Is it actually Matthew Knights who has been coaching for 3 years and has seen his young team go from not much in 2008, to finalists in 2009 and back to boiled lollies again in 2010? Yes, Knights should shoulder a lot of the blame for the way his team is playing. After all, he is the coach and he is responsible for the on-field efforts of his charges. But to simplify this situation suggesting that Knights is wholly responsible neglects all the other issues that are going on.

Is it the ghost of Kevin Sheedy who resided over the Bombre’s for 27 years. Sheedy came to Essendon at a time when the Bombre’s were pretty much just making up the numbers in the VFL. They hadn’t really threatened the finals much since 1968 when they were beaten in the Grand Final by a lucky Carlton who kicked less goals than Essendon. Sheedy took a second rate club and turned it into a true powerhouse of the competition. His 4 Premierships were capped off in 2000 by taking the most successful team in any one year to the ultimate prize when they lost only 1 game for the year.

Unfortunately, Sheedy was unable to work his mojo in the years hence and a series of unsuccessful years where they didn’t make finals saw the faithful baying for blood, and the Essendon Board finally listening. Sheedy was effectively sacked in 2007 paving the way for new blood.

The farce that ensued during Sheedy’s sacking should have been enough to make the public wonder if the high expectations of the Essendon brand would survive the post-Sheedy fall-out. Peter Jackson and Ray Horsburgh both have a lot of egg on their face in regards to Sheedy’s and the fact they are no longer at Bomberland indicates that there was quite a stench surrounding the respective acitivites during this time.

Enter David Evans, son of former Spotless mogul and AFL Commissioner, Ron who was also former Bomber champion. His tenure has only just begun yet is is effectively being questioned by the very people who have put him there. Does he have the support of the people, and is he going to support his coach through thick and thin? Or are the Bomber faithful so deluded that they will always think that they deserve the ultimate success and that they are a lot better than they actually are?

My question as to who is ultimately responsible for Matthew Knights’ plight can be answered in one simple word. The Footy Medja!
One only has to look at the way Knights is being undermined in the medja by some of the great Bomber names of the past. Matthew Lloyd in particular seems to have an agenda – is it mainly because of his sacking by Matthew Knights a year before his career should have ended? Is Lloyd still so irked that he will do anything he can in his role as a footy commentator that he will destroy Knights as payback? It is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Lets look at other Bomber medja commentators – Rohan Connelly and Mark Robinson. Over the past few months their constant criticism of Knights and his game plan, the players he both inherited and brought to the club, and the way they constantly play the anti-Knights message out in the print, tv and radio medja is laughable.

The medja’s desire to read a message into a comment and portray that as truth is utterly ridiculous. I can’t believe that any free thinking individual would read too much into the stuff the medja says. But that is the dichotomy of footy isn’t it. As a result of our passion and enthusiasm for the game, most footy supporters are not free thinking or open-eyed. We see what we think are our best interests according to our own interpretations and stick to that. Nothing anyone says or does can change our minds once it is made up. A bit like Federal Politics really.

Lets look also at other medja commentators such as Mike Sheahan. His constant badgering of James Hird on Foxtels “On The Couch” about so-called rumours (rumours the medja decided to make up by the way) of Hird wanting to coach ultimately resulted in Hird suggesting that at some stage he would like to coach the Essendon Football Club.

Ok, that was about all he said, but the leeches in the medja have jumped upon this one comment which was made among many other comments and in essence, basically suggested Hird was not only interested in, but had been approached and almost signed to coach as of 2011. Fair dinkum, what player with coaching ambitions wouldn’t like to coach the club he played for?

The medja’s refusal to accept David Evans’ word that a review would be done of all positions at the footy club come the end of the year only served to fuel the fire. There was a lot more going on behind the scenes or so we are told. The Board has refused to endorse Knights’ position even though he has a contract which therefore must obviously mean he is on his way out.

Fair dinkum, the footy medja is relying on us, the footy public, not to be able to see through this game that they are playing. The sad things is ladies and gentlemen, that many of you are falling for it.!!!

What crimes against humanity have we perpertrated as a group that gives Andrew Demetriou, Adrian Andersen and Mike Fitzpatrick at Head Office the unquestioned right to mess with OUR game?

The scary and ludicrous Rule Changes that have permeated the game over the past 10 years have only served to sanitise the game to an extent that is is barely recognisable from the halcyon days of footy.    Where did we sign a petition or even vote in a referendum that states we give full power to the AFL to make silly little ‘adjustments’ to the game we love based upon an over-reaction to something that has happened on any weekend.

Are Demetriou et al so scared of the potential for soccer to take over as the number one footy code in Australia that they have to sanitise our game to such an extent that the very fabric of the game is being destroyed for you, me and all those who have grown up loving the game?

What is happening is, in reality, actually doing the opposite of making footy impervious to soccer.  By dumbing down the game, the AFL is turning off its grass roots supporters and making OUR game a sad shadow of what footy used to be.  By making the game ‘softer’, all it is doing is turning more and more people towards soccer – not the other way around.  It’s about time that someone puts a stop to this ridiculous tinkering of the rules and the ‘feminisation’ of our game.

I talk of course of todays report in the mainstream Medja that the AFL head honchos are currently considering changing the scoring system in footy which would then allow any ball that hits the post and goes through for a goal to be given as a goal.  Fair dinkum you clowns.  What is the justification for this?  Are they serious?  WHY???  Why would you stuff around with a scoring system that works and where there is NO CONFUSION to add another element of doubt, interpretation and confusion to what is one of the only ‘definite’ decisions in our game.

As it stands, the ball hits the post and is a point. FULL STOP!!  As it should be.

The AFL are now considering, according to Mark Stevens in the Bostonian, the following aspects of the ball hitting the posts.

“if the ball hits the inside of the goalpost and goes through for a goal it will be worth six points.

Likewise, a ball could hit the inside of the behind post and travel throught the behinds and be worth a point.

Under the proposal, if the ball hits the goal post and bounces back into play it will be called a behind.

If the ball rebounds into play after hitting the behind post it would be ruled out of bounds”

Now seriously.  How damn confusing is that for the goal umpires.   And how many more decisions do they have to make in their minds before determining just what has gone on.  This proposed rule does not ‘clear up the issue’, it confuses it even more.

There are too many ‘if’s’ in this.  Umpires and players alike are going to have even more concern and reason for argument if this rule is passed.  Lets hope that the clubs can this proposal and just rely on the rule that has served us well for eons.

There are two simple plans to combat any confusion the goal umpires may have if there are doubts of their decisions and both have been bandied about the medja since the 3 glaring errors on the wweekend.

The first one is the use of two goal umpires.  This is something that Ron Barassi was heralding about 30 years ago and I cannot understand why the AFL has not gone down this path in the three decades since.  It’s pure and simple. Two umps, both with the ability to confirm or deny a result based upon standing at each goal post.   Imagine  – one ump being totally responsible for ONLY 6.4 metres (being what happens in the points area Obviously if it is a goal, there is no problem) instead of the current situation where one person is responsible for  approximately 20 metres.  It makes sense.

The second ‘fix’ is the use of technology.  Cameras on goal posts and reviews happening are things that Footytalk.com.au has been promoting for 6 years.  IT can’t be that damn hard or expensive, given that there are limited grounds that need the technology.

However I hear you ask, what about the time taken to review the decision.  Again, there is a simple fix and it is something that the AFL had made difficult a few years ago off their own bat.  They decided some years ago to listen to the braying of the ignorant crowd behind the goals (read Cheer Squads) and decided to make a rule that meant players did not have to wait for the umpire to wave their flags before kicking in after a point.

We all know the problems this has had but the AFL were ‘reactive’ and obnoxious rather than being responsible.  Put simply, if players were forced to wait for  a flag to be waved before kicking in after a point, this stops the game.  It stops the clock and it stops everything.  This then allows time for a team to request a review of a decision (which could take 30 seconds).  Big deal.

At least the result will be RIGHT and isn’t that what we need.  Ask St. Kilda supporters if they would have preferred a 30 second video review by Hawkeye in last years GF as opposed to a goal given to Tom Hawkins when it hit the post.  I know which one I would have preferred!!!!!!

IF the AFL was fair dinkum about ‘reacting’ to what happened on the weekend, they should rescind the kick in rule immediately and employ a video review system, or they should employ two goal umpires to adjudicate and to fix it a problem.  Of course, if the coloured-cretins actually opened their eyes, problem solved.

Give it up AFL.  Stop f*#&’ing around with the game and leave it alone.  There is no reason to give a goal for a kick that hits the post.  IT does not add anything at all to the game.  It only serves to stuff around even more with the fabric of the game we love – the game you are trying hard to destroy.

One of our regular listeners, Molly, was incensed with my rants last year about the Hawthorn supporters and their behaviour during the ANZAC Round Ceremonies. He, like many other supporters out there, was not aware of the correct protocol during the ANZAC Ceremonies and has asked that I provide some details to the listener and readers so that we can all show due respect to the ANZAC’s (and veterans of subsequent wars) for the sacrifices they made for US.

Whllst there is no set list or program that I can find regarding the Official Ceremony on ANZAC Day, especially in relation to the ANZAC Round at the footy, I have found a few websites that are relevant and I would urge you all to read. Even those in other parts of the world. ANZAC DAY SERVICES The Spirit of ANZAC My biggest complaint about the crowd behaviour is the lack of respect/knowledge about what happens during ‘The Last Post’ Yelling and screaming ‘C’mon Blues/Tigers/Hawks/Bombre’s etc is just not on. It reeks of ignorance, arrogance and obnoxiousness.

It may well be that people don’t know BUT most of the voices you hear are loud mature males who presumably have been going to the footy for years and therefore should know better. According to The ANZAC Day Dawn Program at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, the following program should be followed around the country and in New Zealand as well. We do not wish to insult the memory and the sacrifices of our trans-Tasman neighbours by forgetting them.

THE ODE

‘They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.’

All Repeat We will remember them.

THE LAST POST

One Minute Silence Lest we forget. All repeat: Lest we forget.

REVEILLER/ROUSE

The ‘Rouse’ and the ‘Reveiller’

After the one minute silence, flags are raised from half-mast to the masthead as ‘The rouse’ is sounded. Today it is associated with the ‘Last post’ at all military funerals, and at services of dedication and remembrance. Since Roman times, bugles or horns had been used as signals to command soldiers on the battlefield and regulate soldiers’ days in barracks. ‘

Reveille’ was a bright cheerful call to rouse soldiers from their slumber, ready for duty; the call has also been adopted to conclude funeral services and remembrance services. It symbolises an awakening in a better world for the dead and rouses the living, their respects paid to the memory of their comrades, back to duty. ‘Rouse’ is a shorter bugle call which, as its name suggests, was also used to call soldiers to their duties.

It is ‘Rouse’, due to its much shorter length, which is most commonly used in conjunction with the ‘Last Post’ at remembrance services. The exception is the Dawn Service, when ‘Reveille’ is played. I hope that this clears up the lack of knowledge that some of you have in regards to honouring our forefathers in the manner in which they deserve. Please, lets all show due respect for the way these soldiers fought and died for our future. God knows, it is the least they deserve.

1 Comment

Hi Ex, Thanks for this. I always go to early after the minute silence. If I was to try to explain why this is, I think it is because in nearly all other occations where there is a minute silence, the ceremony is over after it is finished. Hope this helps everyone. Molly PS. I wonder if they are going to have the ceremony at all the games this year with the actual day being so far away from the Sunday games?

Comment by Phillip Molly Malone – April 24, 2007

I am sure that I have made my point clear on the Carlton issues time and time again – the last being in relation to the revelations that there are 114 current players who are currently receiving money from third party agreements OUTSIDE the salary cap.  For those opposition supporters whingeing and whining about the Judd/Visy Deal, pull your heads in and look at who at your own club is receiving third party deals.  OK..enough said on that score.

What I need to comment about is the current plight of the Melbourne Storm and it’s Salary Cap Issues in relation to ONE MAN.

We all know his name by now. The apparent architect of systematic salary cap cheating by the Melbourne Storm. At this stage, without the burden of proof, we cannot come out and blatantly say that he is guilty of it but once the evidence is produced and provided to the general public via the medja, we can all make up our minds in due course.

There are some severe implications of this type of behaviour that have not yet been felt in the AFL.  We all know that Carlton was fined heavily and stripped of draft picks; we all know that Melbourne was also fined heavily and we all know that Essendon was fined and stripped of pre-season picks all in the past.

Hell, if you have been listening to our podcasts and reading the news over the past 6 years, you will also know that Essendon was found guilty of salary cap cheating with the .com issues surrounding James Hird and Matthew Lloyd.  You will know that Ron Evans slapped them with a wet lettuce leaf to the tune of $80G’s when this all occurred AFTER the Carlton fines were handed out.

Demetriou has egg on his face this week when he stated in an article by Will Brodie at the Sydney Morning Herald,

“Post Carlton all of our clubs have been put on notice and all of our clubs understand fully that if they go down the track of trying to rort the salary cap, the consequences are massive.

“The Carlton decision sent a strong, clear message to our clubs. Thankfully, we believe the clubs have been adhering to the salary cap.”

Demetriou was caught out by those of us who remember.  We are not fools.  The Essendon domain name farce occurred AFTER November 22nd, 2002 and you did not deal with it effectively for a team that was a systematic and elaborate salary cap cheat.

You will know  that I am ropeable over the inconsistent and preferential treatment handed out  to the redback Bombre’s by its former CEO (and alledged principal of rorts) Ron Evans.  You can acuse me of having sour grapes and you would be right.

The AFL did not sit down and attend to publically trasparent due diligence at the time and investigate EVERY club thoroughly after Black Saturday – which is something that Andrew Demetriou at the time indicated they would do.  It relied on the punishment dished out to Carlton to ensure that no other club would start to cheat the system.  What about those clubs that were already engaged in shady practices Andrew, and that you conveniently forgot to investigate?

Whilst I have no proof of this, all I can go on is industry gossip, and now that the Melbourne Storm, and its former CEO has been publically identified as the alledged architect of the systematic and long-term cheating, it is impingent on the AFL to backtrack and THOROUGHLY look at what Mr. Waldron was doing at both Richmond, and more importantly at St. Kilda during his stint sat both those clubs.  Does anyone think that Mr. Waldron just suddenly found a way to beat the system when he went to The Storm?  Seriously… does anyone??

In fact, the AFL now has a responsibility to go back through EVERY club, this time thoroughly, to ensure that the values it held in such high esteem on Friday 22nd November 2002 were being followed by all of the other 15 clubs, and have continued to be adhered to.

St. Kilda has welcomed any probe into it’s affairs.  All I can say is that Waldron apparently managed to bury his rorting from the NRL Auditor’s so well and so deeply that even an investigation by the AFL will likely unearth nothing.  The only person who will allow Ken Wood get to the honest truth (and there may be nothing to hide) is Brian Waldron.  What happens from here remains to be seen, but where there is smoke, there is generally fire.

Watch this space.

His latest comments however deserve to be treated with the complete and utter contempt and derision that they deserve.

Kennett has recently stated that he feels the AFL Season should be reduced to 17 matches.

Now, lest I be accused of taking things out of context myself, you are all more than welcome to read the plethora of news reports on the topic online.

Kennett”s reasoning is sound.  A reduced season would mean less stress on the players and a more even competition in terms of the draw, given that each team only plays each other once.  What could be so wrong about that?

It fails on all sorts of levels Jeff.   Firstly, as a Club President, you would be more than well aware of the huge amount of TV dollars that have been spent already, and will continue to be spent in the future to ensure that the TV stations (and to a lesser extent the radio stations) fill their collective coffers with adverstising revenue from the game.

Because there is already a commitment from TV to telecast 8 games per week, can you see it going backwards?  Can you see the AFL refunding any money? OK… I hear you argue, what about when the current TV deal is finished and a new one is being tendered for.

Given that the AFL wants more money for its product, it would be ridiculous to think that any owner of a TV station is going to agree to pay out more money for a product that barely lets them break even for less games.   More money for less games.  Yes, that makes perfect sense.!! NOT!

In addition to this is the expectation and right that we, the footballing public have to watch our footy and get our fill of it.  Because of the amount of money in the game already, less games would mean the cost of us  going to the football would skyrocket exponentially.  Is Mr. Kennett going to shell out for the shortfall from his own pocket?   Less footy means a huge increase in the cost of going, the cost of food (how can it get any higher) and the cost of memberships.  We don’t have that much money Jeff.

And finally, the affect this would have on sponsors. Clubs cannot survive without sponsors, and less footy would mean less sponsorship money, ergo the cost passed on to the consumers would skyrocket.  After all, you can’t imagine the players wanting to play for less can you?

Lets have MORE footy and keep us satisfied.

However, that is the topic for another rant.

I would LOVE to know what your thoughts are on why Footy is better than soccer so feel free to join up and join in the fun with your own ideas.  They can be serious, funny, abusive (just don’t swear because we have mums and young-uns all over the world reading this site)

I guess I should go first.

Footy is better than soccer because….

The Italians don’t play footy!  (Although we do have a lot of divers such as He Who Shall Not be Named)

Anyone can kick a round ball – only truly skilled players can kick a footy.

Footy doesn’t have  – Flares!!

- Bricks!!

- Brazilian crowd violence  – need I say more?

- Italian crowd violence – need I say more?

- Eric Cantona.  (But then again we did have Scott Russell so touche)

You can use your hands.

Footy players take hangs. – BOSUSTOW!!!!  JEZZA.   AABBBLLEETTTTTT.  BURTON!!!

Rumours of FIFA-based corruption

Carlton and Collingwood no longer play soccer.

Footy is always just footy.  Soccer tries to tell us it is football, but half the world calls it soccer. ( Identity crisis methinks).  As an aside, in order to answer those cretins who try to tell me that soccer is an American term, may I politely inform you that it is actually a British term that refers to an abbreviation of the word ‘Association’ which the Poms used to refer to when they mentioned the Football Association’ in the 20′s-50′s.

Girls are allowed at footy matches.

Footy owns the MCG (and Docklands Stadium as well)

I will be coming up with a lot more but feel free to join the site and leave your own comments.

Firstly, when the incident occurred in early May, it was considered so serious that it generated about an inch worth of column space in the Bostonian – a giggle piece more than anything else.  Now, two weeks later, it has somehow become a sordid crime almost akin to Schappelle Corby’s jailing than a bit of harmless ‘fun’ that backfired on a social football club.

Why should we be so annoyed with this story.  The reasons are many and varied but in essence, the story is completely out of focus, and many more people have been falsely implicated through shoddy journalism than should have been.  They have had their own nature and exemplary character called into question through the actions of lazy journalists who again, much like Mark Robinson, have cared little for the truth in search of sensationalist headlines.

Firstly, the club in question was the Prahran Football Club Club XVIII’s which, while being a small part of the Prahran Football Club proper, has very little to do with the club.  And yet, the difference between the Senior Club, and the social club aspect of the Club was never really explained.  Ergo, the Prahran Footy Club proper was falsely implicated in this drama when this situation occurred without the club proper knowing or authorising it.  Pathetic.  But of course, it would take far too long for any journalist to actually explain this properly would it.  And it wouldn’t be as newsworthy!  (Geez it must have been a slow news day).

Following this is of course the news vision used on Channel 10 which has implicated every single Prahran player as being a smut-driven porn-merchant through being guilty by association.  Plastering vision of the Club 18′s coach and some team members on the news is bad enough, and as a result, every member of the Club 18′s has been falsely accused of something that they had no control over.

Channel 10, taking things a step further, have chosen to use the headline picture of the Prahran Football Club website in its feature story – condemning every person pictured therein to a reputation of being involved in the practice of employing strippers before a game.  In fact, every player pictured has has his reputation sullied by the over-exhuberant attempt to condemn a club and again, no-one is held accountable for this.  Surely there is a law against the use of images like this.  Where is Slater and Gordon??  I can feel a lawsuit coming on!!

Now, let’s get to the issue at hand, and this will cause a lot of consternation within the women’s groups reading.

Really, it is all a bit of overkill isn’t it.  The argument about using women as sex objects.  News flash!!  Men are treated like sex objects by women in similar ways. Do you all forget the Cleo Pin Up’s from years gone by? What about the Bachelor of the Year award?  What about the Men for All Seasons Calendar?  Are we being told that women do not have sexual thoughts, desires or feelings?  To draw that sort of tenuous link is of course going too far but for interest groups to go off their collective nut about how this sort of prank shows how little respect men have for women is just going too far as well.

Do these ‘interest groups’ actually realise that women who follow this specific career path are aware of their own sexuality, and are also aware of their ability to control stupid, vulnerable men just by flashing a bit of flesh?  These girls are intelligent, sensible women because they understand their power, and they use to tease, tempt and entice men to rid themselves of their cash for a few minutes of visual tease and a false promise of something more.  And these women understand that men are generally susceptible to a beautiful woman, and will readily part with more and more money just for a tease.

The question begs as to just who has the power in this relationship.  Is it the man who provides the market for ‘dancers’ or is it the intelligent woman who is able to manipulate that specific market for her own means for her own benefit. There is no contest in this question and to me, the answer is obvious.

For the Prahran Club XVIII footballers, I would suggest that it was a stupid stunt and completely inappropriate, yet the furore surrounding it is completely misplaced and irrelevant.  It’s a non-story so whoever the so-called journo was that wrote this, you should take a good hard look at yourself and really, work hard to justify your position instead of relying on the old adage that ‘sex sells’ in order to earn a buck.!

As for channel 10 and it’s news report – you people need a good hard look at yourselves over the so-called ‘quality’ of your reporting.  And if anyone DOES know the law in regards to inappropriate use of images and vision without prior agreement, we would love to hear about it.

GOM (Good Ole’ Mike)  also has the inside scoop apparently and suggests that all is not as has been explained by SIN Management.

The official reason for Grant Thomas’ departure coming from SIN Radio is a financial decision – I just can’t believe that these so-called ‘learned experts’ can argue with that reasoning given from SIN Management.

Of course it is a financial decision.  But that is not to say that the AFL may not have had a hand in it through sheer subterfuge!

One simply needs to look at what the FINANCIAL implications were for SIN Radio NOT to sack Grant Thomas.

Firstly, the AFL get a LOT of money from the station through its broadcasting rights.  Secondly, to have a employee of the station continually denigrate the competition and its white custodians is a conflict of interest when the AFL gives so much more back to the station in terms of revenue, providing a steady and important advertising stream during footy season both of the game, brand, and organisation itself, but also through other equally important advertisers wanting to market their product and services during the footy.

For the AFL to have to hear someone like Grant Thomas continually make derogatory remarks about the brand and the umpires would understandably leave them incensed – but in order to save their pride, perhaps the big stick WAS waved throughout the the headquarters at Docklands Stadium (cum-Etihad-cum-Telstra-cum-Colonial-cum-Footscray Railyards).  Perhaps there WAS a no-so-veiled threat to get rid of the antagonist or SIN would lose their broadcast rights and effectively would consign SIN to the AM scraphead like its predecessors in 3KZ, 3MP, 3 DB and 3XY.

Gee, take away the footy and what is SEN left with??  Much like it was for the first few years of existence, it will be a shanty town with the odd tumbleweed whistling mournfully through the corridors as the highly paid presenters desert the place in their droves.  Without footy, the revenue from advertising would effectively dry up as there would be no product that brings the listeners in en masse (and Sniff and Stiff can only afford to advertise so many times in an hour).

Make no mistake people.  This sacking was a financial decision.  But just who is driving it is the biggest question.

The biggest question in football is not who will win the premiership in 2009; it is not who will take
Charlie home on the Monday night after the Prelim final; geez, it’s not even about when Patrick Smith
will finally get off Carlton’s back about the salary cap cheating and subsequent fine that occured in
2002. For crying out loud mate, it was 6 years ago.  Leave it alone!  And it’s not as if your mob was any less complicit in its rorting of the rules either – they just had someone in power who allowed them to get away with it.

No, the biggest question floating around football circles in 2009 is this. “Just WHO is running the
competition?”

You may be surprised at the answer.  Most would say Andrew Demetriou, some would suggest Andrian
Anderson, Mike Fitzpatrick or even the ghost of Ron Evans who are lauding over the brand in the
current world.

However, after witnessing the slow death of footy over the past few years, I can only suggest that
there is a small group of high-powered businessmen who have infiltrated AFL House over the past few
years and are working as a cancer to bring the sport down from the inside.  I speak, of course, of
Ben Buckley, Frank Lowry and the Football Federation of Australia.

Fair dinkum, the sport of Australian Rules Football (footy to the unitiated) is now a laughing stock
compared to what it used to be like in the good old days.  The game itself is a hybrid version of
something that doesn’t quite equate to what many footy lovers grew up with.  It is a feminised game
designed to do what? – to maximise participation at the lower levels because the AFL itself is scared
to death that soccer will infiltrate its heartland and take over in popularity.

In essence, what the AFL is doing in terms of changing rules every year, and sanitising the sport to
the extent that we no longer recognise it, is a sad over-reaction to this ‘soccer threat’, and in
reality, the AFL itself is doing more and more to ensure the health of soccer in the Australia psyche
than Guus Hiddink, Pim Verbeek, Harry Kewell, Mark Viduka and the 2006 Socceroos have done in their
collective rights.

Demetriou and his cronies at Docklands Stadium (I wonder if they still have ‘Telstra Dome’ as the
address on the official letterhead by the way) have given soccer a heads up and a huge boost by
destroying the ethose of the game we grew up loving and playing.
I hear many people reading this rant thinking that I am out of my tree and that AFL Footy is in
better health than ever.  On the outside, this may well look true.  More club memberships than ever,
more TV views, bigger attendances, and more corporate sponsors all point to a healthy competition,
but I would suggest that the way the game has been changed, and is being run from the top is doing
more to anger and frustrate the heartland supporters all over the country that it will only take
another one or two significant alterations to the ethos of the code, and supporters will drop off in
droves.

What did we love about our game as we grew up playing and supporting our clubs?  We adored the
challenge of a one-to-one contest, we thrived on the competition, we craved the toughness, both
mental and physical, of the players.  We loved our traditional colours, we identified with our
players, we worshipped the sport because it was hard and tough.  It was the game for all Australians,
even those who lived north of the Murray River.  We had reserves and under 19′s who wore our colours,
where talented youngsters could follow their club from juniors to senior footy.

There was no diving and play-acting as in soccer, there was no padding and stop=start methodology as
in America football.  It was a  pure, unviolated and unabashed sport in which we lost ourselves every
Saturday afternoon as the greatest sportsmen in the world pitted themselves agains their enemies in a
1-1 battle, all which thrived within a contest between two proud and passionate clubs.

What have we got in footy now.  We have a game where the one-to-one contest has been removed.  The
excitement of a high mark (speccie) and a hard but fair hit has disappeared.  We have a game that is
played by sportsmen who can run fast rather than footballers who can use the ball effectively.  We
have a sanitised journey from under 16′s through under 18 – the coaching of which is all very similar
and where those who aren’t exceptional footy players at 15 invariably get left out of the system.

Where is the next Tim Watson who was able to acquit himself well against grown men at 15 years of
age?  He will never make it because the system won’t allow it.

2009 sees a game that is so soft, sanitised and one-dimensional that many of it’s greatest supporters
over the years are becoming disenchanted, disenfranchised and are turning off in droves.. In much the same way that the AFL over the years has not done enough to look after the footy heartland, it has also done very little look after the common man – the supporter who gave rise to the great game we used to have.  Unfortunately we no longer have the great sport.

We have soft rules, where a minimal touch after a mark will incur a 50m penalty.  We have a stupid
rule where you are unable to place a hand anywhere near an opponents back, less you incur a free kick
against you.  We have a ridiculous rule that no longer allows for a good old-fashioned shirtfront,
yet the contradictions that come from AFL House about this rule do more to confuse umpires, players,
the medja and supporters alike than they do to look after the players.  We have colours and jumpers
that have been altered so that we don’t recognise our true colours.  We no longer have home grounds
where tread ‘enmasse’to barrack for our heroes.  We have two grounds in Melbourne that have lost the common touch.

We have to pay an exhorbitant amount of money to go to the footy – that in itself can be acceptable given the current climate, however to pander to the caterers by agreeing to overpriced crap food and watered down beer is way beyond the paul!

Many of these issues are off the field, and it’s understandable that they exist given the current global corporate climate.  What beggars belief however are the problems that exist ON-FIELD.  Wher is the competition?  Where is the toughness?  Where is the one-on-one contest?  Where are the speccies?  Where are the big hits?  These are questions that members of an older generation are asking.  WHERE IS OUR SPORT???

Other questions we are asking include : – Where are Where is the justifcation for stupid rules?  Where is the rationalisation for such a soft, mamby-pamby “don’t you touch him’ sport?  Why has the AFL ruined OUR game? Why can’t three umpires get it right??  Where is the consistency??? There are no answers to these questions, and yet, the myriad complaints about these ridiculous rules that we hear every game we go to these days.

The AFL has obviously directed the umpires to be tough on stupid little indiscretions – things that any normal person would laugh at, and yet the AFL seems to think that little things are a hanging offence.  The way the game is officated will be the subject of another Explosive Rant in the coming weeks so I will not go into it all now, suffice to say that the modern game is going to be the death of footy, and the AFL only has itself to blame.

Given that all most of these problems with todays game exist, the FFA would be laughing at the waft of panic that permeates out over Melbourne from the front doors at AFL House.

I make mention of this because ANZAC Round has just come and gone.  Whilst the result is well known, and the how, where and why’s can be discussed ad nauseum on every TV show, radio show and newspaper, as well as countless online forums, one thing that no-one has yet made mention of yet is the shameful and embarrassing gaff that the presenters of the Sunday Footy Show exhibited during their prime Sunday TV spot last weekend. ( April 26th).

After discussing the game and all the permutations and combinations about the result, and gushing sickeningly about how important AFL footy is to help educate a new generation on the ANZAC’s and the spirit of ANZAC, and how many more people know about what happened at ANZAC Cove on 25 April 1915 because of this specific game between Essendon and Collingwood, I was absolutely appalled by MOST of the panelists on the Channel 9 Sunday Footy Show.

To his absolute credit, the big man from Geelong, Billy Brownless, made mention of recognising the efforts of the New Zealanders on this specific day as well.  After all, the New Zealand soldier is as big a part of the ANZAC tradition as is the Australian DIgger.

The response recieved was belittling not only to Bill Brownless but also the New Zealand heroes whose corpses littered the beaches at ANZAC Cove on that fateful day.

Brownless, trying to achieve some level of recognition for our trans-Tasman neighbours, made and effort to take the point further, asking the thought-provoking question to a fellow panelist. “Well, what does ANZAC stand for”.  Poor Shane Crawford looked at Bill with a mixture of confusion, contempt, and what can only be a vacant-stare before offering the following response.

“Oh..Come on Bill!!”

That’s bloody pathetic Crawford.  After hearing how much the ANZAC Day footy match has enabled a new generation of Australians to learn, understand and embrace the ANZAC traditions, this ignoramus obviously didn’t KNOW what ANZAC stands for.  (Australian (and) New Zealand Army Corps by the way).  It was a complete and utter insult to every serviceman  – ney, every clear thinking Australian and New Zealander that one of the medja’s favourite sons didn’t know the answer, especially after gushing on about how important it was and how much this game had contributed to our collective knowledge of the ANZAC traditions.

But it didn’t stop there.  Enter, stage right, Snagglepuss Brayshaw who proffered up this golden piece of information for Billy to digest.

“We don’t go to New Zealand Bill”.

Well, isn’t that just a kick in the teeth to every New Zealander who lives, works and loves in Australia, many of whom will have had ancestors or friends who have served in the NZ Army Corp and deserve their due recognition on this  – Australia’s proudest day.

Without the New Zealanders, the ANZAC tradition, and the Spirit of the ANZAC’s would never have been born, so I hope that the powers that be in Channel 9 do some ‘educating’ of their own and teach  these bozo’s what it means to be a/. respectful and b/. knowledgeable.

I found this whole episode to be quite distasteful and, Bill Brownless aside, the whole Channel 9 Sunday Footy Show panel should be sent back to school, should march in the dawn service next year and should basically grow a collective brain.

Bill, I don’t often agree with you on many things, but after this latest episode, you’ll do me mate. Well done.