA on the issue of cheating with

performance-enhancing drugs. We are totally consistent on all these

matters.

2. As a key fact on illicit drugs, the AFL tests through a longer

period than any other Australian sport (44 weeks of testing) and

conducts more tests than any sport, indicating our commitment to

exposing any drug-taking.

3. The AFL treats illicit drugs on non-match day with a different

approach to WADA. A key example is the difference in treatment of

cannabis. Our approach is to attempt to rehabilitate and treat a drug

problem, which can often be a mistake or can be inadvertent in some

cases. The WADA approach is to go straight to sanctions and public

exposure. Our approach is based on expert medical and drug counselling

advice.

4. We are continuing to negotiate with the Federal Government and

the Australian Sports Commission. We will continue to discuss these

issues.

SANCTION SUMMARY

In-competition testing/Out of competition testing – Performance

Enhancing drugs (anabolic steroids, EPO, human growth hormone etc),

diuretics, masking agents etc

WADA:

1st Offence: mandatory two year ban

2nd: mandatory life ban

AFL

1st Offence: mandatory two year ban

2nd: mandatory life ban

For in-competition testing: marijuana

WADA:

1st offence: up to 1 year ban

2nd: mandatory two years

3rd: mandatory life ban.

AFL:

1st offence: counselling

2nd: counselling and tell club doctor

3rd: up to 6 week ban

4th: between 6 weeks and 12 weeks

For out of competition testing – marijuana

WADA: No testing therefore no sanction

AFL:

1st offence: counselling

2nd: counselling and tell club doctor

3rd: up to 6 week ban

4th: between 6 weeks and 12 weeks

For in-competition testing: illicit drugs (eg. Cocaine, ecstasy etc)

WADA:

1st offence: mandatory 2 year ban

2nd: mandatory life ban.

AFL:

1st offence: up to 12 week ban

2nd: mandatory 2 year ban

3rd: mandatory life ban

For out of competition testing – illicit drugs (eg. Cocaine, ecstasy etc)

WADA: No testing therefore no sanction

AFL:

1st offence: counselling

2nd: counselling and tell club doctor

3rd: up to 12 week suspension

4th: not less than 12 week suspension.

Comment by Mick  -  July 19, 2005

Am

happy to debate the issue anytime and put across a balanced argument

but won’t resort to immature name-calling. Regardless of that, I would

have been happier if the AFL continued with their own drug ‘testing’

policies but concentrated more on bringing the penalties into line

with WADA policies.

The ‘out of season testing’ the AFL proposed was /is a great idea and

perhaps WADA should consider doing this more intensively because as it

is, their testing policy is a joke.

The whole penalty scenario for testing positive for illegal drugs is the biggest and most ill-conceived ‘punishment’ I have ever heard.

Comment by Explosion  -  July 20, 2005

Great site, and keep up your efforts – I agree with you.

This AFL Drug policy always worried me, something wasn’t quite right here,, then you hit it on the head.

THE AFL IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW  -NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT ANDREW DEMETRIOU, RON EVANS AND ADRIAN ANDERSEN SEEM TO THINK THEY ARE.

No one is above the law. However distasteful we may view any law, the LAWS are there to protect ALL of us, not just some.

Dont give in, keep up the good work,,, The AFL will eventually back

down, as the publicity will kill the $458,000 Grant, when its costing

them $400,000 for the drug testing program,,,,

OUCH !

Comment by Allan  -  April 6, 2006

So Gary Ablett is to be inducted into the AFL Hall of Fame.

Opinion becomes heated up on both sides of the argument and in all

honesty there seems to be no right or wrong answer. I would like to

voice my personal opinion and let you make your own minds up.

But just who is it that this argument is about?

Gary Ablett – the footballer or Gary Ablett – the man.

For those of you from other parts of Australia or other parts of the

world who don’t much about Mr. Ablett, let us reflect on his history.

Recruited as a promising footballer from Drouin in country Victoria,

he spent some time originally at Hawthorn with his brother Kevin. It is

reported that Gary couldn’t get used to the hectic lifestyle that

football-crazed Melbourne brings so decided to move to Myrtleford in

country Victoria for a bit of peace and quiet after only a handful of

games.

In 1984, he was coaxed down to Geelong, Victoria’s 2nd biggest city,

(and Football mad in their own perculiar way) which is located about 80

km south-west of Melbourne. This would have allowed Ablett to live a

more peaceful lifestyle away from the buzz of the big city, and to

still play football at its highest level. One would have imagined it

would be the ideal situation.

And Ablett thrived on it. Due to his onfield exploits he became one

of the few genuine superstars of Australian Football. He was skillful,

classy, tough and exciting. He took brilliant ‘speccies’, he kicked the

best goals and he feasted on Tiger meat – ..regularly. He was the epitome

of champion and in this reporters eyes, he was the greatest player that

ever played the game. He was treated as a God by many supporters,

journalists and fellow footballers.

Whilst his footballing prowess was never in question somehow, the

aura surrounding Gary Ablett the man began to dim. Rumours abounded

down along the Surf Coast of Victoria that Ablett was having domestic

troubles and some more serious personal issues. There was also an

alledged involvement with some of the area’s more nefarious characters

which made many supporters think.. ‘No.. that can’t be right. Not

Ablett. Surely.’

A sudden retirement from the game in the early 90’s made the

footballing public wonder what was going on. Something was sadly amiss

in the great man’s life or why would he feel the need to leave

something that he loved suddenly? Respectful of his privacy, he was

generally left to his own devices and not questioned much over his

decision. His decision to return to big time football in a reserves

match at Princes Park in Round 8 again had the footballing world abuzz

with memories of past deeds, and the anticipation of what may come.

The end finally came at the completion of the 1997 season. During a

248 game career where he became the 4th player to kick 1000 goals, he

achieved a lot, and gave many supporters, (both Geelong and opposition

alike) a great deal of joy and happiness. If he wasn’t with you, it was

fantastic when he destroyed your most hated opponent. All-Australian on

7 occasions, Coleman medallist 3 times, and selection in the AFL Team

of the Century were accolades he well and truly deserved. These were

rewards based entirely on his footballing ability.

Move forward nearly 3 years. Not a lot has been heard of Gary

Ablett. Understanding his reclusive nature and desire to stay out of he

spotlight, the media did not bother him too much. He did not follow the

normal transition of footballer-come-commentator/jounalist, and was

pretty much left to his own.

Then the dreaded incident which has caused so much consternation,

and the main reason for this debate. His involvement in the death of

Alicia Horan. One can argue that Ms. Horan was an adult who was making

her own decisions and was responsible for her own choices in life. On

the other hand, she was young, impressionable, infatuated with one of

her ‘heroes’ and was susceptible to being misled down the path which

eventually led to her demise.

For my part, I can only say that Ablett knew what he was dealing

with. He knew the character of the people whose company he was keeping

and should have been responsible enough a/. not to become involved with

this group of individuals in the first place, and b/. not to lead an

impressionable young fan down that path.

We tend to treat footballers with such adulation in this city -

something that I find extremely disturbing, but it is a fact of life.

As a result, the players (past and present, especially the stars) must

be well aware of their responsibilities to themselves, their fans and

the sport. Gary Ablett has betrayed all those things,and has been

suffering the consequences. He will continue to do so for the rest of

his life.

The Hall of Fame in Australian Rules football is not based only on a

persons ability to play the game. Being inducted is also meant to be

based on intergrity and character. It is those reasons that has kept

Ablett out of the Hall of Fame for 4 years, and it is for those reasons

he should still be left out.

This argument has raged for 4 years and probably should rage for

another 40. Rightly or wrongly, the argument will end at the induction

of Gary Ablett to the AFL Hall of Fame in 2005.

One only wonders if the same arguments will ensue in 2009 when Wayne

Carey becomes eligible for induction into the same club. Watch this

space.!!

At the start of the 2004 season Richmond ceased their merchandising

contract with Nike to sign exclusively with little known company.

It quickly became apparent that a founding director of that company

was a Tiger director. Immediately us members smelt a rat but were

prepared to ‘give them a go’ as we were promised the club were to

receive a bigger slice of the pie from merchandise sold.

The 2004 season commenced with new jumpers delayed by months for the

normal punter looking to upgrade his jumper, they then revealed some of

the worst clothing and apparel seen on a football team.

The gear looked suitable to be sold at Best & Less and Richo

quite rightly refused to wear it in public. It was also established

that the little known company was in financial trouble -  -  -  -  -  – .roll on

November 2004 when the club has a massive media release of ‘the sash is

back’ urging supporters to get in early and order their new jumpers in

time for Xmas.

As of round 1 of Wizard Cup, no new stock had arrived for sale at

the club. A weekly check of the club online shop had only 2003/4 gear

available for sale. I am aware of several complaints to the club that

were greeted with ‘slight delay in stock should be right for round 1’.

Given the company was supposedly in finanical difficulty, has only 1

major client how on earth could they not get football jumpers produced

and delivered in 3 months????

Finally the new stock arrives in the week leading up to the round 1

fixture against Geelong. On the day of the 1st game the club shop is

open and inundated with patrons on the way to the game. A well know

tiger fan and member of the Top Bar fraternity has attempted to

purchase his new 2005 jumper and was told they were out of new stock

already.

Now that TAC has jumped ship and the club urgently requires a set of

new jumpers minus the sponsors logo, the history of the merchandising

deal tells me the players will be wearing singlets come round 5. All

this because the board looked after their own and did not sign with a

main stream, well credentialed apparel manufacturer.

Date:  5/4/2005

Weekend Journo:  ‘Bag’

1 Comment

What do you expect

from possibly the worst club in the league. On the field they are crap,

their coach talks a good game but that’s all, and one of their more

visible sponsors are one of the most dishonest, dishonourable unethical

companies in the country. Finishing last is what they deserve if you

have any belief in karma.

Comment by john Leonard  -  March 31, 2006

The A.F.L is doing all it can to promote itself, and this idea of

the rivalry round is not so much for the clubs, but for the football

loving supporters.

The clubs and players of all AFL clubs should be playing each week

as though it were a rivalry round – hard, solid football with not only

4 points up for grabs but also their pride.

Over in the West the ‘Derby’ provides the locals with the closest

thing to a finals atmosphere that any non-Western Australian could not

understand. The hype surrounding the West Coast – Fremantle clashes are

amazing and again the 4 points earned in a Derby are earned the old

fashioned way – hard and tough.

Fremantle is coming into this weekend following a disappointing loss

to St.Kilda in Tasmania. They led most of the day only to fall short in

the dying stages. There were glimpses of brilliance but they were

marred by too many flashes of the old Fremantle – kicking short,

holding the ball too long, making poor decisions, and bad skill errors.

On a positive note the inclusions of Heath Black and Josh Carr have

been sensational. The run that Black has provided from the back line

with his pace and his ability to spot a team-mate 60m away is

irreplaceable. The

hardness over the footy and around the stoppages of Carr is also helping Fremantle along the right track.

The best for Fremantle would have been Troy Longmuir probably

playing his best game for the club. He rucked most of the day and

drifted into the backline time after time, putting his body on the

line, and zoning off in front of Fraser Gehrig (which dramatically

minimised Gehrig’s impact on the game). He has been superb and has come

along way with his disposal and his ability to take a contested mark

under pressure has been great.

This week both sides will leave nothing behind as they cross the

boundary line and ultimately the side that wants to win more will come

away with the 4 points. Not much separates the sides physically or

skill-wise, so its simply down to the commitment each side has to

winning the hard ball, and the desire to step in and protect their team

mates.

Date: 8/4/2005

Weekend Journo:  ‘George’

Many football supporters have found it difficult to comprehend the

AFL’s selection of opponents in the Rivalry Round this weekend.

Essendon and Hawthorn supporters have been as bemused by the schedule

as supporters of many other clubs, however, a closer inspection of the

events that have shaped the rivalry indicate that the AFL may have got

this one right.

Forget the fact that the Hawks do not have a giant supporter base,

or that, unlike their opponents, they haven’t been consistent finals

performers over the past 10 years.

Forget the fact that Essendon supporters feel the Bombers would have

been better served playing Carlton this weekend. It is obvious to

supporters of both Carlton and Essendon that this rivalry is far bigger

these days than Carlton v Collingwood. Ask any supporter of the two

clubs who they hate the most and you will not hear too many responses

referring to the men formerly of Victoria Park. Further, it would also

give the Bombers another chance to beat the Blues after the boys from

Optus pinched the game last weekend. What could be better than the

Blues v Bombers two weeks in row?

Forget the fact that Hawthorn, it could be argued, should have been

scheduled against Fitzroy this weekend. Diehard Fitzroy supporters

still choke on their chocolate donuts every time you mention the 1986

Preliminary Final where a questionable ‘deliberate out of bounds’

decision was paid against them in Hawthorns forward pocket. It cost

them a goal and they lost by a slender margin, depriving them of their

first grand final appearance since 1944. Given the Roy Boys are no

longer in the competition, the Hawks could justifiably have a bye this

week, get the four points, elevate themselves from the bottom of the

ladder and everyone is happy.

What we need here is to understand what goes on behind closed doors

down at AFL Headquarters. So let us pretend to be a fly on the wall and

explain the thinking of former Hawk, Andy Demetriou and ‘Spotless’ Ron

Evans, as the two power brokers sat around the board-room last October

and tried to justify this game as a grudge match to the TV networks.

No doubt the dynamic duo pointed to the rivalry that existed between

the two clubs in the 1980’s. They would have cringed recalling the

wounds inflicted on Alan Stoneham’s eye socket by Robert Dipierdominico

at Princes Park in the early 1980’s. Dipper was at it again in the 1984

Grand Final; his target on this occasion – the 1986 All-Australian

ruckman Kevin Walsh. They would have laughed replaying footage of

Dermott Brereton running through the Essendon huddle in the 1989 Second

Semi-Final. Memories of Paul Van Der Haar lying prostrate in front of

the Sir Kenneth Luke Stand after receiving another gift from Dermott

the same day would have no doubt come flooding back also.

Spotless Ron, a former Essendon administrator would have had a

sheepish grin on his face recalling the Paul Barnard/Paul Salmon deal.

Essendon certainly pulled the wool over the eyes of the Hawks in that

exchange. The Hawks I am told are still privately seething after Paul

Salmon returned to Windy Hill at the end of his career, effectively

meaning that the Bombers got years of service out of Barnard for

nothing.

Last years fiery Round 11 encounter between the two clubs cost them

both a substantial amount of coin and left the Hawks without their

current skipper (Richie Vandenburg) for six weeks. It also kept Andy

and Spotless Ron up all night the following Tuesday, waiting for the

outcome of the 25 reports being heard by the Tribunal. And because of

the vindictive nature of the AFL, these two clubs will be paying for

this one a lot longer. Every year Carlton and Collingwood rake in

millions from this round by attracting 80,000 plus to the MCG, Essendon

and Hawthorn will probably draw 35,000 and miss out on a potential cash

windfall that they would otherwise receive from playing a legitimate

‘rival’. It’s the gift that just keeps giving.

But lets be honest here. The real reason the AFL have scheduled this

game is because the Hawks still owe the Bombers a new point post. Over

20 years later, Leigh Matthews has still yet to apologise and the Hawks

‘the cheques in the mail’ line is wearing a little thin down at Windy

Hill. Andrew and Ron both still have ties with their former clubs and

are waging their own private war at AFL House. This one is personal.

So forget about the melee, forget about the fierce finals rivalry dating back two decades. This one is all about the Point Post.

Sniff, Sniff

Date: 8/4/2005

posted by The  ‘Wiz’ – 2005

Comments

Paul Salmon had a fantastic career at Hawthorn, culminating in a spot in the Team of the Century.

But I couldn’t be bothered arguing with such a peanut. You have no

idea about what constitutes rivalry. Fitzroy and Hawthorn because of a

contentious umpiring decision in the mid-eighties? Okay -

The piece isn’t funny in any shape or form, so I take it you weren’t taking the piss either.

Don’t bother responding. I won’t be back, you clueless, braindead ignoramus.

Comment by Mick  -  April 12, 2005

Hi Mick,

Thanks for your comments. One thing you should note is that the

article was written by one of our ‘Weekend Journo’s. These are people

who have responded to our request for people to write articles that we

will publish.

We just provide a mechanism for their thoughts. We are looking for a

‘Weekend Journo’ to cover the Hawks and write any articles on what is

happening down there.

Hopefully you will continue to visit the site and perhaps even write an article on the Hawks?

Comment by Disco  -  April 12, 2005

Also, I am surprised that anyone who read this particular piece thought it was a serious matter. Fair dinkum have you people never heard of sarcasm or satire?? It is so obviously supposed to be a piss-take that it’s not funny.

Comment by Explosion  – April 12, 2005

Mate you are a knob.

Hawthorn have a strong supporter base these days and the clashes of yester year warrant such prestige.

In fact Hawthorn legitametly deserves to be part of the Victorian ‘big 5’

You are kidding yourself if you believe that Essendon vs Carlton has the rivalry that Carlton vs Collingwood have.

This rivalry has developed for over 100 years and has involved many many many famous and often procative grand final results.

It rivals the Ashes and the Bledislo Cup as the biggest rivalry in Australian Sport.

Comment by  Jason Ross -  August 5, 2005

With

all due respect to both yourself and Z, our weekend journo who penned

this piece a number of months ago Jason, I have a great many friends

who are Carlton supporters themselves and find the rivalry between

Carlton and Collingwood had died significantly over the years while

Collingwood has not been as strong.

In that time, Essendon defeated the Blues in 93 GF and Carlton almost paid them back in the 99 Prelim.

Now that Carlton are crap, both Essendon and Collingwood still get a

more perverse pleasure out of humiliating Carlton than they do each

other.

As for Hawthorn, they will sadly always be the poorer cousin to the big

4 – regardless of how many Grand Finals they won in the 80’s and 90’s.

The supporter base just isnt there at the moment and while they

continue to struggle on the field, they will have difficulty in

re-signing those members who flocked to the club in the mid-late 90’s

when there was a risk of a merger.

Having logged into the Carlton Fan Forums to have a look at what

they say – Talkingcarlton.com and theblueview.org – the opinion seems

to be split 3 ways.

Those who grew up in the 60’s and early 70’s feel the Carlton v

Richmond rivalry is strongest. Those who were kids in the late 70’s and

early 80’s seem to detest Collingwood more and those who learned all

about footy in the 90’s up to now feel that the rivalry with Essendon

is even greater than that with Collingwood. I guess it all depends on

who was beating you when you first learned to love the game.

As for the rivalry being as great as the Ashes and the Bledisloe

Cup, I think you are being a little presumptuous. Even as a person who

doesn’t rate Rugby at all, I can appreciate that a Country v Country

rivalry is always going to be much stronger than two suburban football

clubs in ANY country. Your feedback and comments however are always

appreciated.

Comment by Explosion – August 10, 2005

Explosion

I can under stand where you are coming from, I respect your comments as

they are both neutral and educated. But I believe that the Carlton vs

Collingwood rivalry should stay, its become a part of Victorian culture.

As for Hawthorn, I cant under stand what you are saying, the club

has had consistantly the 4th highest memberships over the last 10

years, signed up close to 30 000 members this year, despite playing

poorly on the field. While according to both Roy Morgan and sensis,

Hawthorn has the equal as the Tigers.

According to Roy Morgan-interviewing 20 000 random people (over the last 5 years)

Hawthorn has averaged 380 000 people-peaking at 390 000-2003

Richmond-390 000-peaking at 402 000-2003

According to sensis over the last 2 seasons-

Hawthorn have had 5% of the market share

Richmond has had 4%

Adding to the fact that Hawthorn has had more members then Richmond

since 1996, the stats add up to Hawthorn being at least being part of a

Victorian ‘big 5 ‘. Considering we have been the worst performing club

over the last 10 years-Victoria wide and our main supporters live 20km

plus away from our home ground, the stats prove a legitimate case

Comment by Jason Ross  -

present AFL tribunal system of disciplining players through of

suspension punishes three parties. The player, his team mates and coach

who must tackle opposition teams without him and the fans denied the

opportunity to watch their favourite players perform. This punishment

may be suitable for the player, but his team and their supporters are

innocent victims. The proposed fine system aims to punish only the

player by substituting suspension of matches for a financial penalty.

It

is important that this fine system is not introduced as a revenue

raising activity for the AFL but rather the player is forced to

contribute to broader society. At the beginning of each year, every

team (or every player) nominates a chosen charity. It can even be a

charity that has particular significance for that club, e.g Essendon

with cancer research or Melbourne with breast cancer, or could be

junior football leagues effectively donating money to the grass roots

level of football. The important factor is that the money does not

return to the AFL coffers but rather provides a positive channel for

players to combat the image of footballers seen as thugs. Think about a

situation where a player like Jess Sinclair after his 2003 charge on

Lance Picoane could be seen handing over a cheque for $30K to Beyond

Blue to atone for his indiscretion.

<p><span style=”font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana;” lang=”EN-AU”> The

new system uses the existing activation point system of attributing

points; however the penalty given to a guilty player is based on a

percentage of their annual income. To ensure the system is fair, a

player’s salary would be divided in half, with maximum 50% of that

salary available to be withdrawn if the player incurs suspension

effectively creating a ‘penalty bracket’ for each player. This division

also recognises the fact that players have other roles other than match

day including training, public appearances and marketing. Players play

a maximum of 25 matches per season so every match would be attributed

4% of their penalty bracket (or 2% of their total wage).

Example 1

Experienced player earning $400,00 per year reported for striking, found guilty and given 150 activation points:

Total player salary -                   $400,000

Penalty bracket -                 $200,000 (50% of $400,000)

Per match breakdown -           $8000 (4% of $200,000)

150 Activation points -          1.50 x 8000

Total Fine -                        $12000

Example 2

Young player earning $160,000 per year reported for kneeing, found guilty and given 275 activation points:

Total player salary -                   $160,000

Penalty bracket -                 $80,000

Per match breakdown -           $3200

275 activation points -           2.75 x $3200

Total fine -                        $8800

It

is obvious already from the examples above that fines for players

commiting the same offence will be different depending on the annual

salary of those players. However, the fine should have equal impact if

deducted directly from the players wage as a percentage. It also more

highly punishes the higher paid more experienced players who should

know better having spent longer in the game and being more significant

role models for the community.

The

success of football teams has a direct link with their ability to get

their best team on the park on any given day. What would Collingwood

have given to have had Jason Cloke available for the 2002 Grand Final

or Anthony Rocca in 2003? Yes, it is fair to suggest that these players

committed an offence in preceeding matches and deserved to be punished,

but did Mick Malthouse? Or for that matter did the rest of their

Collingwood team-mates who complete a rigorous pre-season, battle

through 22 rounds and two finals only to be denied their best possible

chance of achieving the ulitmate success? Finally, did the Collingwood

fans who paid for their memberships, braved the cold to attend all the

matches, and poured their souls into the football club deserve to be

punished also? (I know Explosion will say yes but I’m not so sure). The

system may even need to include a finals surchage to ensure that being

found guility of an offense in there matches is more harshly punished.

The

system relies on the AFL remaining vigilant in ensuring that all fines

come directly from the player’s payments and are not covered by the

club. However given the AFL are able to achieve this currently with

their system of fining players for melee’s or comments on umpires this

should be easily achieved.

It

may also be worthwhile to consider giving the players an option of

taking either a suspension of matches or a financial penalty. Whilst it

would seem that most players would accept the financial penalty rather

than miss matches of football it does give them an alternative, and

besides which the money is going to charity so if they do accept the

fines then there are benefits.

The

purpose of reporting and disciplining players is to inflict punishment

upon that individual and deter future offences. The present system does

achieve this, however it also disadvantages team mates, coaches and

supporters who are innocent of the offence. The proposed system of

fines achieves the same objectives; however limits the punishment to

the individual and has the added benefit of helping football contribute

to some worthy causes

Written by Polly – 2005

Comments

4 Comments

POLLY,

This sounds like an extremely plausible concept. I wonder if the AFL

would have the balls to try and introduce something like this however.

Unfortunately those in power seem more interested in self-grandiosement

than development of the sport.

By the way, surely there must be someone else worthy of a full-forward spot than Brendan Fevola!!

Xplozn

Comment by Explosion  -  May 16, 2005

What about players from NSw, QLD, Tassie etc?

Comment by Phelpsy  -  June 16, 2006

Dal Santo is not Del Santo

Cheers

Bruce

Comment by Bruce  -  July 27, 2006

U25

Would be just as mickey mouse, look at the olympic soccer tournemnet

for example(u23). The NRL suspends players for not playing, this is

where the AFL needs to get tough. The concept should be kept to the big

three AFL states ( i’m from Queensland by the way) two games a year

would cut it, with the reigning champ each year facing the winner of

the other two. (you have to seed it the first year, that would whip

instant interest and conflict).

Great site by the way

Comment by PAUL  -  September 1, 2006

I for one was fooled and deluca’d while watching Carlton playing in

the Wizard Cup Grand Final against the Eagles. The seemed to have

turned the corner and a relative measure of success seemed within their

grasp. A different gameplan, some forwards capable of kicking a score,

key defenders capable of holding their opponents and a lot of players

with a well adjusted attitude and focus!

I was so deluded that I tipped them to make the final 8.

3 rounds into the 2005 season proper and what have they shown us?

They have shown us what other coaches have been telling us for years -

that the Wizard Cup really means NOTHING!

OK – I can accept to a small extent that injuries to their key

backmen in Thornton and Livingston have left them severely depleted

down back. Maybe! Where is the much discussed ‘depth’ that the Fan

Forums (who shall remain nameless) mentioned. Morrell – good player as

he is, should not be expected to shoulder the responsibility of being a

key backman. He did quite well on Rocca last weekend and kept his big

kicking opponent in check for most of the game. Norman as well kept his

opponent to 10 touches; unfortunately half of them were goals. He is

not a key backman!

The Carlton supporters seem to hinge their hopes on the Irish

Saviour. It will all be OK once Setanta gets to play. For crying out

loud, he has not played a real game of footy yet and even last year the

Carlton faithful were treating him like a God!

What about their forward line? Fevola continues to waste a lot of

Carlton supporters time. His reluctance to chase an opponent creating

run from the backline was legendary stuff in the Carlton reserves in

2001 and 2002. Seeing his reticence in manning up on Clement or Presti

as they provided options in the last term for team-mates to switch the

play saw Collingwood kick the sealer, and also saw Fevola benched. I

would have loved to hear Pagan on the other end of the phone. Seemed a

lot like deja vu (have not we met somewhere before???) to this reporter.

Which brings me to my next point. Apart from one quarter of footy

this year against Essendon, the forward line has functioned as well as

the toilet block at the back of the old scoreboard at Princes Park

after a hot autumn day and 35,000 geezers tanked on the liquid gold

being sold at the nearby catering stand.

Fair dinkum, Pagan must have done some good spin doctoring to

convince the Carlton faithful that he had not been sold a lemon but his

gameplan doesnt help either. Talk about deja vu again. Week 1 – Colbert

runs around and picks up possessions at will, spoiling the party for

Whitnall and Fevola. Round 2 – hmm Fletcher does the same thing. Hmmm

Round 3 – Clement and Presti do the same. Where is the Carlton forward

line. From my vantage point in the Great Southern Stand in the 3rd

term, I couldn’t belive what I saw. Carlton – 4 goals up with 3 key big

forwards. The ball is swept away from the backline to Camporeale in the

guts – .streaming forward. His pass – ..a poor kick right on top of his key

forwards head helping Clemo and Presti spoil and whisk the ball away

for a Collingwood goal. Who was the key forward tho?

DAVIES WAS THE ONLY TARGET THERE!

Deluca was being rested on the bench- Whitnall was filling the hole

in the backline and Fevola was chasing kicks on the opposite wing.

Justin Davies as the ONLY forward line player. You must be kidding

Pagan. Pagan’s Paddock is going to turn into Pagan’s Panic in quick time

unless he can find someway to get his forward to play in position

properly, and for his midfielders to deliver the ball properly

Camporeale or however he pronounces his own name doesn’t seem to

want to decide whether he wants to fight or play footy. Its about time

he swallowed his pride (what little of it he has left) and just worried

about getting a kick and improving his disposal.

Next point! Whoever says that Ryan Houlihan has ‘silky skills’ is a

complete fraud! On the odd occasion that he gets some space, he

invariably turns the ball over with poor decision making or poor skills

and I know of more than one Carlton supporter who still considers him

one of the most skilful players in the comp. Seems the navy Blue

faithful are blinkered by one goal he kicked in a wet night game

against Essendon two years ago. Take a good hard look at yourselves!

Which brings me to Eddie Betts. I would imagine most coaches would

be ropeable at some of the histrionics some of their senior players go

on with when they kick a goal. When is playing up to the crowd

acceptable?? I can tell you when it is NOT acceptable and that is when

you are playing your 3rd game and you kick a decent goal early in the

FIRST quarter! I could not believe what I was seeing. Hands and arms

raised to the crowd in exuberance is fine when you are 4 goals up deep

in the last term, but not early in the first. My Carlton supporting

friends will be scathing on me because they treat this guy like a

mini-messiah. I am yet to be convinced.

All in all, the Blues have a lot of work to do and from where I sit

at this stage of the year, my pre-season delusions have been put into

perspective and I tip a bottom 4 finish if they continue to go about

things in the same way they have done after 3 rounds. For you Carlton

supporters reading this, you are all in for a very, very long year -

again!

posted by The Exposion  (2006)

Written by Explosion – (2007)

A much-lamented
aspect of our great game is the art of goal kicking, universally
recognised as the only part of the game that hasn’t improved over the
past 40 years (though plenty would suggest that umpiring may also fit
that criteria). Watching Travis Cloke shank a set shot from 15 metres
out on the weekend only confirmed for me what I already believed – we
let players off the hook by providing a reward (1 point) for failing to
achieve their objective. This article raises the question of why we
need points and proposes a new system to replace them.

Points appear to serve three purposes in our game -to facilitate
kick-ins which have become an attacking part of football; to allow weak
defenders a soft option to avoid a goal; and to help prevent the drawn
matches that plague soccer. These issues are addressed and resolved
with the system outlined here.
I propose that we remove behind posts altogether, and that the only way
for a score to occur is for the ball to go between the set of goal
posts. All goals remain worth 6 points and any balls that go through
last touched by an opposition player register a rushed behind. A ball
coming off the post and returning to play is deemed live, or if it goes
through it counts as a goal. The goal square is removed completely and
replaced by a 10m circle, similar to the 50m arc. Any ball that goes
over the boundary on the full within the 10m arc, except obviously
through the goals, can be brought back into play anywhere within the
arc, more akin to the ball returning to play in a billiards game.

In this system players receive no reward for a kick that does not
achieve its objective. This may put pressure on players to improve
their goal kicking accuracy or at least will not give them an
undeserved score for a poor kick.
The
10m arc retains the attacking aspects of the current goal square
kick-out but increases the creativity afforded to the defender and
further increases the opportunities for them to punish the opposition
error through a score for themselves.

This system will also make any defender’s decision to rush a behind of
critical importance and hopefully stamp out the blight on the game.
With fewer points occurring these rush behinds become like golden eggs
that may be the only thing separating the teams when the siren sounds.
Interestingly, it is worth noting that of the 88 games to date this
year only 7 have finished with the two teams on the same number of goals.

Overall this system may be seen as tinkering with the games for no real
benefit. I understand this perspective, but this proposed system serves
the benefit of making all defenders think twice about rushing behinds;
adds a new attacking dimension to bringing the ball back into play; and
offers players rewards only when they achieve what they set out to do,
not when they get close. I just don’t think that there is a downside -
unless of course you’re Travis Cloke.

Written by Polly (2006)

Sort of leaves a bitter taste in the old mouth when Anno Domini (AD) and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) decide to bunch their fists under their biceps in the old-style footy photo, and do a bit of false posturing.  Much like other well named footballers on this site, this just reeks of beating up on a weaker kid at school because you can.

Whilst I respect that the AFL has a brand and an image, the heavy-handed handling of these sorts of issues is just plain wrong, and if my understanding of the law is wrong, then I apologise profusely.

From The Argus as a follow up, Patrick Keane from the AFL has this to say.

AFL media manager Patrick Keane told The Age the site received the letter because they cannot use any AFL or team intellectual property.

“It’s something that we regularly follow with any area … websites, such as media outlets, selling AFL photographs attached to a commercial sponsor without the permission of the player concerned,” Mr Keane said.

“So it’s use of anything that’s got an AFL logo, be it club guernsey or AFL images.

“People can do it but they can’t attach any commercial gains to it.”

Mr Keane said any mention of club names was permissible in an editorial sense.

“For editorial use there is no issue, but again for anything attached to commercial relationship, no,” Mr Keane said.

“It’s exactly the same as any organisation would do to protect its commercial right.”

In all honesty, I can see that the AFL has to protect it’s brand, given that in the past, it has come down on the Punt Road website but my question is this.

How on earth can there be so much footy vision on Youtube and yet the AFL, in it’s infinite wisdom, decides to crack down on a reasonably small time operation to prevent them from using images and mentioning the clubs and nicknames?

Further to that is the question as to whether Youtube itself is paying the AFL to exhibit images and vision of the matches?  You wouldn’t expect that it would.  And the whole argument about not being able to show these images for commercial gain takes a HUGE backstep when you consider that Google actually owns Youtube these days, and there are Google Ads plastered all over youtube, even on the video’s that show Australian Rules Footy!

Surely something is amiss here….  isn’t it?