UnSportsman

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Vimu Subscription

Crap umpiring is ruining the AFL. It needs to be said, preferably by someone with more clout than your humble complainer – say, the CEO – but we know that won’t happen. Umpires have become an unduly protected species, with even media commentators mostly barred from offering criticism, lest they upset anyone.

The fault for the deplorable state of umpiring in this fair game of ours lies squarely with the AFL. How can a professional sports league include rules as impossible to accurately interpret as “deliberately” putting the ball over the boundary? That rule is probably the one I find most frustrating, especially since I don’t think it needs to exist. So what if they put it over deliberately? If it’s on the full, it’s a free – if it’s tapped over, it’s a throw-in. Simple enough, isn’t it?

Overcomplicating the game is bad enough, but the overzealousness of the fabled Match Review Panel ® is truly breathtaking. How many good players have copped suspensions or lost Brownlow eligibility this year, for things that wouldn’t earn you a detention if you did it during PE?

[The Grumpy Traveller has been given 79 demerit points for this article.]

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: The Grumpy Traveller - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Why Footy Confidential is Unwatchable

September 1st 2008 12:26

Did anyone watch Footy Classified last night? I didn’t, since it clashed with other important activities in my schedule, like ordering books off Amazon for a quarter of what I’d pay at Borders (after shipping and handling AND taking into account the conversion rate, which I should have taken advantage of more often when it was at 98 cents. Alas, alas…). I wasn’t interested for more reasons than that – for one, being a bit sick of footy shows after the Sunday morning programs, where Tony Jones earned my everlasting affection for telling Billy Brownless that his book is crap.

Mostly, I wasn’t interested because there’s only so many times you can listen to Glenn Archer and Craig Hutchison pounce on every word Caroline Wilson says. She’s wrong sometimes, sure, but why make it such an obvious vendetta? ‘Hutchy’ doesn’t have a spotless track record with accuracy either, yet he doesn’t get shouted down and harassed for daring to have an opinion. And, in general, Archer’s problems with all journalists come across as childish and hypocritical.

In fairness to Wilson, she doesn’t really need another person rushing in to defend her. She can handle herself, as evidenced by her not having smacked anyone in the mouth (so far, and that we know of). No, I’m complaining about this because it’s become tedious television at best. How is it that everything gets turned into a reason to grill one member of the panel? The gist of every show is, more or less, comprised of the following:

“How can you say that, Caro? But do you have any evidence?” (In this scenario, Wilson might have suggested that Mark Thompson was thirsty or looked tired.)

“I don’t have any evidence, but I KNOW you would breach ethics!”

“While we’re at it, Caroline Wilson, why do you hate Christmas?”

Thanks, Channel 9, but I’d prefer Dexter. At least he has manners.

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: The Grumpy Traveller - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Players with Wanky Haircuts

August 22nd 2008 06:27

Dale Thomas might be a decent player. I’d dispute this, but there must be something good about him. Why else would various commentators fall over themselves to rate even his most pedestrian grabs as “spectacular”? Do they mean spectacular in the same way as someone praising a dopey child for throwing a ball “close” to its intended target? But I digress.

No, my major beef with Dale Thomas is his impressively dicky haircut. It was bad enough when it was just one of those deliberate messes – the huge bouncing yellow mop that flapped haplessly around while its owner stumbled equally haplessly over the boundary line. So imagine my mixture of delight and horror when it emerged as a black, bouncing mess. With one highly flammable bottle, he passed the point of “slightly toolish” and landed himself firmly in the realm of the “massive wanker”.

Who else belongs in this exclusive category? Lest we think I’m prejudiced against the untidy, I think Matthew Lloyd’s helmet of gel/hair wax is one of the most unflattering examples of coiffure fashion around. It also represents the insufferable aspects of Lloyd’s personality – humourless, lacking in creativity, and hugely self-important (as opposed to Thomas’s, which is undeniably flamboyant, but also uncoordinated and directionless).

Maybe I shouldn’t waste time thinking about these things but, alas, I can’t help myself. Incidentally, if anyone reading this overhears a woman in her mid-twenties discussing the psychology of hair at the football, it’s probably me.

Vote

Comments (4)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: The Grumpy Traveller - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Michael Voss: Terrible Commentator = Terrible Coach?

August 16th 2008 04:09

Listening to Michael Voss’s commentary in the game against Hawthorn, I felt that the new Gold Coast team had dodged a bullet by not securing him as its first coach.

This might seem like a harsh assessment of a Brownlow-winning, triple-premiership captain. But playing ability doesn’t always equal coaching ability, as several high-profile examples will attest. Does anyone even remember Tim Watson’s stint at St Kilda? And the less said about Tony Shaw’s time at Collingwood, the better (unless, of course, you despise Collingwood and remember Shaw’s tenure with the kind of fondness usually reserved for firstborn grandchildren

[ Click here to read more ]

Vote