Dissecting detail versus seeing the big picture: Has the media got it right?

It was deep in the last quarter of a thrilling 1979 grand final between Carlton and Collingwood when the Blues' youngster chased his own wayward kick into the forward pocket of the MCG, dived and thumped the ball with his fist into the path of teammate Ken Sheldon for a goal which effectively won the game.

Spectacular.

But also the source of on-going debate for more than 40 years, Collingwood supporters insisting the ball was out of bounds when Harmes knocked it on.

The perennial argument, though, might actually have been solved last year, when football historian Rhett Bartlett uncovered old footage from ABC cameras rather than the universally viewed Channel 7 version, in which Harmes's body blocks the ball at the point of contact.

Placed to the right of the Seven cameras, the ABC's were able to see the ball as Harmes' fist hit it on the half-volley just after it bounced back up off the turf. And that bounce was clearly still inside the field of play.

What's interesting, however, is how the Harmes incident was covered at the time. Or rather, not covered.

The Monday morning's "Age" following that 1979 grand final (no "Sunday Age" in those days) had blanket coverage of the game, yet while it did mention Harmes' individual effort, there was literally not a word spent questioning whether the ball was actually in or out.

The "Harmes incident" is something which grew legs only later.

That was something I was pondering the other evening. Because, if anything, these days the problem with the coverage of controversial incidents in tight finishes is quite the reverse.

I thought Collingwood's thrilling four-point win over Adelaide last Saturday was one of the best games this season, fast, open and entertaining, relatively free-scoring, and in doubt right until the siren.

Unfortunately, we didn't get to hear enough about how it was won or lost and why because of something which happened in literally the last 20-odd seconds, Adelaide speedster Izak Rankine being penalized for running too far without bouncing as he sped along the members' wing, desperate to give the Crows one last chance to sneak a match-winning goal.

With the crowd roaring, the players around the area to where Rankine kicked the football hadn't heard the whistle blow and played on as though nothing had happened.

When played was finally halted with 16 seconds left on the clock, the ball had again been held up and another ball-up loomed.

The odds were thus very heavily against Adelaide being able to score a goal from that position.

Yet people furiously debated whether Rankine had or hadn't run too far as though the whistle had effectively determined which team won.

More to the point, the hot-tempered slanging match between two schools of thought paid not nearly enough attention to the many other incidents worthy of discussion during four full quarters and two hours of football.

The following day, Hawthorn somehow contrived to lose a game to Port Adelaide after leading all day and still leading by 11 points with literally 30 seconds left on the clock.

You won't see many more amazing acts of football theft than the Power's effort, goals to Willie Rioli then Darcy Byrne-Jones' soccer kick for the winner literally two seconds before the final siren leaving all who witnessed it open-mouthed in disbelief and the Hawks heartbroken.

Hawthorn's defensive lapses in that critical last minute have been dissected, tossed and turned over innumerable times since last Sunday.

I'm sure there's some Hawk or even Port fans, however, who wouldn't have minded hearing a bit about the rest of the game, too.

The previous weekend, Port Adelaide won another amazing victory, this time against Geelong at GMHBA Stadium, where the Power hadn't managed to defeat the Cats since 2007.

Port's eight-goal opening quarter might well be the best term of football we've seen so far this season, the Power at one stage before half-time leading by 49 points.

Geelong's burst of late third term goals which had the Cats a chance again was similarly electrifying, the whole final quarter edge-of-the-seat stuff.

But again, the vast majority of post-match discussion, both in print and on TV and radio, ended up being effectively hijacked by the debate about whether an advantage call to Geelong which wasn't paid should have been, a subsequent "goal" from Jeremy Cameron before play was brought back theoretically leaving the Cats just one point in arrears.

Which isn't to say that all these moments of drama and controversy weren't important.

MORE AFL:

But in an age where some media organisations seem to believe that once live coverage of a game is finished there's little need for any recap or analysis of how a result was achieved and what it means, we're effectively hearing and reading less about the actual game as a whole entity.

Indeed, sometimes you feel like it's the result which is secondary to the specific "talking points" a game generates.

Imagine had the Harmes incident of the 1979 grand final happened today.

There'd be all manner of diagrams, graphics, videos and reconstructions, scientific experts interpreting the angles on the bounce of the ball near the boundary line.

You'd have to hope they'd also at some stage getting around to talking about the historical significance of Carlton's eventual five-point premiership win.

Maybe they actually had it right back in 1979.

OK, so maybe Harmes was a story which should have been pursued there and then.

But at least, unlike at times now, media couldn't also be accused of failing to see the metaphorical forest for all those trees.