Bombers to light up Bendigo

It's official. The Bendigo Bombers will play a home final under lights at the QEO on Friday 26 August. So optimistic about the future of the club is General Manager, Paul Barnard, he reckons the final could attract up to 7,000 people. Barnard has much about which to be excited. Sunday's thrilling victory over Werribee gave the Bombers the top spot for the first time since the club's inception in 1998. Not one to take a backward step or mince his words, Barnard was at his belligerent best on Monday.

'We defeated Werribee with a side made up of 12 VFL and 10 AFL players. So much for Peter Banfield whingeing about us playing too many AFL players. Jordan Doering, Callan Beasy, Simon Rosa, Justin Blumfield, Chris Childs, Sam Richardson, Kain Robbins and Nick Carter have been great. And on top of that, Tristan Cartledge, Matt Allen, Ted Richards, Jason Winderlich, Jobe Watson and Angus Monfries have all qualified for the finals,' he said with considerable glee.

When the baby Bombers hit the front against the Tigers with thirty seconds remaining the grandstand nearly erupted, says Barnard. This year the Bombers have averaged crowds of 1,700, an increase of 500 per game on last year. And as the GM adds, the club is now viable off the field as well. With strong sponsorship from Bendigo Bank, Vodafone and Xerox Business Centre, there appears to be no stopping Bendigo's renaissance. While the North Ballarat Roosters struggle for crowds and form, the Bombers have taken some big steps towards rejuvenating the VFL in our biggest provincial city.

Although Barnard was keen to stress that the club has bigger fish to fry, namely Williamstown on Saturday, followed by Sandringham, Tasmania and Geelong, the boys at Windy Hill could be forgiven for thinking their bold alignment with Bendigo is about to produce a premiership. And while Barnard and coach Matthew Knights won't hear of premiership talk, there are many others who will. For Knights it has been a remarkable year. He is, says Barnard, 'a very astute coach with a great attitude to his players'.

Wherever the journey ends this year, Bendigo is one side that plays exciting and attacking football. On Saturday they take on a struggling Williamstown in the ABC match of the round. As much as the Seagulls can be hard to beat at home, this Bendigo side should be too good. Whatever the result it's a game that will deliver a massive Collingwood and Essendon audience to the ABC and might attract one of the biggest crowds of the year.

Goodbye dissent

From the defiant, VFA firebrand of the 70s, Harold Martin, to the ego-centric VFL/AFL headline grabber, Mark Jackson, footy has always had character. So why are the authorities obsessed with forcing footballers to behave like automatons and punish them with 50-metre penalties for acts of dissent that seem no more than expressions of frustration? And while you ponder the answer, think about why it is that VFL players appear less likely to incur a 50-metre penalty than do their counterparts in the AFL. No one would argue that umpires should have to endure abuse from players. However, that surely shouldn't mean players will be punished with a 50-metre penalty every time they utter an expletive.

During last week's telecast of the Box Hill v Port match this question was raised in the commentary box. Unfortunately there wasn't enough time to properly canvass all the issues. Although my co-commentator, Ross Booth might suggest that my anti-authority streak is the reason I'm so against the way some umpires are using the rule, there's far more to it. To date there has been no proper explanation as to how umpires are instructed to quell dissent, or what counts as dissent. The VFL's Director of Umpiring, Kevin Mitchell, says he instructs his umpires that there should be no tolerance of direct abuse but that umpires must be sensitive to the frustrations players experience.

Maybe that's the reason why there are so few 50-metre frees paid for dissent in the VFL. It's hard not to conclude that some AFL umpires are behaving like moral arbiters and punishing players for swearing. If this is true, then I'm surprised the AFLPA hasn't weighed in on the debate. After all, the football ground is a player's workplace. And unlike John Howard, I actually believe a worker should have some rights. So while abuse shouldn't be tolerated, it's not the role of the umpire to quash the colour and spirit that has made the game special. And they have no right to assume the role of moral arbiter as far as language (racial excluded) is concerned. After all, it's not a kindergarten and some of us have good reason to swear.

Saturday

Geelong v Port MELBOURNE
Williamstown v BENDIGO BOMBER S -- ABC TV - 1.10 PM

SUNDAY

North Ballarat v BOX HILL
Scorpions v FRANKSTON
SANDRINGHAM v Tasmania
NORTHERN BULLANTS v Coburg Tigers