Nathan Motton'Tunnelling' slur on Bolton a disgrace
March 26th 2008 06:25
Sydney Swans coach Paul Roos has backed his defender Craig Bolton and accused St Kilda chief executive Archie Fraser of slurring his club, amidst a storm of controversy surrounding 'tunnelling' tactics.
Concerns about the tactic were raised by St Kilda after they believed it was used against Nick Riewoldt on Saturday night. They also argue that this is not the first time.
'Tunnelling' involves moving an opponents body under the flight of the ball while he is attempting to mark, and carries serious risk of injury.
But Roos hit back at the claims today, and insists that he had not heard of the tactic until it was raised at the weekend.
"It's a bit of a slur on Craig, he's a captain of our footy club and it's a bit of a slur on us," he said.
Roos has voiced his disappointment about the way Fraser voiced his concerns.
"We made that (not going straight to the media) very clear absolutely, we just needed to get that across to Archie and the St Kilda footy club," Roos said.
St Kilda lodged their official complaint with the AFL last night.
Once again Roosy is left scratching his head as to what exactly his club, or his player, has done wrong.
He has asked (once again) for clarification of the rules, and what is allowed, and more importantly disallowed in marking contests.
The question I hear you asking is wouldn't he already know this.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
But this scribe doesn't have a problem with the seriousness of the threat, and the potential implications the tactic could have on a player.
I'm not convinced that 'tunnelling' exists in the sense that players deliberately do it, nor am I convinced that Bolton was the antagonist in all of this.
On my count, there were maybe two or three incidents where free kicks could have been paid to Riewoldt, and the umpires have admitted this.
But that's it.
There was no malice in Bolton's intent.
And should the AFL launch yet another one of its investigations, it will no doubt find the same thing.
To single these handful of incidents' out as a deliberate ploy to jeopardise a players safety, is ludicrous and no doubt a real blight on a players character.
Roos has every right to be annoyed.
As this scribe has written before, all it took was a simple phone call from one person - to Roos - to voice their concerns.
Instead we have this.
The coming days will be interesting.
Concerns about the tactic were raised by St Kilda after they believed it was used against Nick Riewoldt on Saturday night. They also argue that this is not the first time.
'Tunnelling' involves moving an opponents body under the flight of the ball while he is attempting to mark, and carries serious risk of injury.
But Roos hit back at the claims today, and insists that he had not heard of the tactic until it was raised at the weekend.
Roos has voiced his disappointment about the way Fraser voiced his concerns.
"We made that (not going straight to the media) very clear absolutely, we just needed to get that across to Archie and the St Kilda footy club," Roos said.
St Kilda lodged their official complaint with the AFL last night.
Once again Roosy is left scratching his head as to what exactly his club, or his player, has done wrong.
He has asked (once again) for clarification of the rules, and what is allowed, and more importantly disallowed in marking contests.
The question I hear you asking is wouldn't he already know this.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
But this scribe doesn't have a problem with the seriousness of the threat, and the potential implications the tactic could have on a player.
I'm not convinced that 'tunnelling' exists in the sense that players deliberately do it, nor am I convinced that Bolton was the antagonist in all of this.
On my count, there were maybe two or three incidents where free kicks could have been paid to Riewoldt, and the umpires have admitted this.
There was no malice in Bolton's intent.
And should the AFL launch yet another one of its investigations, it will no doubt find the same thing.
To single these handful of incidents' out as a deliberate ploy to jeopardise a players safety, is ludicrous and no doubt a real blight on a players character.
Roos has every right to be annoyed.
As this scribe has written before, all it took was a simple phone call from one person - to Roos - to voice their concerns.
Instead we have this.
The coming days will be interesting.
| 54 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
