http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/afl-r ... 90275.html
This quote struck me:
"We have been consistent in recent years in saying that multi-coloured armbands, temporary tattoos or body advertising is not the most appropriate way of demonstrating support for causes.
"The only exemption is the police armband worn in the St Kilda-Hawthorn game which followed a decision some time ago to commemorate the deaths of two Victorian police officers (the Silk-Miller Cup)."
nice consistency Adrian. Speaking of the great man. Dwane (Russell, i think) seriously grilled him on the radio a couple of nights ago. Talk about artful dodging.
The AFL considers itself to be such a great community leader. Shall we call this year their off-track year
The AFL so far in 07 has:
Stuck to the ban of colored armbands for cancer awareness, although is happy for a different guernsay to be worn. Most likely because it gives them an upper hand in the away strip debate. (by the way-how is a yellow guernsay not body advertising?)
Revelations of salary cap allowances for drug rehabilitation for a player who hasnt been formally suspended since he hasnt been positively tested for drugs, so may not actually be on them, but they can have the cash anyway. The same extension need not apply to players with actual conditions...such as cancer...oop. that bloody word again Adrian.
Councilled a first year player for gambling "addiction" for a $10 bet on the brownlow. By the way, i put $50 on the brownlow last year...granted i made $200 back, should i seek councilling. those nasty TAB dealers are alluring.
Introduced a near impossible to consistently adjudicate rule on player contact to the back (touch=push), which has only served to frustrate players, coaches and fans, and make the umpires life impossible (who are these people in the grand scheme of the game anyway, huh? i dont remember players having such a great traditional role in the game anyway. Champion CEO's and Operations Officers. they are the true figures of the game)
Led the way in reason.
+Burgoyne/Goodes tribunal decisions
+Selwood/Headland
+Baker's 2+2=3 suspension
+Dean Solomon's apparently good track record. One week suspension, contested usually equals 2 by precedent. esp with carry over points and 2 appearances in a very short season so far
Carl Williams is probably cursing the fact the AFL doesnt run our courts. He'd be Police Commissioner by now
Ignored the requests of one of the great players in the history of the game, Buckley, to place a moratorium on the rules. Now no one is exactly sure what is right or wrong in the game.
Allowed the Umpires boss to inadvertently spell out favouritism for the games elite (definition of a ball player Giesch?), yet has imposed a Big Brother style clamp on any comments about the rules and the way the umpires may struggle to enforce them. At the same time, there can be acknowledgements of how their, human i must add, inability to adjudicate a dumb rule, with a softer stance on player contact than lawnbowls has, can cost a team a game.
--------
Thats the end of my rant and i really just wanted that off my chest.
This has nothing to do with Essendon per se, just the fact the last few years (perhaps coincidentally since Anderson stepped in), the AFL executive division appears to be run by the 3 stooges...well 2 of them anyway.
