It’s been a long, barren off-season during which I thought at times that the Daily Telegraph had the monopoly on crappy rugby league writing. But the NRL is back, back, back and to mark the beginning of the 2012 season the Sydney Morning Herald has launched a new column which has kicked off with a rich seam of bullshit.
In a straight rip-off of similar columns seen all over the world’s sports media, the Herald is running “five things we learnt from last night’s game” after NRL fixtures. Unfortunately, the content of the two columns I’ve seen so far mostly leaves me asking: ‘Did we learn that? Because it sure seems like a cliché that could have been thought up long before the game and is now being recycled with some bland puffery even if it is directly contrary to what actually happened on the field.’
I knew I’d stumbled upon a potential goldmine from the very first thing we “learnt” from the Knights v Dragons five: “It has taken just three months for Wayne Bennett to turn the Knights into premiership contenders.” Apparently, the Knights “showed more confidence and composure than last season when the team limped into the top eight”.
Well, maybe. I mean, that’s certainly what a lot of people were saying would happen before the game. It's just that the evidence of what happened during doesn’t necessarily back that up. What I witnessed was a solid but uninspired Dragons team huffing and puffing to a narrow victory over a Knights outfit that showed creativity in flashes but made far too many mistakes.
Of course an average performance in round one means virtually nothing: there is no reason why the Knights can’t be turned into premiership contenders by Wayne Bennett (well, apart from the whole ‘Kurt Gidley is five-eighth’ thing) but on the other hand there was very little to support the view that this transformation has already taken place.
Incidentally, in round one 2011 the unconfident, lacking in composure Knights side that limped into the top eight at the end of the season played away at a Penrith outfit that finished second in 2010. The Knights won, 42-8.
Anyway, that little nugget was no more than a hors d’ouevre to the five things we apparently learned from the Parramatta v Brisbane game.
If I was asked to come up with five things I learned from the game that would be both vaguely relevant (in other words, ‘watching two people in blue and yellow ponchos clapping their hands and shouting “Parra! Parra!” is not the same as the majestic sight of a 100,000-plus crowd at the Maracana’ does not count) and could justifiably claim to have been learned from the game rather than made up several days or weeks in advance, I might go for something like:
1) If Parramatta thought Chris Sandow was going to suddenly turn them into a team with consistently creative attacking options they might be disappointed.
2) The new NRL season is unlikely to really fire until it stops raining.
3) If Brisbane don’t develop some more attacking options we are going to be hearing even more about Darren bloody Lockyer this season than we did last.
4) Parramatta are going to have to figure something out regarding Sandow’s defence because he was too easy to target.
5) Watching two people in blue and yellow ponchos clapping their hands and shouting “Parra! Parra!” is not the same as the majestic sight of a 100,000-plus crowd at the Maracana.
Ok, so I cheated a bit at the end. But at least my five weren’t:
1) Life after Locky is a work in progress.
2) There’s hope without Hayne.
3) Sandow is the real deal.
4) Brisbane’s attack is an organised mess.
5) Parramatta still don’t know how to close out games.
Let’s deal with these in order. The first and fourth points are, to all intents, the same thing. Brisbane looked clueless with ball in hand against the Eels, wasting a large quantity of attacking sets without threatening the line, dropping the ball frequently, slinging it wildly left to right without looking like finding a gap in the line and generally playing like a team that has recently lost its star playmaker. These things are all true, but really only need to be said once.
As for the Hayne point, well, hmm. Parramatta scored 6 points against a very, very mediocre Broncos side. Their only try came from a nothing kick that a defender did a hilarious bar of soap act with under minimal pressure. In 80 minutes of football Parramatta made a grand total of two offloads and zero line breaks. I am going to say right now that the suggestion that Parra “finally had players at their disposal who could fill the playmaking void and create something in attack” is unmitigated nonsense.
Speaking of which: Chris Sandow. As it happens, I think Sandow went ok. He scored a (massively fortuitous) try, kicked pretty well, only got spectacularly run over in defence once or twice and, well, it probably wasn’t the right night for his ball or running skills. We certainly didn’t see much of them.
The Herald column, however, chooses to emphasise the positives. Namely: “For one who thrives on confidence, he couldn't have asked for a better start than a try in the opening minutes”, and “his kicking game was not only accurate, but smart, finding touch at the right times to give his team a well earned break”.
Wowser. Is it fair to say that one might want a little more out of one’s half-million dollar new half back than the ability to fall on a ball in the in goal and kick for touch? Fair enough, it was a rotten, damp night and there was precious little opportunity to impress with ball in hand. But surely the conclusion there could only be something like ‘we need to see better conditions to judge whether the Sandow signing is a good one’? Simply anointing Sandow on the basis of some reasonable kicking and managing to fall over successfully seems just a touch soft.
Finally, “Parramatta still don’t know how to close out games”, which to me sounds like taking a potentially interesting point – Brisbane looked eminently beatable, but Parra couldn’t do it – and turning it into cliché.
First of all, it’s not based on even the most cursory examination of what actually happened in the game. The Herald article says Parra “dominated for most of the match”, which is simply untrue. The possession figures were 50/50, while Brisbane made more total run metres and Parra made more tackles. Parramatta completed two more sets (32 to 30) but Brisbane had more sets to start with (44 to 40). That’s not to mention the fact that Parra’s best period was at the start of the game, before Brisbane enjoyed a period of supremacy in the second half.
The point is that “closing out the game” wasn’t Parramatta’s problem at all, at least in the sense that “not scoring any points” was so much of a bigger problem that anything else pails into insignificance. “Closing out the game” puts me in mind of a team holding on to a narrow lead or getting a vital go-ahead try in a close game. But Parra weren’t ahead after 54 minutes and were behind on 59. If anything, the only team that even had a chance to “close out the game” was the Broncos, which they did by scoring a game-icing try on 72.
I’ll certainly be keeping an eye on “five things we learnt” and will update as and when I learn anything.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
The sound of a tune being changed
Ever since NRL bad boy Todd Carney joined the preferred club of the Daily Telegraph’s propagandist-in-chief, Phil “Zzz” Rothfield, I’ve been waiting for a steady tide of positive coverage of how Carney is a changed man, Dally M frontrunner, leading humanitarian and philanthropist and so on ad infinitum.
And so it begins on February 3, as James “Snivelling Toady” Phelps pens an article in the Telegraph that manages to convert a decent Cronulla debut by Carney in a trial match against a one-third strength Manly into something akin to the second coming.
According to Snivelling Toady, Carney “proved beyond a doubt that he could be indeed the man to save the Sharks” with a two-try performance in a 38-6 demolition of “a near premiership-strength Sea Eagles out-fit [sic]”.
Impressive stuff, no doubt – and that’s certainly a hell of a score line against the reining premiers. However, my doubts started when I glanced down at the list of scorers. The hapless Sea Eagles’ only try scorer was one “M Jowett” – not a player I recall starring in last season’s grand final, to say the least. The successful conversion of said try was knocked over by someone called “S Blanch” – again, not one of the blokes I recall lining up a lot of touchline conversions for Manly in recent times.
So I decided to hold my nose and pop over to the Sea Eagles’ website (don’t worry, I’ve deleted my browser history) to check out this “near premiership strength” side they picked for the trial.
Well, it should be said that Manly did indeed pick 10 of the players who contested the grand final. However, what the Telegraph’s Carney hagiography failed to mention is the fact that these 10 made up less than a third of a 31-man squad (I assume they were all men, though in the case of individuals like “Jason Annear” and “Liam Higgins” I’m afraid I’ve only got first name conventions to go on).
Given Manly are also two weeks out from the world club challenge in the UK, and that their new coach said in advance of the trial “our first grade strength players will only get 20 to 30 minutes”, and that Cronulla scored most of their points in the second half, I’m going to hold off for a little on my own “Carney is back” conclusion.
And so it begins on February 3, as James “Snivelling Toady” Phelps pens an article in the Telegraph that manages to convert a decent Cronulla debut by Carney in a trial match against a one-third strength Manly into something akin to the second coming.
According to Snivelling Toady, Carney “proved beyond a doubt that he could be indeed the man to save the Sharks” with a two-try performance in a 38-6 demolition of “a near premiership-strength Sea Eagles out-fit [sic]”.
Impressive stuff, no doubt – and that’s certainly a hell of a score line against the reining premiers. However, my doubts started when I glanced down at the list of scorers. The hapless Sea Eagles’ only try scorer was one “M Jowett” – not a player I recall starring in last season’s grand final, to say the least. The successful conversion of said try was knocked over by someone called “S Blanch” – again, not one of the blokes I recall lining up a lot of touchline conversions for Manly in recent times.
So I decided to hold my nose and pop over to the Sea Eagles’ website (don’t worry, I’ve deleted my browser history) to check out this “near premiership strength” side they picked for the trial.
Well, it should be said that Manly did indeed pick 10 of the players who contested the grand final. However, what the Telegraph’s Carney hagiography failed to mention is the fact that these 10 made up less than a third of a 31-man squad (I assume they were all men, though in the case of individuals like “Jason Annear” and “Liam Higgins” I’m afraid I’ve only got first name conventions to go on).
Given Manly are also two weeks out from the world club challenge in the UK, and that their new coach said in advance of the trial “our first grade strength players will only get 20 to 30 minutes”, and that Cronulla scored most of their points in the second half, I’m going to hold off for a little on my own “Carney is back” conclusion.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Anatomy of a beat up; or, stealing someone else’s cake and eating it
A mucky little episode perpetrated by the Daily Telegraph occurred yesterday, with the filthy rag making up a story, kind of sort of retracting it and then following up with a directly contradictory story – without a hint of shame – all in the space of 24 hours.
It all kicked off with the explosive allegation made by Telegraph pygmy Dean “Grub Street” Ritchie that “the relationship between Wests Tigers coach Tim Sheens and his star hooker has broken down to the point where Robbie Farah could be forced out of the club”.
Matching its usual standards of research and journalistic integrity, the Telegraph made a series of claims about Sheens and Farah with little or no supporting material (at a time, it should be remembered, where Farah is dealing with his mother’s potentially life-threatening illness – all class, Grub Street). The claims:
• “Sheens and Farah fell out during the recent Four Nations tour”.
• [Wests Tigers] “officials are aware both may not be able to remain at Concord”.
• “Farah has told close friends about his deepening issues with Sheens while Wests Tigers players are openly discussing it [sic].”
• [Farah] “has been tenuously linked with Parramatta”.
• “Farah'’ manager, Sam Ayoub, has discussed the situation with his high-profile client.”
• “Farah became irritated when overlooked for the major Four Nations Tests in England.”
Wow! It certainly seems that everyone’s in on this rift: Farah and Sheens, of course, various Tigers officials, Sam Ayoub, and presumably various people in the Australia and Parramatta set-ups. With a clutch of key sources from within those groups it certainly seems Grub Street has a hell of a scoop here.
Sadly, Grub Street actually has none of those sources. Not on the record – of course – and not even on background. In fact, the only supporting evidence offered for this series of claims is, unedited and its entirety, the following: “One source close to the Tigers said: ‘I am not sure they will both be there next year. I was talking to a high-profile Wests Tigers player the other day and he said teammates aren’t getting on great with Robbie.’”
I’m going to break the fourth wall here and offer a piece of direct advice, journalist to journalist: Grub Street, if you wrote for a legitimate newspaper and that’s your only source material, you ain’t got a story at all. Because – and this is the key – that is pathetic. A “source close to” whose only evidence is “I was talking to” is something called “hearsay”, and it’s rubbish.
Follow down
Even this source, however, was stronger than the basis for the Telegraph’s online follow-up article. Penned by one Tyson “Iron Shite” Otto, the piece claimed that “Tim Sheens and Robbie Farah will meet face to face in the next few days – the first time the pair have seen each other since falling out during the Kangaroos’ Four Nations campaign.”
Far be it from me to mention that the lack of a meeting since the tour might possibly have something to do with the fact that Farah left said tour early to be with his sick mother while Sheens was – amazingly enough – on tour.
What I will point out is that the Iron Shite article contained not a single source to confirm this explosive meeting between coach and captain (which actually doesn’t seem that explosive when you think about it – kind of like “company chairman meets company chief executive shocker”).
However, Iron Shite did drum up one actual-factual, on-the-record named source: Parramatta chairman Roy Spagnolo, to comment about Grub Street’s Farah-to-Parra line. And what did Spagnolo say, in its entirety? “There’s been no contact. I’ve got no knowledge of it.”
The plot thickens
Still, and predictably enough, Grub Street’s guff was enough to get Tigers fans in a right flap. Some panicking, others pointing out how miserably weak the source material is, others – the more reactionary and stupid – wading in with “there’s no smoke without fire”. Mission accomplished for Grub Street and the Telegraph, of course, with no acknowledgment of the outlandish possibility that Farah and Sheens might have had an argument but that their relationship did not completely break down as a result. You know, like happens in the real world every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
On this occasion, though, Farah and the Tigers weren’t willing to simply bathe in the Telegraph’s effluent and decided to fight back. By mid-afternoon, Farah released a strongly-worded statement through the club in which he said: “the reports create a totally false impression of things”.
While acknowledging he was “disappointed” not to be picked for Australia’s game against England, he added: “I totally accepted Tim’s decision. To now suggest that I would be seeking to leave the club that I love is just ridiculous and unfounded. Tim has been my coach since I came into first grade in 2003 and whilst we agree to disagree on things from time to time, our working relationship has never been adversely affected.”
Back on the front foot
Farah then got support from the same players he is supposedly not on speaking terms with. In a move that must have made the sports desk almost faint with excitement – well, that and the overpowering stench of fried onions and failure that presumably permeates the office – they got a call from none other than Benji Marshall. The same Marshall, it should be mentioned, who the Telegraph slurred less than three months ago over his shameful behaviour in being found not guilty of some bullshit trumped-up charge that should never have come to court in the first place.
Marshall’s call, it can be imagined, was not friendly. “Robbie and I are great mates and given the situation that Robbie is going through with his mum, something like this is really annoying,” he said – using, it would seem, remarkably controlled language.
To be fair, Marshall does seem a little naïve. Firstly by wasting his time calling the Telegraph at all. Secondly by saying: “I don’t where this stuff always comes from. Unless you see me quoted with my name, don’t believe it.” Er, Benji – there’s no point telling the Telegraph that. They’re the ones who make it all up in the first place.
Still, at this point it would seem inevitable that the Telegraph would have to back down on its initial story. The combination of outright denial from one party involved and angry calls from related individuals (it’s amazing how every direct quote the Telegraph gets is denying their rubbish) are pretty conclusive reasons for a retraction.
Of course not. What Telegraph “readers” get instead is a third article, penned by Josh “Bottom Feeder” Massoud, which makes no mention at all of Grub Street’s apology (which has mysteriously vanished from Twitter) and presents Marshall’s angry call as “in a pro-active move, star Tigers playmaker Benji Marshall last night approached The Daily Telegraph to silence persistent rumours about player disharmony”. Yeah that and to call you all a bunch of lowlife scumbags, I sincerely hope.
The whole affair reminds me of the classic Sunday Sport “World War Two Bomber Found On Moon” headline. The true genius of that story was not the headline itself, but the follow-up story the next week. The Sport, spiritual journalistic brethren to the Telegraph, covered its tracks perfectly with “World War Two Bomber Found On Moon DISAPPEARS”.
It all kicked off with the explosive allegation made by Telegraph pygmy Dean “Grub Street” Ritchie that “the relationship between Wests Tigers coach Tim Sheens and his star hooker has broken down to the point where Robbie Farah could be forced out of the club”.
Matching its usual standards of research and journalistic integrity, the Telegraph made a series of claims about Sheens and Farah with little or no supporting material (at a time, it should be remembered, where Farah is dealing with his mother’s potentially life-threatening illness – all class, Grub Street). The claims:
• “Sheens and Farah fell out during the recent Four Nations tour”.
• [Wests Tigers] “officials are aware both may not be able to remain at Concord”.
• “Farah has told close friends about his deepening issues with Sheens while Wests Tigers players are openly discussing it [sic].”
• [Farah] “has been tenuously linked with Parramatta”.
• “Farah'’ manager, Sam Ayoub, has discussed the situation with his high-profile client.”
• “Farah became irritated when overlooked for the major Four Nations Tests in England.”
Wow! It certainly seems that everyone’s in on this rift: Farah and Sheens, of course, various Tigers officials, Sam Ayoub, and presumably various people in the Australia and Parramatta set-ups. With a clutch of key sources from within those groups it certainly seems Grub Street has a hell of a scoop here.
Sadly, Grub Street actually has none of those sources. Not on the record – of course – and not even on background. In fact, the only supporting evidence offered for this series of claims is, unedited and its entirety, the following: “One source close to the Tigers said: ‘I am not sure they will both be there next year. I was talking to a high-profile Wests Tigers player the other day and he said teammates aren’t getting on great with Robbie.’”
I’m going to break the fourth wall here and offer a piece of direct advice, journalist to journalist: Grub Street, if you wrote for a legitimate newspaper and that’s your only source material, you ain’t got a story at all. Because – and this is the key – that is pathetic. A “source close to” whose only evidence is “I was talking to” is something called “hearsay”, and it’s rubbish.
Follow down
Even this source, however, was stronger than the basis for the Telegraph’s online follow-up article. Penned by one Tyson “Iron Shite” Otto, the piece claimed that “Tim Sheens and Robbie Farah will meet face to face in the next few days – the first time the pair have seen each other since falling out during the Kangaroos’ Four Nations campaign.”
Far be it from me to mention that the lack of a meeting since the tour might possibly have something to do with the fact that Farah left said tour early to be with his sick mother while Sheens was – amazingly enough – on tour.
What I will point out is that the Iron Shite article contained not a single source to confirm this explosive meeting between coach and captain (which actually doesn’t seem that explosive when you think about it – kind of like “company chairman meets company chief executive shocker”).
However, Iron Shite did drum up one actual-factual, on-the-record named source: Parramatta chairman Roy Spagnolo, to comment about Grub Street’s Farah-to-Parra line. And what did Spagnolo say, in its entirety? “There’s been no contact. I’ve got no knowledge of it.”
The plot thickens
Still, and predictably enough, Grub Street’s guff was enough to get Tigers fans in a right flap. Some panicking, others pointing out how miserably weak the source material is, others – the more reactionary and stupid – wading in with “there’s no smoke without fire”. Mission accomplished for Grub Street and the Telegraph, of course, with no acknowledgment of the outlandish possibility that Farah and Sheens might have had an argument but that their relationship did not completely break down as a result. You know, like happens in the real world every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
On this occasion, though, Farah and the Tigers weren’t willing to simply bathe in the Telegraph’s effluent and decided to fight back. By mid-afternoon, Farah released a strongly-worded statement through the club in which he said: “the reports create a totally false impression of things”.
While acknowledging he was “disappointed” not to be picked for Australia’s game against England, he added: “I totally accepted Tim’s decision. To now suggest that I would be seeking to leave the club that I love is just ridiculous and unfounded. Tim has been my coach since I came into first grade in 2003 and whilst we agree to disagree on things from time to time, our working relationship has never been adversely affected.”
Back on the front foot
Farah then got support from the same players he is supposedly not on speaking terms with. In a move that must have made the sports desk almost faint with excitement – well, that and the overpowering stench of fried onions and failure that presumably permeates the office – they got a call from none other than Benji Marshall. The same Marshall, it should be mentioned, who the Telegraph slurred less than three months ago over his shameful behaviour in being found not guilty of some bullshit trumped-up charge that should never have come to court in the first place.
Marshall’s call, it can be imagined, was not friendly. “Robbie and I are great mates and given the situation that Robbie is going through with his mum, something like this is really annoying,” he said – using, it would seem, remarkably controlled language.
To be fair, Marshall does seem a little naïve. Firstly by wasting his time calling the Telegraph at all. Secondly by saying: “I don’t where this stuff always comes from. Unless you see me quoted with my name, don’t believe it.” Er, Benji – there’s no point telling the Telegraph that. They’re the ones who make it all up in the first place.
Still, at this point it would seem inevitable that the Telegraph would have to back down on its initial story. The combination of outright denial from one party involved and angry calls from related individuals (it’s amazing how every direct quote the Telegraph gets is denying their rubbish) are pretty conclusive reasons for a retraction.
Of course not. What Telegraph “readers” get instead is a third article, penned by Josh “Bottom Feeder” Massoud, which makes no mention at all of Grub Street’s apology (which has mysteriously vanished from Twitter) and presents Marshall’s angry call as “in a pro-active move, star Tigers playmaker Benji Marshall last night approached The Daily Telegraph to silence persistent rumours about player disharmony”. Yeah that and to call you all a bunch of lowlife scumbags, I sincerely hope.
The whole affair reminds me of the classic Sunday Sport “World War Two Bomber Found On Moon” headline. The true genius of that story was not the headline itself, but the follow-up story the next week. The Sport, spiritual journalistic brethren to the Telegraph, covered its tracks perfectly with “World War Two Bomber Found On Moon DISAPPEARS”.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Refusing to understand the purpose of a court: Ryan Tandy’s fine
A classic tactic of columnists looking to stir up shit where none was previously visible – the journalistic equivalent of forcing a banger round the u-bend – is to take two things that are not really equivalents and make a direct comparison between them. Here’s Glenn “LA Law” Jackson in the Sydney Morning Herald giving a textbook demonstration:
“So a price has been placed on defrauding a code. It is $4,000. To place it into context, if someone had run onto Dairy Farmers Stadium on August 21, 2010 – the night Ryan Tandy’s Canterbury played North Queensland – he or she might have been fined the same amount.
“The maximum penalty for streaking at Dairy Farmers Stadium is $4,000. That fine can be doubled if you interfere with the on-field play. But for interfering with the integrity of rugby league by attempting to manipulate the first scoring play of that Saturday night fixture, Tandy has been hit with a $4,000 fine. Or a $571 successful outlay on that option.”
Let’s swiftly deal with the rather odd last sentence, which seems to imply that Tandy could have covered his fine in advance by placing a bet as part of his own gambling scam. A course of action which, one would have to assume, he did in fact choose to take: Tandy is clearly not the first name on the list for Rhodes Scholarships but it’s difficult to imagine that even he would try to pull of a betting scam without placing a bet.
I’m not sure if LA Law has figured out that fines tend to be higher if the guilty party actually benefits from their fraud – perhaps he thinks Bernie Madoff, for instance, would have effectively got away with it if he’d just stolen enough money to cover the fine. In this case, the requirement of Tandy’s fine to repay his ill-gotten gains is presumably negated to quite a large extent by the fact that the whole ludicrous scheme didn’t pay off in the first place.
Anyway, back to the main point: the idea that the $4,000 fine is “the price [placed] on defrauding a code”. Which, of course, is utter nonsense: the fine (and a 12 month good behaviour bond!) is the price that has been placed on being convicted of providing false information to the NSW Crime Commission and attempting to dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception. So far as I’m aware, neither New South Wales nor the Australian Commonwealth has a law against defrauding a sporting code. If they do it seems rather odd that Tandy wasn’t charged with breaking it – he’d have been bang to rights.
Legally, what were the actual charges against Tandy equivalent to? Getting caught trying to pull of an insurance scam and lying about it, perhaps? It’s startlingly obvious to anyone who actually spends two seconds thinking about it that it’s the job of the court to enforce the law and of the NRL to uphold the integrity of the game. Ergo one minor league fraud equals a $4,000 fine (and a 12 month good behaviour bond!) and one spot fixing scam equals a life ban from the NRL. Seems to me that everyone’s done their job here.
Fortunately for LA Law, there’s one man who’s always prepared not to spend two seconds thinking about things: Mark “Slower” Geyer. Here’s Slower’s view: “Every spectator went there thinking they’re going to get a fair game, and they didn’t. You can do a lot in the game but you can’t rob the fans. What’s the price for that? It’s all about making people aware of what they’ve done. Does a $4,000 fine do that?”
Personally I’d argue that it is, in fact, perfectly possible to rob the fans in rugby league: the South Sydney Rabbitohs continue to charge for membership, for instance. But that’s beside the point, which is of course why Slower and LA Law are – accidentally or on purpose – suggesting that it’s up to a court of law to do the NRL’s disciplinary job for it. I can only assume these two would be in favour of tasering refs for making bad decisions, or even the death penalty for players who lie down faking head injuries to milk penalties. It’s the only language they understand.
“So a price has been placed on defrauding a code. It is $4,000. To place it into context, if someone had run onto Dairy Farmers Stadium on August 21, 2010 – the night Ryan Tandy’s Canterbury played North Queensland – he or she might have been fined the same amount.
“The maximum penalty for streaking at Dairy Farmers Stadium is $4,000. That fine can be doubled if you interfere with the on-field play. But for interfering with the integrity of rugby league by attempting to manipulate the first scoring play of that Saturday night fixture, Tandy has been hit with a $4,000 fine. Or a $571 successful outlay on that option.”
Let’s swiftly deal with the rather odd last sentence, which seems to imply that Tandy could have covered his fine in advance by placing a bet as part of his own gambling scam. A course of action which, one would have to assume, he did in fact choose to take: Tandy is clearly not the first name on the list for Rhodes Scholarships but it’s difficult to imagine that even he would try to pull of a betting scam without placing a bet.
I’m not sure if LA Law has figured out that fines tend to be higher if the guilty party actually benefits from their fraud – perhaps he thinks Bernie Madoff, for instance, would have effectively got away with it if he’d just stolen enough money to cover the fine. In this case, the requirement of Tandy’s fine to repay his ill-gotten gains is presumably negated to quite a large extent by the fact that the whole ludicrous scheme didn’t pay off in the first place.
Anyway, back to the main point: the idea that the $4,000 fine is “the price [placed] on defrauding a code”. Which, of course, is utter nonsense: the fine (and a 12 month good behaviour bond!) is the price that has been placed on being convicted of providing false information to the NSW Crime Commission and attempting to dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception. So far as I’m aware, neither New South Wales nor the Australian Commonwealth has a law against defrauding a sporting code. If they do it seems rather odd that Tandy wasn’t charged with breaking it – he’d have been bang to rights.
Legally, what were the actual charges against Tandy equivalent to? Getting caught trying to pull of an insurance scam and lying about it, perhaps? It’s startlingly obvious to anyone who actually spends two seconds thinking about it that it’s the job of the court to enforce the law and of the NRL to uphold the integrity of the game. Ergo one minor league fraud equals a $4,000 fine (and a 12 month good behaviour bond!) and one spot fixing scam equals a life ban from the NRL. Seems to me that everyone’s done their job here.
Fortunately for LA Law, there’s one man who’s always prepared not to spend two seconds thinking about things: Mark “Slower” Geyer. Here’s Slower’s view: “Every spectator went there thinking they’re going to get a fair game, and they didn’t. You can do a lot in the game but you can’t rob the fans. What’s the price for that? It’s all about making people aware of what they’ve done. Does a $4,000 fine do that?”
Personally I’d argue that it is, in fact, perfectly possible to rob the fans in rugby league: the South Sydney Rabbitohs continue to charge for membership, for instance. But that’s beside the point, which is of course why Slower and LA Law are – accidentally or on purpose – suggesting that it’s up to a court of law to do the NRL’s disciplinary job for it. I can only assume these two would be in favour of tasering refs for making bad decisions, or even the death penalty for players who lie down faking head injuries to milk penalties. It’s the only language they understand.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Amateur hour: Channel 9 and its commentators’ pokie embarrassment
Regardless of what you think about mandatory pre-commitment for gaming machines, there can be little doubt that the response to the proposals is, once again, giving the NRL and people connected with the game the opportunity to make themselves look like clowns. Channel 9 and its commentary team, Ray Warren and Phil “Frog Man” Gould, are among the first out of the comically overcrowded car with wobbly wheels.
As far as the actual proposal goes, personally I find it depressing to think that the NRL is genuinely dependent for its financial future on the conscience-salving handouts given by pokie palaces. If the game really can’t survive without the proceeds of a tax on the stupid (and by this I don’t mean ticket revenue at Souths games) then, well, maybe it doesn’t deserve to exist anyway.
Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I like to think that a well-run game that got its head out of its arse and tried to plan for the long term rather than twisting itself in knots for the next ten bucks would manage fine without the grubby reality of pokie money.
And let’s be honest: much as Frog Man and his corporate backers are keen to portray the pokies as a bit of fun down at the club the reality is that most of the revenue is coming from the misguided and the desperate, blindly feeding money they can’t afford to lose into the coffers of institutions that don’t care how much it hurts them when they inevitably do. If you’ve ever set foot in, say, the Dragons club in Kogarah or Bulldogs in Belmore you’ll be fully aware that these places are not – despite what their websites depict – primarily social clubs. The overwhelming majority of their floor space is taken up with gambling machines; they are, in effect, casinos.
I don’t have a problem with casinos at a fundamental level. But then I’m not a gambling addict, I hardly ever go to them and when I do I’m pretty well aware that I’m throwing – a limited quantity of – money away. Others are not so fortunate, and – whether or not you think mandatory pre-commitment will achieve its goals – it is unfair to present an attempt to assist problem gamblers to deal with their addiction as a conspiracy against a purely social activity.
That, of course, is exactly what Channel 9, Warren and Frog Man have been using live NRL broadcasts to do. Oddly enough, while he’s perfectly capable of being a bumptious arse I actually have least issue with Frog Man on this. He is a senior executive at a rugby league club that relies on pokies for a significant portion of its income, and while his interests should be openly declared (perhaps a caption saying “Phil Gould’s employer, Penrith Panthers rugby league club, derives over $10 million a year from its associated leagues club where the overwhelming majority of main room floor space is used for gambling machines”) it’s hardly surprising that he is pushing them on air.
Warren’s position, much as I hate to admit it, is considerably worse. This is a man who acknowledged in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald barely a year ago that he has suffered from a gambling problem. “When I think about the money I spent, it crosses my mind that I could now be living on the shores of Sydney Harbour,” he said. “I was never able to gather money around me. It’s not like I live in a fibro house, but I certainly don't live in opulence.”
Most importantly, Warren wanted to warn others about the perils of gambling. “I’d bet on the Saturday, but also on the Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday….Then I realised there’s no future in it. If I could get that message across, I certainly would. It took me a long time to realise.”
Very laudable. Or at least it would be if Warren hadn’t felt the need to join in with Frog Man in attacking, on air, the mandatory pre-commitment proposals. Granted, it’s possible that Warren is completely in favour of rules attempting to help problem gamblers deal with their addiction and he simply doesn’t think this particular proposal will be effective. That seems pretty unlikely – and certainly none of that nuance came across in Warren or Frog Man’s comments – but it is, perhaps, possible.
Unfortunately, Warren has now apparently decided to take the war criminal defence and go with the line ‘I was just following orders’. “It was a directive from up top that it be read by at least somebody, so I read it,” Warren has said. Which is wonderful: a man who acknowledges his own gambling problem and claims to want to “get that message across” about how gambling has “no future in it” is happy to attack anti-gambling regulations to millions of viewers just because he’s told to.
Of course, the worst offender in this is clearly Channel 9. At first, the station tried to worm its way out of the impending shitstorm by throwing Warren and Frog Man under a bus. It issued a statement saying: “The comments relating to the federal government proposed poker machine tax were purely the opinions of the commentators”.
Which is interesting, given the supposedly unscripted comments were accompanied by an on-screen caption with the name of an anti-pokie law website. Dare I suggest that shows rather more technological facility than I expect from Warren and Frog Man? (though I do recall Frog Man brandishing an iPhone on The Sunday Roast once, so perhaps he did whip up a graphic to back his comments while playing Angry Birds with his massive sausage fingers).
I wonder what Warren feels, having dutifully toed the company line (which, to be fair, he says he agrees with), to find that his bosses are happy to wash their hands of the whole affair and leave him and Frog Man dangling in the wind? My prediction is that Warren will soon ‘clarify’ his remarks about the original comments being “a directive from the top” to get his bosses off the hook; after all, he’s already admitted that he can’t afford to walk away.
As far as the actual proposal goes, personally I find it depressing to think that the NRL is genuinely dependent for its financial future on the conscience-salving handouts given by pokie palaces. If the game really can’t survive without the proceeds of a tax on the stupid (and by this I don’t mean ticket revenue at Souths games) then, well, maybe it doesn’t deserve to exist anyway.
Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I like to think that a well-run game that got its head out of its arse and tried to plan for the long term rather than twisting itself in knots for the next ten bucks would manage fine without the grubby reality of pokie money.
And let’s be honest: much as Frog Man and his corporate backers are keen to portray the pokies as a bit of fun down at the club the reality is that most of the revenue is coming from the misguided and the desperate, blindly feeding money they can’t afford to lose into the coffers of institutions that don’t care how much it hurts them when they inevitably do. If you’ve ever set foot in, say, the Dragons club in Kogarah or Bulldogs in Belmore you’ll be fully aware that these places are not – despite what their websites depict – primarily social clubs. The overwhelming majority of their floor space is taken up with gambling machines; they are, in effect, casinos.
I don’t have a problem with casinos at a fundamental level. But then I’m not a gambling addict, I hardly ever go to them and when I do I’m pretty well aware that I’m throwing – a limited quantity of – money away. Others are not so fortunate, and – whether or not you think mandatory pre-commitment will achieve its goals – it is unfair to present an attempt to assist problem gamblers to deal with their addiction as a conspiracy against a purely social activity.
That, of course, is exactly what Channel 9, Warren and Frog Man have been using live NRL broadcasts to do. Oddly enough, while he’s perfectly capable of being a bumptious arse I actually have least issue with Frog Man on this. He is a senior executive at a rugby league club that relies on pokies for a significant portion of its income, and while his interests should be openly declared (perhaps a caption saying “Phil Gould’s employer, Penrith Panthers rugby league club, derives over $10 million a year from its associated leagues club where the overwhelming majority of main room floor space is used for gambling machines”) it’s hardly surprising that he is pushing them on air.
Warren’s position, much as I hate to admit it, is considerably worse. This is a man who acknowledged in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald barely a year ago that he has suffered from a gambling problem. “When I think about the money I spent, it crosses my mind that I could now be living on the shores of Sydney Harbour,” he said. “I was never able to gather money around me. It’s not like I live in a fibro house, but I certainly don't live in opulence.”
Most importantly, Warren wanted to warn others about the perils of gambling. “I’d bet on the Saturday, but also on the Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday….Then I realised there’s no future in it. If I could get that message across, I certainly would. It took me a long time to realise.”
Very laudable. Or at least it would be if Warren hadn’t felt the need to join in with Frog Man in attacking, on air, the mandatory pre-commitment proposals. Granted, it’s possible that Warren is completely in favour of rules attempting to help problem gamblers deal with their addiction and he simply doesn’t think this particular proposal will be effective. That seems pretty unlikely – and certainly none of that nuance came across in Warren or Frog Man’s comments – but it is, perhaps, possible.
Unfortunately, Warren has now apparently decided to take the war criminal defence and go with the line ‘I was just following orders’. “It was a directive from up top that it be read by at least somebody, so I read it,” Warren has said. Which is wonderful: a man who acknowledges his own gambling problem and claims to want to “get that message across” about how gambling has “no future in it” is happy to attack anti-gambling regulations to millions of viewers just because he’s told to.
Of course, the worst offender in this is clearly Channel 9. At first, the station tried to worm its way out of the impending shitstorm by throwing Warren and Frog Man under a bus. It issued a statement saying: “The comments relating to the federal government proposed poker machine tax were purely the opinions of the commentators”.
Which is interesting, given the supposedly unscripted comments were accompanied by an on-screen caption with the name of an anti-pokie law website. Dare I suggest that shows rather more technological facility than I expect from Warren and Frog Man? (though I do recall Frog Man brandishing an iPhone on The Sunday Roast once, so perhaps he did whip up a graphic to back his comments while playing Angry Birds with his massive sausage fingers).
I wonder what Warren feels, having dutifully toed the company line (which, to be fair, he says he agrees with), to find that his bosses are happy to wash their hands of the whole affair and leave him and Frog Man dangling in the wind? My prediction is that Warren will soon ‘clarify’ his remarks about the original comments being “a directive from the top” to get his bosses off the hook; after all, he’s already admitted that he can’t afford to walk away.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
An open letter to Phil "Zzz" Rothfield
Dear Zzz,
As you may remember, earlier this week you used part of your column in the Daily Telegraph to complain about what you see as the Wests’ Tigers bad attitude in refusing to allow greater media access in the run-up to finals games. In this context you described coach Tim Sheens as “a dinosaur who is causing enormous damage to the growth and promotion of rugby league” for only allowing his players to take part in one media session a week before finals.
This apparently puzzled you. So I hope you don’t mind if I suggest a few reasons why the Tigers – and, quite frankly, any sane NRL club – might be disinclined to allow greater access to the Daily Telegraph and its ilk.
Let’s start with the fact that the Telegraph has, within the past month, conducted a slur campaign against the Tigers’ best player and one of the game’s most high-profile faces, Benji Marshall. While the fearsome journalistic hero responsible for this particular crop of innuendo-riddled rubbish took the moral high ground by assuring readers that what he was writing wasn’t technically libellous, it can surely not come as a surprise that the victim and his club are disinclined to make time to provide the Telegraph with more material?
Perhaps you were expecting the rest of the Tigers team to queue up to speak to the Telegraph, given how keen the paper has also been to spread unsubstantiated rumours about how they all hate Marshall? Strange that that didn’t seem to work, isn’t it?
When you say Sheens “is only hurting his club, his players and the game” by refusing to talk to you and your disreputable colleagues, I would counter by asking what you think you’re doing when you drag the name of the biggest walking advertisement for the code through the mud?
Let’s face it, Zzz, it’s not just the Marshall stuff. Your paper has a well-established track record for being the lowest common denominator in NRL coverage. It doesn’t break stories so much as it recycles the contents of the league cesspit for the amusement of people who want to see the code fail. And its writers, many of whom are happy to portray themselves as fans, are there to pour scorn as the code gets dragged deeper into the effluent.
Consider, for instance, what might be your paper’s biggest ‘story’ of the season: the moment when news of Todd Carney out on the piss fell into your lap thanks to an attention-seeking cab driver. You were mighty quick that night to get a photographer down to Oxford Street to take photos of a man outside a pub. Congratulations – I’m sure the Walkley people will be in touch.
The next day came the big follow-up. And what was it? An exclusive interview with Carney, perhaps, secured by skilful doorstepping by one of the Telegraph’s fearless journalists? Or a previously-unknown insight into the thinking of the inner sanctum at the Roosters or the NRL itself? Of course not! The Telegraph went with the shocking news that Carney had been to a shopping centre and – won’t somebody think of the children – taken in a movie.
If this constitutes a story to the Telegraph, surely it can’t just be me who thinks Tim Sheens might have the right idea in “keeping his superstars and his sponsors out of the media”. Why on earth would he want them to be in it?
Let’s not forget, either, that the Telegraph’s big story on the Tigers training camp were some unauthorised photos ‘proving’ that Chris Lawrence was injured. Unhelpful to a coach, but something that practically every Tigers fan already knew about by the simple process of reading the online fans’ forum.
And that’s the problem, isn’t it Zzz? The Telegraph is now such a useless source of actual, true information on the NRL that it has already been superseded by what every fan can read on online forums and Twitter. Fundamentally, you have no purpose any more.
It doesn’t have to be like that, though. The emergence of new media might be manageable if you and your team of hacks weren’t already so widely hated and reviled by people inside the game that you have effectively surrendered virtually any chance of breaking an actual news story. But unfortunately almost everything you print seems to be recycled off the forums anyway – or be wildly over-reported dross that fell in your lap like the Carney business.
Last week, let’s not forget, your best attempt to offer right to reply to another one of your sad little vendetta victims – Phil “Frog Man” Gould, a man who has achieved more in his chosen field than you could in 40 lifetimes – was to send him a text message. To which, oddly enough, he chose not to reply. Are we supposed to be impressed that you have Gould’s mobile number? Do you think we are going to accept that a text message now constitutes journalism?
Listen, Zzz, I understand – really I do. In my day job I am also a journalist (though my boss normally asks that my copy contains crazy, off the wall things like “named sources” and “facts”). It’s not easy for any of us at the moment, what with citizen journalism, the blogosphere, Twitter and all these scary new phenomena. It must be especially tough in a field like sport where there are numerous people willing to provide content for nothing. Even more so when you can’t base your value proposition on quality of prose – because, let’s face it, George Plimpton you ain’t.
But the crux of the matter is that, as an old media provider, there are two ways of responding: you can either rely on the strength of your sources, your insights and your content to keep yourself relevant in the new media world, or you can resort to being effectively a blog with a masthead, rehashing whatever crap happens to fall into your lap with a soupcon of added prejudice. You and your rag, Zzz, have positioned yourselves firmly in the latter camp.
Here’s my plan of action for you. Get back out there. Apologise to the sources and potential sources you’ve slandered, buried with innuendo or simply never bothered to cultivate. Stop getting your material off fans’ forums and whatever loser rings it in. Make a personal commitment to using named sources when possible (I don’t mean yourselves). And start writing some real news stories that real fans haven’t already read somewhere else. Then I might feel sorry for you if you don’t get asked to more press conferences.
Yours sincerely,
A fellow hack
As you may remember, earlier this week you used part of your column in the Daily Telegraph to complain about what you see as the Wests’ Tigers bad attitude in refusing to allow greater media access in the run-up to finals games. In this context you described coach Tim Sheens as “a dinosaur who is causing enormous damage to the growth and promotion of rugby league” for only allowing his players to take part in one media session a week before finals.
This apparently puzzled you. So I hope you don’t mind if I suggest a few reasons why the Tigers – and, quite frankly, any sane NRL club – might be disinclined to allow greater access to the Daily Telegraph and its ilk.
Let’s start with the fact that the Telegraph has, within the past month, conducted a slur campaign against the Tigers’ best player and one of the game’s most high-profile faces, Benji Marshall. While the fearsome journalistic hero responsible for this particular crop of innuendo-riddled rubbish took the moral high ground by assuring readers that what he was writing wasn’t technically libellous, it can surely not come as a surprise that the victim and his club are disinclined to make time to provide the Telegraph with more material?
Perhaps you were expecting the rest of the Tigers team to queue up to speak to the Telegraph, given how keen the paper has also been to spread unsubstantiated rumours about how they all hate Marshall? Strange that that didn’t seem to work, isn’t it?
When you say Sheens “is only hurting his club, his players and the game” by refusing to talk to you and your disreputable colleagues, I would counter by asking what you think you’re doing when you drag the name of the biggest walking advertisement for the code through the mud?
Let’s face it, Zzz, it’s not just the Marshall stuff. Your paper has a well-established track record for being the lowest common denominator in NRL coverage. It doesn’t break stories so much as it recycles the contents of the league cesspit for the amusement of people who want to see the code fail. And its writers, many of whom are happy to portray themselves as fans, are there to pour scorn as the code gets dragged deeper into the effluent.
Consider, for instance, what might be your paper’s biggest ‘story’ of the season: the moment when news of Todd Carney out on the piss fell into your lap thanks to an attention-seeking cab driver. You were mighty quick that night to get a photographer down to Oxford Street to take photos of a man outside a pub. Congratulations – I’m sure the Walkley people will be in touch.
The next day came the big follow-up. And what was it? An exclusive interview with Carney, perhaps, secured by skilful doorstepping by one of the Telegraph’s fearless journalists? Or a previously-unknown insight into the thinking of the inner sanctum at the Roosters or the NRL itself? Of course not! The Telegraph went with the shocking news that Carney had been to a shopping centre and – won’t somebody think of the children – taken in a movie.
If this constitutes a story to the Telegraph, surely it can’t just be me who thinks Tim Sheens might have the right idea in “keeping his superstars and his sponsors out of the media”. Why on earth would he want them to be in it?
Let’s not forget, either, that the Telegraph’s big story on the Tigers training camp were some unauthorised photos ‘proving’ that Chris Lawrence was injured. Unhelpful to a coach, but something that practically every Tigers fan already knew about by the simple process of reading the online fans’ forum.
And that’s the problem, isn’t it Zzz? The Telegraph is now such a useless source of actual, true information on the NRL that it has already been superseded by what every fan can read on online forums and Twitter. Fundamentally, you have no purpose any more.
It doesn’t have to be like that, though. The emergence of new media might be manageable if you and your team of hacks weren’t already so widely hated and reviled by people inside the game that you have effectively surrendered virtually any chance of breaking an actual news story. But unfortunately almost everything you print seems to be recycled off the forums anyway – or be wildly over-reported dross that fell in your lap like the Carney business.
Last week, let’s not forget, your best attempt to offer right to reply to another one of your sad little vendetta victims – Phil “Frog Man” Gould, a man who has achieved more in his chosen field than you could in 40 lifetimes – was to send him a text message. To which, oddly enough, he chose not to reply. Are we supposed to be impressed that you have Gould’s mobile number? Do you think we are going to accept that a text message now constitutes journalism?
Listen, Zzz, I understand – really I do. In my day job I am also a journalist (though my boss normally asks that my copy contains crazy, off the wall things like “named sources” and “facts”). It’s not easy for any of us at the moment, what with citizen journalism, the blogosphere, Twitter and all these scary new phenomena. It must be especially tough in a field like sport where there are numerous people willing to provide content for nothing. Even more so when you can’t base your value proposition on quality of prose – because, let’s face it, George Plimpton you ain’t.
But the crux of the matter is that, as an old media provider, there are two ways of responding: you can either rely on the strength of your sources, your insights and your content to keep yourself relevant in the new media world, or you can resort to being effectively a blog with a masthead, rehashing whatever crap happens to fall into your lap with a soupcon of added prejudice. You and your rag, Zzz, have positioned yourselves firmly in the latter camp.
Here’s my plan of action for you. Get back out there. Apologise to the sources and potential sources you’ve slandered, buried with innuendo or simply never bothered to cultivate. Stop getting your material off fans’ forums and whatever loser rings it in. Make a personal commitment to using named sources when possible (I don’t mean yourselves). And start writing some real news stories that real fans haven’t already read somewhere else. Then I might feel sorry for you if you don’t get asked to more press conferences.
Yours sincerely,
A fellow hack
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Time for a quick one
Todd “Swift Half” Carney must be the easiest sporting source of innuendo-driven, barely-substantiated material for the Daily Telegraph since Sonny Bill Williams had the audacity to decide he wanted to earn a proper living. Sadly it’s a little late in the day to discuss the journalistic nadir reached in August by Christian “Shit Scoop” Nicolussi, who exclusively (as in, no-one else could be bothered to report it) revealed that Swift Half had been out to the shops. But there is a chance to do a little compare and contrast between a vaguely reputable news source’s reporting and that of the scummy Telegraph.
As a journalist, there are two fundamental ways to report quotes. One is to place them in an appropriate context; the other is to twist them to fit what you believe is the best story. No prizes for guessing which approach the Telegraph’s Dean “Integrity” Ritchie goes for in his story about Swift Half possibly moving to Cronulla.
“Cronulla won’t publicly admit wanting Todd Carney – but the club cannot dismiss chasing the troubled star,” Integrity breathlessly reports. Which, I must confess, set my alarm bells ringing. Generally when someone “won’t publicly admit” something to a tabloid newspaper it means they either aren’t doing it or don’t have a clue whether they’re doing it, but the paper wants to run the story anyway.
But perhaps I am being too harsh, as Integrity’s story is not based on the information provided by ‘club sources’ or ‘a source close to Carney’ or some other euphemism for ‘the player’s agent desperately trying to create a market’. No indeed – in this case he has a real, on the record, source:
“Sharks chairman Damian Irvine said coach Shane Flanagan had not made any formal approach to Carney but admitted his club may soon be interested. ‘As with any player, if Shane and Darren (Mooney, football manager) come forward with someone like Todd Carney, then the board would consider it on its merits,’ Irvine said.”
That certainly is big news: what a shock it would be to see a heavily-inked alcoholic with a long record of trouble with the law turning up in Cronulla! Seriously, it’s a lovely place. But it would be a big story.
Except of course that a half-way responsible use of the comments provided by Irvine wouldn’t back up that story. Here’s the Sydney Morning Herald, on the same day as Integrity’s piece, putting a slightly different spin on things: “Asked last night about speculation in recent days that the Sharks wanted to sign Carney, who split with Sydney Roosters last week, Irvine said: ‘It’s unbelievable. I’ve had people ring me all day about this, and I’ve told them nothing has happened. We’re not talking to Todd Carney or David Riolo [Carney’s manager]. There’s nothing doing there.’”
The Herald also repeats some quotes made by Irvine earlier this month, in which he adds the information that Shane Flanagan “‘doesn’t want to get involved either’”, before bringing those up to date by stressing that “Irvine said the situation hadn’t changed”.
Seems pretty conclusive. But wait! Those idiots at the Herald might just have buried the lede – down at the bottom of their story is a very, very small big of ambiguity from Irvine. “‘It wouldn’t be my call,’ he said. ‘If it came to the board at some stage in the future it would be a board decision, but we haven’t discussed it so I’m not sure what would happen there…. If Shane and Darren [Mooney] decided they wanted Carney and put a case together, they could put it to the board and we would look at the pros and cons of it. That hasn’t happened and I haven’t heard any suggestion of it happening.’”
Surely that should be enough for a “refuses to rule out” story? After all, it’s not like the Telegraph itself has failed to report the fact that Irvine basically admits that he doesn’t know what might be going on. Here’s Integrity’s take on the same material: “‘Shane hasn’t said he is keen on Todd. Todd has a lot of issues outside football we would have to consider and we would look at the pros and cons if Shane came to the club’s board. He [Flanagan] hasn’t expressed a preference either way.”
What’s interesting about this is that both papers have received basically identical information from Irvine in the form of two key messages. The first is that Cronulla has made no approach for Swift Half and, so far as Irvine is aware, has no plans to. The second is that it wouldn’t be up to Irvine to raise the matter anyway – it would be the coach’s call, and that call has not been made.
Of course none of this conclusively proves that Cronulla is not going to sign Swift Half at some stage in the future – what it does prove is that the club’s chairman is outright denying that any such move has been initiated. Faced with the choice of reporting this material accurately or spinning it into a wafer-thin bit of transfer gossip, the Telegraph – inevitably – decides once again not to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)