Alright, I promise that I won't say any more, it's been done to death and he's now been cleared, but I'd like one last word on the whole sorry Roos saga. My understanding of the rule breach that Paul Roos was investigated over states that one is not supposed to "intentionally induce or encourage any player to perform otherwise than on his merits".
Roos said that any comment that he may or may not have made was simply in jest. Fair enough, but I struggle with that given that the other part of his defence appeared to be "why would I seriously tell him to not kick a goal (and throw the game), I didn't need to because he knew that we never intended to win the game!" Now, I have no doubt that he's telling the truth. Footage of the game showed McVeigh run on to the groundlaughing after receiving his instructions from Roos, so it probably was all a funny little comment about not kicking a goal that the four witnesses probably heared (albeit their subsequent complaints indicate that they, like myself, didn't find it that funny).
I guess what concerns me most is that those of us who believe some sort of punishment (or at least investigation) was worth consideration, and those many people (probably a majority of people), the Swans players, officials and their defenders in the media, are not too far apart on the facts of the matter. Only the seriousness of the charge.
Take Richard Hinds (Fairfax's key Sydney AFL reporter and most outspoken defender of both Roos and the Swans),
Hinds goes on the rubbish the notion that an investigation was necessary on the grounds that the interests of those wagering on the result needed to be protected with this gem:
Forgive me if I'm being too sensitive, but isn't this pretty much conceding that logically, the intention of Roos was to always lose? Might that not, in some circumstantial way, establish a case for Sydney to answer? I mean, this is someone defending the Sydney coach in the face of a 'slanderous' accusation, but the defence utterly concedes the point. It's like saying that Hansie Cronjie should never have been thrown out of cricket, because the evidence that he rigged games were all meaningless ODIs.
Roos said during the week that he wished someone had been looking at Carlton's team selections and decisions late last year, when they clearly ran dead to get the number one draft pick. Here I agree 100%, I've been complaining about this for years, so I guess I hoped that in the face of a case with some sort of evidence base to crack down on a problem in footy, the AFL might have been able to send a message to ALL teams about not trying. Unfortunately not.
For those new here, my earlier comments can be found here, here and here.
Roos said that any comment that he may or may not have made was simply in jest. Fair enough, but I struggle with that given that the other part of his defence appeared to be "why would I seriously tell him to not kick a goal (and throw the game), I didn't need to because he knew that we never intended to win the game!" Now, I have no doubt that he's telling the truth. Footage of the game showed McVeigh run on to the groundlaughing after receiving his instructions from Roos, so it probably was all a funny little comment about not kicking a goal that the four witnesses probably heared (albeit their subsequent complaints indicate that they, like myself, didn't find it that funny).
I guess what concerns me most is that those of us who believe some sort of punishment (or at least investigation) was worth consideration, and those many people (probably a majority of people), the Swans players, officials and their defenders in the media, are not too far apart on the facts of the matter. Only the seriousness of the charge.
Take Richard Hinds (Fairfax's key Sydney AFL reporter and most outspoken defender of both Roos and the Swans),
regardless of how many people heard Roos's remark, or even whether he did tell McVeigh not to kick a goal, the AFL has created a rod for its own back by over-reacting to the words of a coach who had already made it clear in the days before the first NAB Cup match that he did not want to win.
Hinds goes on the rubbish the notion that an investigation was necessary on the grounds that the interests of those wagering on the result needed to be protected with this gem:
Anyone who backed a Swans team missing 13 first-choice players and with Roos publicly stating his preference to play practice matches under regular-season rules does so much need protection as psychotherapy.
Forgive me if I'm being too sensitive, but isn't this pretty much conceding that logically, the intention of Roos was to always lose? Might that not, in some circumstantial way, establish a case for Sydney to answer? I mean, this is someone defending the Sydney coach in the face of a 'slanderous' accusation, but the defence utterly concedes the point. It's like saying that Hansie Cronjie should never have been thrown out of cricket, because the evidence that he rigged games were all meaningless ODIs.
Roos said during the week that he wished someone had been looking at Carlton's team selections and decisions late last year, when they clearly ran dead to get the number one draft pick. Here I agree 100%, I've been complaining about this for years, so I guess I hoped that in the face of a case with some sort of evidence base to crack down on a problem in footy, the AFL might have been able to send a message to ALL teams about not trying. Unfortunately not.
For those new here, my earlier comments can be found here, here and here.
Comments