If footy had a safeword it would be “not a good look”. Ok, so that’s four words, but you get my point. Every awkward situation can be handled with a purse of the lips, a shake of the head and a sage “not a good look”.
Whatever indiscretion you care to name you can find it addressed in familiar vague verbiage. Recent examples include Lin Jong’s guided tour of the Holden Centre, Lindsay Thomas’ structural integrity, or the spectre of tanking.
What makes it so useful is its ability to signpost something stinky without actually identifying a broken rule. It’s a libel-free public service because inevitably it highlights a policy flaw that needs correcting, or a gap in public understanding.
That’s certainly the case with Collingwood’s clandestine hospitality. Like a lot of people, I thought the Pies took liberties hosting a contracted player from a rival team in such a manner, but they didn’t actually do anything punishable. Moreover, Mark Evans’ commentary this week suggests the AFL’s hands are tied by the growth of free agency.
“If you must have them, I would have thought you go through whatever you can to be as discreet as possible,” the AFL’s GM of Football Operations told 3AW. Such meetings “ought to be rare and they ought to be protected by choice of venue, and post-season wherever possible”. In other words, minimise the not-goodness of the look lads, but we can’t step in to stop it happening ourselves.
The tanking debate demonstrates the ability of “not a good look” to speak to the very soul of competitive sport. So long as there’s an incentive to lose matches, some teams will lose matches. It’s human nature to respond to incentives.
But when that logic crosses into sport we obfuscate. We kid ourselves that athletes and football clubs are of a higher moral fibre, beholden to a spirit that prevents them from succumbing to mortal temptation.
The AFL’s reluctance to address the issue involves the same logic that prevents men from visiting their GP as often as they should. However serious it is, pretend it doesn’t happen and it’ll go away eventually.
Similarly, the gripe with Lindsay Thomas is cultural, with a dash of masculinity. It’s not the done thing to take possession, dip at the knees and invite a high tackle, even though there’s no law against it.
But it’s the vibe, as Luke Beveridge might put it. So widely held is the view it may as well be law. In a post-facts world, does it even matter any more what is and isn’t in the rulebook? Maybe we’re better off navigating life through what is and isn’t a good look, taking the pulse of the nation periodically on social media or talkback radio.
For what it’s worth, I’m with Leigh Matthews on this one, the game should avoid prioritising the interests of the tackler over the ball-winner or we’ll end up in a situation where there’s a greater incentive to be second to a contest, if we’re not already. Besides, even if an interpretation was considered, 400-game umpire Steve McBurney considers it near impossible to police.
So how do we move beyond “not a good look” being used to frame every awkward footy conversation? To paraphrase Nathan Buckley on AFL 360: either have rules and apply them, or don’t, but avoid loitering unsatisfyingly in between.
Professional industries should not rely on a ‘spirit of the game’ or some mythical Corinthian ideal to keep them in check. “Not a good look” is a popular way of voicing our intuition, but that gut feel isn’t always right.
We need to be mindful when we catch ourselves using it, or hearing it in conversation because it’s likely the real issue at hand won’t be far away. The sooner we get there, the sooner something be done about the issue. If that something is us checking our vision, so be it.
Quote of the week
“Everyone in the media wants to declare a premiership favourite every week, and it’s great for the viewers and listeners and readers. But for those who are in the game, we couldn’t give a toss who is premiership favourite at this point in time – it’s who’s playing the best footy in September and early October.”
Alastair Clarkson put on a clinic before his trip to Sydney earlier this week. In the same press conference he doubled down on not giving a toss over something (the second time his disdain for contested possession stats) and slipped in a “grouse” for good measure.
This comes off the back of combative pre-game comments towards Port Adelaide. Watching the mind games ramp up as the business end of the season approaches is always a highlight, and nobody deals with squeaky bum time quite like Clarko.
Photograph of the week
No prizes for guessing the subject of this week’s photo. The only question was which aspect of Joe Daniher’s spectacular mark against St Kilda to highlight. This side on view captures the momentum of the grab, as well as the preposterous height the Essendon forward reached courtesy of Sam Gilbert’s shoulders. Shame he missed the set shot.
Bits and bobs
Scott Thompson runs out for his 300th game this weekend to mark the highlight of a career flown under the radar. Following his trade from Melbourne to Adelaide, Thompson ranks third in the competition in the following categories: total disposals, contested possessions, clearances, and tackles.
All the names ahead of him are Brownlow medalists, with the exception of Sam Mitchell (who may yet be awarded the 2012 honour) and tackling machine Andrew Swallow. Incidentally, Thompson is 25th and rising for career Brownlow votes.
A decent return for the Crows for pick 12 in the 2004 draft, and a career worthy of more praise than it receives.
The “not a good look” debate took on life-imitating-art proportions this week with Travis Cloke’s be-gloved return to form. The OJ Simpson memes were inevitable, as was the meek slap on the wrist from the AFL for a ‘non-compliant’ glove. How any gloves are compliant is beyond me... it’s not a good look.
Adam Goodes on Play School though? Now, that was a good look.
