Dees earn scrutiny as bigger loser in clash of AFL's most disappointing duo

The Age

2 days ago

Bump language shows mindset change
Whether Steven May is suspended or not, the moment was proof the mindset of the game has fundamentally changed.
You change behaviours by changing language, and the May case is proof the AFL has already changed the narrative on these types of collision incidents.
Instantly, the discussion centred on the velocity of May, what his plan was and the expectation of collision if and when he arrived late. It was also about the change of the duty of care, that pulling up or pulling out of a contest is OK if it means you don't concuss the other player.
Previously, the reaction would have typically been that the MRO shouldn't even look at the case because both players were going for the ball and it was just an unfortunate collision.
Loading
That could still ultimately be what the tribunal decides, but significantly the discussion – even among veteran players – reflects the sort of change the AFL has been seeking. Now the conversation is whether what May did was fair and reasonable when his opponent, Francis Evans, came off concussed and bleeding from the head with a lost tooth.
May may be cleared, like Fremantle's Alex Pearce was earlier in the season, or he might go for weeks as North Melbourne's Jackson Archer did. That is not the point. The point is the shift in the conversation.
'He was going to go and win that football', Nathan Buckley said in commentary before adding that he was not sure 'our game can allow that any more'.
Jack Riewoldt offered on Fox: 'if you come in with that sort of velocity … this incident has a little bit of the Jackson Archer about it and that cost him three weeks.
'He came that fast into the contest, the collision was inevitable. Steven May has a duty of care because Francis Evans has the ball there.'
David King added: 'What we had to do is look at it from the victim's point of view. What are we asking Evans to do?'
Whether May's action is considered more akin to Archer or to Pearce will determine May's fate, but the bigger outcome has already been realised with the change in the language and the idea of what the game should tolerate.
Time to topple Tassie roof
The Tasmanian state election does not deliver a majority government, but logically it does deliver a majority of MPs who support a new football stadium.
Liberal and Labor have both backed a stadium. Combined they have the numbers to now approve the stadium. Logic would say they do, though logic is rare in politics
Don't waste a crisis is a truism of politics, which – if applied to Tasmania – would say that the new government, in whatever minority form it takes, has the chance to leverage its precarious political position to achieve what should have been the AFL and state government position from the outset and abandon the roof.
The roof was a desirable, if expensive, luxury item the AFL added to the stadium as an ambit claim.
The AFL logic was that, at the moment of their strongest bargaining position, they needed to ask for everything they wanted. The rationale was that if they didn't get what they wanted now, they would never get it. So they set a roofed stadium – not just a stadium – as a precondition. It was the sort of negotiating position Tony Soprano would've applauded.
A roofed stadium would be an easier sell when recruiting players and for luring travelling fans to fly down to watch their team play against the Devils. But in making the demand, the AFL managed to turn what should have been a unifying moment for Tasmania and its football into an election issue and a flashpoint in a state that does not have to go searching for things to fight about.
Infrastructure projects that come in on budget are as rare as Tasmanian tigers. The stadium will cost more than budgeted, and the federal government, which is committing every spare sports dollar it has to the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, has made it clear there will be no more money for the stadium. They put a ceiling on the roof.
The AFL has said it won't throw in more cash, so if and when the costs run over, the state will be left scrambling for more.
A roof in a cold but relatively dry state would be an excellent addition, particularly if combined with air conditioning/heating. But that would only add to the expense. And, yes, this idea of abandoning the roof is said in the knowledge of the foul weather experienced by Hawthorn and Port Adelaide at the weekend and after personally covering a North v West Coast game at Bellerive in horrendous conditions, with a wind so strong the ball blew back over players' heads.
Let's not forget, football was played in Canberra in snow. No one demanded a roofed stadium for the Giants to come into the competition.
If the Libs and Labor in Tassie don't join together and push the stadium through in its current state because they hate each other or maybe the minority Greens and independents demand concessions, what happens then?
Is the AFL truly going to walk away from a team this far down the track, with funding offered by governments, a CEO and football staff employed, player movement rules and concessions drafted and clubs making decisions on the trading of players and draft picks in anticipation of the team's arrival? To go ahead requires the agreement of the majority of AFL clubs. Will they really cut and run on Tassie now with no roofed stadium?
The AFL has the opportunity to pivot and reposition their brand in Tasmania, which has taken a hit even among the large number of Tasmanians who support a team and stadium.
Rioli's revives Bosustow memories
Peter Bosustow, who died earlier in the year, kicked goal of the year in his first season for a smother then recovering the ball and snapping a goal.
He played in the era of Maurice Rioli. What Maurice Rioli Jnr (MJ) did against West Coast was very like Bosustow. His diving smother to then soccer the ball to himself, gather and chip to the goal square was superb. It was all Bosustow, right to the moment he didn't just kick the goal himself but passed it.
Later he produced diving rundown tackle that was just as thrillingly team-lifting. It was one of those slow-motion moments where everyone but the ball carrier could see what was about to happen next. Poor Brady Hough.
MJ has taken time to find his place in the Tigers' team. He is not a big possession winner, his skills can be loose, but his speed and pressure is elite.