Maria already gave the answer in her post – eat more lamb, boys. In the meanwhile stop whinging.

However I still say the violence in this year’s second Test would be nothing out of the ordinary in an AFL final. Melees are pretty normal in AFL, as are cynical, albeit legal tackles (and cynical, illegal tackles for that matter).

Problem with the hybrid game (to bring sports mentioned so far up to 5) is that the round-ballers have the skill advantage (the Aussies can only make an oval ball talk) so the antipodean thugs have to compensate. It’s unfortunately hard-wired into a very well-meaning enterprise.

What did you make of Chris Johnson the other year?

As for the hit on Geraghty, there’s a tradition in Australian football of referring to callous, but legal tackles as good practice. For example blindsiding a player going for the ball with a hip and shoulder that just happens to make contact with the jaw is usually met with laughter and enthusiasm from the commentary desk in an AFL match. Pretty disgusting really. That said, AFL is not a sport where life-threatening injuries occur with any frequency at all (as compared to rugby for one) so I’m not sure your remark “maybe someone has to die for this to be taken seriously” has much merit.

The violence that occurred wasn’t incidental to the sporting objective – winning the match. In fact it might have been crucial. It’s just that to an Australian, it was nothing out of the ordinary for football. I’m sure that’s how everyone in the Australian camp feels about it.

In this specific instance, I’ve yet to hear a single Irishman claim they would have won if it hadn’t been for the Aussie rough-house tactics. The question that needs to be asked is why the Aussies think such tactics are required given their acknowledged sporting superiority in International Rules? I think Bookie supplies some insight in his machismo-laden comment.

Game day comes around and said tough guy, all het up on bluster and tabloid headlines, takes a swing at the back of an antipodean head.

Yeah, like when Shaun Long stuck his eyebrow into Willie Mason’s forearm. Adrian Morely’s feet wouldn’t have touched the ground if he’d done what Mason did. The dogs in the street know it.

The biggest difference I can discern between antipodean attitudes and those in the northern hemisphere concerns the establishment rather than the players. No matter what happens on the field, the press, team officials and ruling bodies in the northern hemisphere will at least pay lip-service to preserving the integrity of the sport, saying the right things about what should and should not deemed acceptable and offering contrition, however (in)sincere. In Australia especially, the opposite is the case, with pundits, journos and team management making the case for their boys being better fighters and all-round tougher, rougher and harder than the soft northerners. (Phil “GB RL is amateur” Gould said in Channel9 commentary at the time of the Mason punch on Fielden, “He got what he deserved”. Even if it were true – which it isn’t given the absurd over-reaction of Mason – can anyone imagine something similar being said by Sky or BBC commentary? No, neither can I.)

Flare-ups are part and parcel of professional sport but as the phrase suggests – “flare-up” – these ought not to become de rigueur. The moment they do – and in clashes between the hemispheres in all classes of sport this is more and more the case – they begin to detract from the sport itself and, yes, start to become more than a little tedious.

As for the Geraghty tackle specifically, I have been involved in such “tackles” myself, although in football rather than International Rules. Anybody who has played sport to any half-decent level knows all about the “legal tackles” that provide you with the opportunity – should you want to take it – to do damage to the opposing player. Whether it be a sliding tackle near the touchline that means you can, if you wish, both win the ball AND send the winger crashing into the advertising hoardings, or an International Rules wrestle with an off-balance opponent that gives that you the opportunity to not only ground him and strip the ball, but crash his head into the turf, to boot. None of this has anything to do with holding back or not making big hits on opponents when you have the chance; it’s about gratuitous over-physicality that is incidental to the sporting objective and not a part thereof.

Maybe someone has to die before this is taken seriously? Reading the pages of the Sydney Morning Herald this last week, and it would appear to be the case.

I’ve never really had an issue with this code, but was at that match in Croke Park and don’t think too many were impressed with it. And I think I’m starting to agree with Mickey Harte and think it should be scrapped. It is pretty pointless to put amateurs up against professionals, in a made up game that no one really knows that rules of, and expect to have a good game.

It’s always the same, the white jerseyed nonces talk and prance and puff themselves up about the inherent hardness of one or another of their (vastly overrated) tough guys. Game day comes around and said tough guy, all het up on bluster and tabloid headlines, takes a swing at the back of an antipodean head. Antipodean enters into the spirit of things, usually at the tackle or breakdown . Judiciary say fair enough. British rugby fraternity whinges about it for decades (anything but talk about the score I guess).

Yes, the O’Driscol thing was a shame. But the only thing more nonsensical than idea that it was premeditated or deliberate, is the idea that if it hadn’t happened the lions would have won.

Look at the records of Umaga and Mealamu and compare them to those of almost anyone in Englands world cup winning forward pack.

These are team sports with hard contact and not a lot of time for reflection. Accidents happen, tempers fray, people on all sides make stupid decisions. The players all understand this, and fans on all sides can tell horror stories about the ‘evils of them bastards’
Excellent.