Chris RubickA SEINFELD STORY: IT WAS ABOUT NOTHING
June 1st 2008 05:24
Bruce Matthews and the Herald-Sun went with the back page headline “Charlie or the Team – Mitchell faces Brownlow dilemma after trip charge” on Tuesday May 27th. Matthews suggested that Mitchell was going to sacrifice his Brownlow eligibility by pleading guilty to a tripping charge that, based on the points system, would allow him to play but not win the medal.
Hawks Football Manager Mark Evans was quoted as saying that the Brownlow was “not a consideration” when determining whether they would contest the charge. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story? Brownlow betting was of course suspended and the usual suspects got onboard.
Karen Lyon from ‘The Age’ went with “Mitchell set to give up medal chance for Hawks”. She too focused on the "dilemma" and "sacrifice" facing Mitchell even in the face of the views expressed by Mark Evans. Indeed, she used an even more comprehensive quote from Evans, "Players don't really think about that, Sam gave no consideration (to the medal), he is leaning towards accepting the reprimand only because the risks outweigh the benefits of going to the tribunal."
A day later Patrick Smith in The Australian took quotes such as the one above a step further and turned it into a conspiracy. Hiding behind a somewhat biblical guise, Patrick suggested that Mitchell should have been charged with kicking. In his article “Holy Man's sacrifice no more than pragmatic”, Patrick stated that Mitchell had been portrayed by his club and the media as a selfless sportsman who would put team victory ahead of individual honours. But in this case it would seem ‘The Whacker’ missed his mark. From what I can find no one at Hawthorn portrayed their Captain in such a light. So rather than focus on Mitchell and his club, surely The Whacker’s case was with the AFL and the match review panel?
But the final word on this Seinfeld episode goes to the man himself. Mitchell was a guest on SEN1116’s ‘The Good Oil’ on Thursday May 29th where he confirmed, again, that the Brownlow medal was not even a consideration in determining whether they would contest the charge.
For Matthews, Lyon and their respective papers the views of the club were ignored for the sake of headlines. As for ‘The Whacker’, well he just loves a good conspiracy.
Hawks Football Manager Mark Evans was quoted as saying that the Brownlow was “not a consideration” when determining whether they would contest the charge. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story? Brownlow betting was of course suspended and the usual suspects got onboard.
Karen Lyon from ‘The Age’ went with “Mitchell set to give up medal chance for Hawks”. She too focused on the "dilemma" and "sacrifice" facing Mitchell even in the face of the views expressed by Mark Evans. Indeed, she used an even more comprehensive quote from Evans, "Players don't really think about that, Sam gave no consideration (to the medal), he is leaning towards accepting the reprimand only because the risks outweigh the benefits of going to the tribunal."
A day later Patrick Smith in The Australian took quotes such as the one above a step further and turned it into a conspiracy. Hiding behind a somewhat biblical guise, Patrick suggested that Mitchell should have been charged with kicking. In his article “Holy Man's sacrifice no more than pragmatic”, Patrick stated that Mitchell had been portrayed by his club and the media as a selfless sportsman who would put team victory ahead of individual honours. But in this case it would seem ‘The Whacker’ missed his mark. From what I can find no one at Hawthorn portrayed their Captain in such a light. So rather than focus on Mitchell and his club, surely The Whacker’s case was with the AFL and the match review panel?
But the final word on this Seinfeld episode goes to the man himself. Mitchell was a guest on SEN1116’s ‘The Good Oil’ on Thursday May 29th where he confirmed, again, that the Brownlow medal was not even a consideration in determining whether they would contest the charge.
For Matthews, Lyon and their respective papers the views of the club were ignored for the sake of headlines. As for ‘The Whacker’, well he just loves a good conspiracy.
| 70 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
