Encouraging words ... James Hird pays tribute to his "outstanding" Bombers players. Source: Wayne Ludbey / News Limited
To quote a smart man with an abnormally large head, who hails from Louisiana and now resides in the small country town of South Park, Colorado: "Drugs are bad, m?kay."
I’m not going to pretend that I am an expert on this Hird-Dank matter.
There seems to be an overload of information coming through the media and you would need a university degree (Arts degree doesn’t count) to be smart enough to make any sense of it all.
It’s like being able to put together an office chair that has come in the form of a flat pack. No degree in engineering = an office chair with an arm rest for a seat and the wheels being used for neck support.
Sometimes the media needs to take a big deep breath and map out some dot points of actual events and commonsense scenarios, before dusting off their typewriters.
No one will know this until ASADA have collected all evidence and to suggest this has actually happened, could only be a guess.
Actually, to say that James Hird "has done no wrong" could well be wrong in itself and because I am not a true journalist and have no idea how to research stuff.
Here are some written words from Neil Mitchell, a man who is respected enormously by pretty much everyone and I hope that quoting him brings me much needed credibility:
"Today I have been through the AFL drug code. There is a very strong argument that it does cover James Hird, and in fact any official of a club. On this, the AFL drug code is unequivocal in that it applies to officials. Page eight says it applies to officials. Page five describes what an official is: 'An official means coach, trainer, manager etc.'
"There is more. Page ten says it is not a defence to a charge that you were ignorant of what you were taking. And page ten says that drugs banned by WADA are banned by the AFL.
"So in summary, under my reading of the AFL rules and after seeking legal advice, coaches are covered; WADA bans are AFL bans - and this drug is banned by WADA; and to say that you didn’t know what you were taking is not a defence."
Thanks Neil, now I am confused. Unequivocal? I guess we have to allow the experts (ASADA) to make a decision on their findings and we can only pray that for the sake of the game that James Hird is cleared of any wrongdoing and that the success of the Essendon boys is no longer clouded in doubt.
Maybe it’s my wandering mind, or the fact that I have not missed a series of Underbelly, but you just hope this doesn’t go down a sinister path.
Bloodshed, vendettas (no, not Vienettas), distribution of drugs and other Underbelly-related naughtiness. When you’ve got a chap involved who runs under the name 'The Weapon', you can’t help but feel you are seeing the story line of a TV mini-series unfolding.
"Moving onto more pressing issues, this sliding rule is going to destroy my soul. And if I continue writing for foxsports.com.au about AFL, it will end up destroying you, too. Accept my advanced apology.” - This was said by me in week two of AFL Outsider.
I’m pretty sure quoting myself has just undone the credibility gained from quoting Neil Mitchell. I shall now quote Emily Vancamp to restore said credibility:
"The spotlight does put pressure on certain aspects of my life. I've given up looking for a boyfriend. That's not to say I won't be interested if the right guy comes along. But I'm not in a hurry." "So you’re telling me there’s a chance… YEAH!!?? - Lloyd Christmas, Dumb and Dumber. So much credibility.
Now, how do we go about restoring the credibility of the AFL for bringing in the sliding rule? The players are confused, the coaches are confused, Hale and Pace have a skit that's punchline is based around Billy and Johnny (young children) being confused and after watching Luke Hodge slide into Harry O’Brien’s shin and being rewarded with a free kick for high contact, and Harry being reported for rough conduct; it’s fair to say that the umpires are as confused as a drunk person attempting the Mensa entrance exam.
Where to from here?
We all know that players are looking for an edge over an opponent. That’s the nature of sport. The hands-in-the-back rule allowed players, who had gained front position, to throw themselves forward whenever they were out-positioned/outmarked by the stronger opponent behind them, giving them a chance at marking/spoiling the ball and if all else failed, a shot at a free kick. Hedging your bets is smart and a ploy that I am sure sits comfortably with coaches.
The evolution of the sliding rule is for players to start abusing it.
Players will play for free kicks; this is inevitable. Any player who finds themselves on the ground is now at risk of being kicked in the face and having a free kick paid against them for making contact to a players shin whilst lying on the ground.
This may sound extreme, but it’s going to happen. The kicking-in-danger rule seems to be back in vogue and in some instances over the weekend should have been paid against the bloke putting his body over the ball through being on the ground, as this is the foundation of the sliding rule.
It’s a mess and one that will continue to cause confusion for anyone playing, officiating or watching the game.
PS - spare a thought for Jack Newnes and Dean Brogan. Newnes attempted to provide a physical presence on Dean Brogan, who was making his way to the bench, only to run into Brogan's shoulder and break his own jaw.
Brogan got a three-week breather for rough, negligent, high contact. I like Newnes, he has the same qualities as a young Nick Dal Santo. But please Jack, take this advice on board: you will create a physical presence on players who are smaller than you, not guys that were a physical presence in the NBL.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét