AFL contradictions

[Dis Believer]

No Plunger66, the AFL don't hate the Saints, but they do take every opportunity that presents itself to favour certain clubs - those that have the biggest followings or that are geographically based in markets the AFL is targeting for growth.

So you can acknowledge what the rest of the world already knows, or you can delude yourself and continue with your boring, repetitive smart-arse standard responses.

Either way, trying to pretend the AFL is even close to a level playing field or fairly administered business is delusional. It is in the business of making money and that is all, and all efforts are geared towrds that end alone under the current administration.

[Mr Magic]

[. No wonder we have a loser mentality.

More likely to fester because supporters like you are content to take whatever they are dished up by the authorities.

And the all-powerfull AFL will continue to make decisions that we find unfair because they know that there are supporters out there that will accept being 'reamed' and come back like OIliver Twist
'Please sir, can I have some more'!

They seem to work on the 'divide and conquer' method. They 'screw' one team (NM this time) smug in the knowledge that the other 15 Clubs parochial interests will not cause them too many problems.

Just because they get away with it doesn't make it right.

[plugger66]

No Plunger66, the AFL don't hate the Saints, but they do take every opportunity that presents itself to favour certain clubs - those that have the biggest followings or that are geographically based in markets the AFL is targeting for growth.

So you can acknowledge what the rest of the world already knows, or you can delude yourself and continue with your boring, repetitive smart-arse standard responses.

Either way, trying to pretend the AFL is even close to a level playing field or fairly administered business is delusional. It is in the business of making money and that is all, and all efforts are geared towrds that end alone under the current administration.

Sydney seem to be very lucky but I dont understand who else gets favoured unless you are talking about the collingwood draw which is the result of every club wanting to play them.

[plugger66]

[. No wonder we have a loser mentality.

More likely to fester because supporters like you are content to take whatever they are dished up by the authorities.

And the all-powerfull AFL will continue to make decisions that we find unfair because they know that there are supporters out there that will accept being 'reamed' and come back like OIliver Twist
'Please sir, can I have some more'!

They seem to work on the 'divide and conquer' method. They 'screw' one team (NM this time) smug in the knowledge that the other 15 Clubs parochial interests will not cause them too many problems.

Just because they get away with it doesn't make it right.

So what do you want to do. Who should run the AFL. I and if you think that agreeing that the AFL is well run but does make mistakes is more of a loser attitude than we get picked on well I am completely lost.

[happy feet]

Yes, the AFL certainly favour certain clubs. They are not just the interstate clubs. Why should Collingwood and Essendon hold the ANZAC day monopoly? They make a motza out of it. On the old fan forum I raised this issue and Rod Buterrs was keen to take on the AFL in this regard. I wonder if any of the current board has the guts to suggest the next ANZAC day match be St Kilda v. the Doggies. Just watch the protected species jump up and down. Is it restraint of trade to deny that this be shared around?

[Mr Magic]

[quote="plugger66
So what do you want to do. Who should run the AFL. I and if you think that agreeing that the AFL is well run but does make mistakes is more of a loser attitude than we get picked on well I am completely lost.[/quote]



The AFL should run the AFL.
But the AFL is answerable to the 16 constituent Clubs who are in turn answerable to their respective members.

Maybe its about time those that are charged with running the competition on behalf of their 'members' spent a little time considering how they can address the apparent inequalities of their management of the game.

Instead nowadays they seem to spend more time creating 'PR Spin' to try and cover up the inequalities they create from some of their decisions.

The Collingwood Draw is another excellent case in point.
Yes everybody wants to play Collingwood as a 'home game' because of tehir 'drawing power'. But why is it that some clubs have to go to Perth twice most years (including us) but Collingwood very rarely do? Aren't WCE and Freo entitiled to 'home games' against Collingwood just as much as anybody else?

Every year we play PA at AAMI. Other teams don't - there are only 11 'Home games' per season so how come we get to go there every year?

And Brisbane? Every year we are one of the 11 out of 15 that gets the honour of playing there.

[plugger66]

Yes, the AFL certainly favour certain clubs. They are not just the interstate clubs. Why should Collingwood and Essendon hold the ANZAC day monopoly? They make a motza out of it. On the old fan forum I raised this issue and Rod Buterrs was keen to take on the AFL in this regard. I wonder if any of the current board has the guts to suggest the next ANZAC day match be St Kilda v. the Doggies. Just watch the protected species jump up and down. Is it restraint of trade to deny that this be shared around?

Maybe because the Essendon and Collingwood game gets 90000 where ever they are on the ladder. How many would Saints V doggies get if we were both on the bottom.

Melbourne and Collingwood always get Queens birthday as a Melbourne home game. Why dont people whinge about how the AFL are just helping Melbourne.

[Iceman234]

Yes, the AFL certainly favour certain clubs. They are not just the interstate clubs. Why should Collingwood and Essendon hold the ANZAC day monopoly? They make a motza out of it. On the old fan forum I raised this issue and Rod Buterrs was keen to take on the AFL in this regard. I wonder if any of the current board has the guts to suggest the next ANZAC day match be St Kilda v. the Doggies. Just watch the protected species jump up and down. Is it restraint of trade to deny that this be shared around?

Maybe because the Essendon and Collingwood game gets 90000 where ever they are on the ladder. How many would Saints V doggies get if we were both on the bottom.

Melbourne and Collingwood always get Queens birthday as a Melbourne home game. Why dont people whinge about how the AFL are just helping Melbourne.

Why can't the highly esteemed "Anzac Medal" be awarded to the toughest gutsiest player of the 8 games played that weekend. Means zip to me that Buckley or Hird have won "X" amount of Anzac Medals, der they're (were) part of the only two flaming teams involved.

I despise the monopoly those teams have on Anzac Day, don't care if it's not us playing, maybe the "Grand Final rematch" from the previous year could be played that day.

[mad saint guy]

I'm not a fan of the people who run the AFL, but this is just biased whinging.

The final siren went while Freo were in front. They won the game. Common sense prevailed.

There is nothing that could be done about the Geelong/Freo game. Unlike sirengate, there is no certain outcome if the mistake was rectified.

And while I think the rule of a captain having to call for a head count is obselete and should be removed from the game, it is the official rule and any team would receive the same treatment. If anything, it is unfair to Sydney to be fined for it (according to the current rules).

Yes, the AFL is poorly organised and the people in charge don't seem to give a stuff about the fans, however having a cry about these particular incidents is childish.

[kalsaint]

I'm not a fan of the people who run the AFL, but this is just biased whinging.

The final siren went while Freo were in front. They won the game. Common sense prevailed.

There is nothing that could be done about the Geelong/Freo game. Unlike sirengate, there is no certain outcome if the mistake was rectified.

And while I think the rule of a captain having to call for a head count is obselete and should be removed from the game, it is the official rule and any team would receive the same treatment. If anything, it is unfair to Sydney to be fined for it (according to the current rules).

Yes, the AFL is poorly organised and the people in charge don't seem to give a stuff about the fans, however having a cry about these particular incidents is childish.

I am not sure that common sense prevailed. Maybe there was a brigade who believed Freo winning the sirengate game was the right thing to do.
The problem is that rules were once broken again. They continue to get broken and if there is concern by adminstrators they get changed.

Look forward to the reduced interchanges next year when that rule gets enforced. I bet the clubs get a say on this via newspapers but this will mean diddly squat when the rules change.

No, we have a very inconsistent adminstration team who pander to the dollar and th more recent notion that "doing the right thing is all important than anything else our grand old game stood for. Where is the integrity of the AFL rulers? There isn't any.

I see obvious inconsistencies in triabunal decisions. This is getting worse not better. Bakes sufferred 7 weeks for a transgression nor recorded as visible evidence. Sure his record is not good but I would be horrified if I was to be pinged in court without evidence. Apparently Dean Cox crouched over in pain after some alleged contact by Minson was deemed acceptable. Minson's alleged incident was not raised for discussion. 7 versus 0 weeks, both cases without evidence. Why is this accepted by the AFL? I dont really know but they play a political game with their version of administration.
I am not impressed with this. If I had the money I would definitely take up the challenge to their inconsistencies in court to demonstrate that they should not be allowed to create their own law and order society when the rest of Australia has to abide to a consistent lawful approach.
I hate umpires making bad decisions but honestly I blame the AFL rule changes for much of this.
End of rant.

[tweedaletomanning]

I am willing to bet anything you like, that ANY footy supporter at random could run the AFL as well as those in charge now! Record memberships...pffft. idiot comment!! there is also record memberships in soccer clubs as well...Is that because the AFL is doing such a great job?? Err, nooo, Population increase i'd say more likely. How about working on percentages and then we'll talk..lets see how they're burstin' at the seams at the melbourne/ freo game...ya... great administrators. The game's in great shape...sure..and little pixies are running around spreading magic dust everywhere...If it is in such great shape., then why are kids using footy Goalposts as Soccer goals when they are playing at lunchtime...I(and most of my friends) are losing interest in footy because it is soooo compromised. Great job AFL...They are kiling the game by pure incompetence, ignorance, arrogance and most of all....GREED. I love St.kilda...always have always will...but it's like they're always starting the season with one hand tied behind their back...with the draw...with no HGA at TD...every possible interstate trip. As a national game it is a laughing stock as EVERY year there are changes to the rules..(every month nearly for that matter) Ask yourself ....is footy better ...the same ...or worse to watch than say... 10 years ago... IN all Honesty!! Oh yeah and for all you smartassess who want to shoot me down...Just explain to me HOW exactly Demitriou has IMPROVED the AFL since his appointment and how he justifies his ridiculous salary increase

[plugger66]

[quote="plugger66
So what do you want to do. Who should run the AFL. I and if you think that agreeing that the AFL is well run but does make mistakes is more of a loser attitude than we get picked on well I am completely lost.

The AFL should run the AFL.
But the AFL is answerable to the 16 constituent Clubs who are in turn answerable to their respective members.

Maybe its about time those that are charged with running the competition on behalf of their 'members' spent a little time considering how they can address the apparent inequalities of their management of the game.

Instead nowadays they seem to spend more time creating 'PR Spin' to try and cover up the inequalities they create from some of their decisions.

The Collingwood Draw is another excellent case in point.
Yes everybody wants to play Collingwood as a 'home game' because of tehir 'drawing power'. But why is it that some clubs have to go to Perth twice most years (including us) but Collingwood very rarely do? Aren't WCE and Freo entitiled to 'home games' against Collingwood just as much as anybody else?

Every year we play PA at AAMI. Other teams don't - there are only 11 'Home games' per season so how come we get to go there every year?

And Brisbane? Every year we are one of the 11 out of 15 that gets the honour of playing there.[/quote]

And it gets back to poor old St Kilda again. Do you realise how much you mention how hard done we are. Get with it mate and stop living in the past. As for Collingwood why would the AFL send then to Perth to get home games when they fill the stadium anyway. Think about it so the make them play melbourne sides so they get bigger crowds and make some money as per Melbourne on Queens birthday or did you just forget that.

Finally as you said the AFL is run by the clubs but do they choose to remove people. No because the clubs are happy with how it is run even if there is the odd mistake.

[jill]

Yes, Freo were in front when siren went But umps didn't hear it, play continued until they were told - AFL used video evidence and rightfully awarded game to Freo.
Swans had 19 on field, the 1 who should have come off involved in play that resulted in point to draw game (could well have been goal to win game - Roos initially whinged ball was touched after it crossed line), AFL had same evidence available to them - video - should have rightfully awarded game to Kangas.
Can NOT believe that Paul Roos had no idea he had an extra man on field when he was sitting on bench!! - must have known 1 on - 0 off!
Mr. Self-Righteous Roos escapes scrutiny yet again, while at same time managing to "blame" opposition.

[Mr Magic]

So after a good night's sleep its back to work as the AFL apologist.

There's absolutely no point in trying to debate this issue with you Plugger because you point blank refuse to accept anything that is a criticism of the AFL.

I and others will continue to support our Club and rail at what we see as inconsistencies in the administration of the game.

I look forward to seeing you defend the AFL when in the future they decide to make Collingwood play Essendon, Carlton and Richmond on a revolving 3 weekly basis at the MCG because they can get crowds of 80,000+ every time they play.

After all, as you so correctly point out, their main focus is to get bums on seats so that 'supporters' like you can feel secure in your knowledge that they are running the game succesfully.

The integrity of the competition now has little bearing on the way this administration runs the game.

Oh and as to your point about why the Clubs don't remove any of the Commission, you know very well the answer.
As has been mentioned previously, the parochial interests of the 16 Clubs mean the voting block of the 6 interstate Clubs plus the 3 CLubs beholden to the AFL's handouts ensure that no vote not approved by the AFL could ever win.

[Mr Magic]

Yes, Freo were in front when siren went But umps didn't hear it, play continued until they were told - AFL used video evidence and rightfully awarded game to Freo.
Swans had 19 on field, the 1 who should have come off involved in play that resulted in point to draw game (could well have been goal to win game - Roos initially whinged ball was touched after it crossed line), AFL had same evidence available to them - video - should have rightfully awarded game to Kangas.
Can NOT believe that Paul Roos had no idea he had an extra man on field when he was sitting on bench!! - must have known 1 on - 0 off!
Mr. Self-Righteous Roos escapes scrutiny yet again, while at same time managing to "blame" opposition.

You're wrong Jill,
According to Plugger we are all just suffering a 'persecution complex'!

None of that happened as we saw it.

[saint66au]

What the whole "19th man" farce proves is that the AFL are very very reactive rather than pro-active.

When the game evolves and changes, nowhere near enough thought is put into how it affects rules that were written a very very long time ago...they are way too concerned with "prettying" the game up by getting rid of body contact and making it a non-stop blur of movement.

When Interchanges became to frenzied and prevalent in the last couple of years, did anyone take the time to flick thru the rulebook and think "Hmmm what if all these changes means someone stuffs up and sends an extra man out there"? No. The same old "captain head count" rule from 345BC stays there, right up until last weekend, when its shown to be a farce. "Oh bugger we better change that" says the AFL..like I said, reactive not proactive

Remember where you heard it first. Theres one other archaic rule from the ancient past that is gonna get shown up eventually to be a logistic disaster.

Replaying a drawn Grand Final...

In the lasst quarter of the 2005 GF, I was furiously barracking for a draw. Call me a sadist, but I wanted the AFL to be shown up for the incompitent fools they are for not having the forethought to realise what a logistic nightmare replaying a Grand Final between 2 Interstate Clubs would be. Can you just imagine the nightmare that wold result?

Result? The day after its all over the AFL would suddenly announce that drawn GF's cant be replayed in this modern day and age, and will bring in extra time like the other finals. Well...Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[starsign]

I am not debating it because unlike you i couldnt give a stuff what happened 3 years ago.

dont want to get involved with your private war but
Methinks your out of line here Plugger when the thread is entitled AFL Inconsistencies and primarily compares the Swans debarkle with Sirengate

and i think the poster has a valid arguement
And as for Roos he's loosing me with every incident lately
(which seem to be quite regular now hes down on the boundary)
I'd leave well enough alone $25 grand will be a cheap price for 2 vital points that may give you the critical 4th spot or even 8th for that matter come finals time

[Dan Warna]

my understanding was at the time of sirengate, teh game ends when the umpire says it ends regardless of the siren.

if the umpire made a mistake, so sad too bad.

sure might not have been the right decision, but suck it up.

but in this case the AFL changed the rules, to suit its needs.

[Dis Believer]

Just for you Plunger, seeing as you think everyone jumps at shadows and want hard statistical proof, how about the stats for 2007 from the AFL judicial process.

TOTAL Vic % NonVic %
Teams 16 10 62.5 6 37.5
Reports 133 82 61.7 51 38.3
Weeks Susp. 51 36 70.6 15 29.4

Not Guilty 11 5 45.5 6 54.5

So Vic teams represent 62.5% of the competition and were just about spot on in being 61.7% of the charges last year (includes all charges, melee, wrestling, abusive language etc) yet got 70.6% of the suspensions handed out. Seems you were better off being outside the state if you were a naughty boy.

Especially if you challenged the charges. Despite representing only 37.5% of the competition, of the 11 players to go to the tribunal and be found not guilty, 54.5% were non-Victorian.

Doesn't really pay to be a VIC does it ???????????

Now I know you'll squeal that the MRP and tribunal are not the AFL and that Handy Andy doesn't run it, but these are not independent courts of law run in accordance with legislation and precedence, they are privately administered panels for a privately run competition. If the AFL ever feels anything is not right, they can intervene. If they don't like things they can opt to change the system, process or people involved at any time, without consulting anyone.

So tell me again how things aren't or can't be manipulated !! Tell me agagin how no one could predict that the Swans biggest drawcard in Barry Hall wouldn't be free to play in a grand final for the team from the AFL's most coveted market - Sydney. What did that flag do for profile and marketability, TV ratings, awareness???? If you want to delude yourself that's fine, but drop the sarcastic bulls*** directed at those not on the AFL payroll whose eyes are wide open to reality. The facts are this is a business, and under this regime it is nothing else but marlket penetration and dollars.
They have no sense of history, tradition or respect and no understanding that this competition is underpinned by the dogged loyalty of Victorians reared on generations of suburban footy. Outside of the big 4 in Victoria the AFL don't give a s***, and frankly they are risking the entire competition if they disenfranchise the foundation upon which their success is built - the millions of potential consumers that the TV brigade want to get in front of the box in VIctoria,NSW & QLD.

The only one they actually have of that lot is the one they treat most shoddily and the foundation on which evberything else is stacked.

[Dan Warna]

had freo and st kilda had the roles reversed what do you honestly think the AFL would have done?

had North and Sydney had the roles reveresed what do you honestly think the AFL would have done?

had that been Brett Kirk or adam goodes who stopped and propped and xavier clarke or luke ball run into the back of them with NO verbal evidence, and NO video evidence what do you honestly think the AFL would have done?

had that been bolton who had a swing and a miss in 05 and NOT lenny hayes do you think bolton would have got 2 week for attempted striking?

honestly Judd/brown incident been the other way around would judd have been reported for trying to PROTECT brown?

I still find it hilarious and depressing that Lenny Hayes of all people copped 2 weeks for NOT HITTING SOMEONE.

[plugger66]

Just for you Plunger, seeing as you think everyone jumps at shadows and want hard statistical proof, how about the stats for 2007 from the AFL judicial process.

TOTAL Vic % NonVic %
Teams 16 10 62.5 6 37.5
Reports 133 82 61.7 51 38.3
Weeks Susp. 51 36 70.6 15 29.4

Not Guilty 11 5 45.5 6 54.5

So Vic teams represent 62.5% of the competition and were just about spot on in being 61.7% of the charges last year (includes all charges, melee, wrestling, abusive language etc) yet got 70.6% of the suspensions handed out. Seems you were better off being outside the state if you were a naughty boy.

Especially if you challenged the charges. Despite representing only 37.5% of the competition, of the 11 players to go to the tribunal and be found not guilty, 54.5% were non-Victorian.

Doesn't really pay to be a VIC does it ???????????

Now I know you'll squeal that the MRP and tribunal are not the AFL and that Handy Andy doesn't run it, but these are not independent courts of law run in accordance with legislation and precedence, they are privately administered panels for a privately run competition. If the AFL ever feels anything is not right, they can intervene. If they don't like things they can opt to change the system, process or people involved at any time, without consulting anyone.

So tell me again how things aren't or can't be manipulated !! Tell me agagin how no one could predict that the Swans biggest drawcard in Barry Hall wouldn't be free to play in a grand final for the team from the AFL's most coveted market - Sydney. What did that flag do for profile and marketability, TV ratings, awareness???? If you want to delude yourself that's fine, but drop the sarcastic bulls*** directed at those not on the AFL payroll whose eyes are wide open to reality. The facts are this is a business, and under this regime it is nothing else but marlket penetration and dollars.
They have no sense of history, tradition or respect and no understanding that this competition is underpinned by the dogged loyalty of Victorians reared on generations of suburban footy. Outside of the big 4 in Victoria the AFL don't give a s***, and frankly they are risking the entire competition if they disenfranchise the foundation upon which their success is built - the millions of potential consumers that the TV brigade want to get in front of the box in VIctoria,NSW & QLD.

The only one they actually have of that lot is the one they treat most shoddily and the foundation on which evberything else is stacked.

So you say that Loewe and Burkie would just bow to the AFL. One years stats well that proves it then. Give me 10 and you can be proved right. And people keep bring up about upsetting us Victorians and no one will watch it anymore. The problem is stats which you obviously like prove that the game is more popular than ever.

As I keep saying the problem is we are playing like crap so we worry about things that have no bearing on us when we should be worrying about things like how our game plan is going.

[Solar]

Just for you Plunger, seeing as you think everyone jumps at shadows and want hard statistical proof, how about the stats for 2007 from the AFL judicial process.

TOTAL Vic % NonVic %
Teams 16 10 62.5 6 37.5
Reports 133 82 61.7 51 38.3
Weeks Susp. 51 36 70.6 15 29.4

Not Guilty 11 5 45.5 6 54.5

So Vic teams represent 62.5% of the competition and were just about spot on in being 61.7% of the charges last year (includes all charges, melee, wrestling, abusive language etc) yet got 70.6% of the suspensions handed out. Seems you were better off being outside the state if you were a naughty boy.

Especially if you challenged the charges. Despite representing only 37.5% of the competition, of the 11 players to go to the tribunal and be found not guilty, 54.5% were non-Victorian.

Doesn't really pay to be a VIC does it ???????????

Now I know you'll squeal that the MRP and tribunal are not the AFL and that Handy Andy doesn't run it, but these are not independent courts of law run in accordance with legislation and precedence, they are privately administered panels for a privately run competition. If the AFL ever feels anything is not right, they can intervene. If they don't like things they can opt to change the system, process or people involved at any time, without consulting anyone.

So tell me again how things aren't or can't be manipulated !! Tell me agagin how no one could predict that the Swans biggest drawcard in Barry Hall wouldn't be free to play in a grand final for the team from the AFL's most coveted market - Sydney. What did that flag do for profile and marketability, TV ratings, awareness???? If you want to delude yourself that's fine, but drop the sarcastic bulls*** directed at those not on the AFL payroll whose eyes are wide open to reality. The facts are this is a business, and under this regime it is nothing else but marlket penetration and dollars.
They have no sense of history, tradition or respect and no understanding that this competition is underpinned by the dogged loyalty of Victorians reared on generations of suburban footy. Outside of the big 4 in Victoria the AFL don't give a s***, and frankly they are risking the entire competition if they disenfranchise the foundation upon which their success is built - the millions of potential consumers that the TV brigade want to get in front of the box in VIctoria,NSW & QLD.

The only one they actually have of that lot is the one they treat most shoddily and the foundation on which evberything else is stacked.

So you say that Loewe and Burkie would just bow to the AFL. One years stats well that proves it then. Give me 10 and you can be proved right. And people keep bring up about upsetting us Victorians and no one will watch it anymore. The problem is stats which you obviously like prove that the game is more popular than ever.

As I keep saying the problem is we are playing like crap so we worry about things that have no bearing on us when we should be worrying about things like how our game plan is going.

guess what, personally if we were 6-0, coming off a flag and everything was dandy I and I am guessing others would still bring out the hypocracy in the system right now.

How certain players when reported are sent straght to the tribunal, thus missing out on the chance to take the 25% pleading guilty discount. How certain players are able to plead guilty, reduce their sentence when even a blind man can see they are guilty. There is no sense to this.

The fact that a player can tell the truth, do nothing wrong and yet is found guilty for BLOCKING? And yet less then a year later a different player lies despite video evidence (I didn't mean to headbutt) and then gets given less. This is with history of heabutting (one of the more ugly parts of the game).

In addition there are rules in place that have served the comp very well over 100 years, where the game is only over when the umpire hears it. There has been games in history where the bell has been rung but because of the crowd the game has continued and won with a late goal. Yet the AFL decide to throw away 100+ years of rules and history and award the game to freo. And to think, I was bought up to respect that the umpire is always right....

The same thing happens this last weekend. For over 100 years a rule of only the captain being allowed to call for a head count has been in place. This was not done but video evidence shows that by having 19 on the field allowed sydney to draw that match. Why not continue the "changing of the rules" like happened with sirengate? Nope, $25k fine and a wrap over the knuckles. Funny thing is the head coach was on the sidelines and yet pretends it was a silly mistake.

How could we forget "whispers in the sky". How this is not match fixing (without the payment, just for revenge) still perplexes me. How the three umpires who were caught cheating by influencing a games result is still allowed to umpire still makes me shake my head.

We will continue to bring this corruption up until someone can tell us why this was able to happen. This is not "why us" because it's happened to other clubs as well. Ask the kangaroos whats it like to lose 2 points because the other team cheated. Ask west coast whether it was right for hall to play that grand final? Ask the kangaroos why they don't play the mahority of friday night matches, the ones they pioneered in the 90's.

Us against them, perhaps. But it's hard to take on city hall, ask Grant Thomas. He stupidly said that umpires should leave their ego's at the door (haven't we all got upset every now and then with the prancing umpires), which lead to a game being handed to freo on a platter.

Kangaroos knocked back the gold coast, watch their draw next year.

No wonder people don't want to take on city hall, they can shut you down in so many ways. Death by 100 cuts.

Plugger66, I dare you to answer the questions put in this thread without reverting to

1)sarcastic bleatings about how we are just whinging
2) suggesting that because the crowds are higher then things are good
3)running the "they make lots of money, thus they are good" line

Ask fitzroy supporters about the AFL

[bigmicka]

Sorry plugger but I don't commit to the Record crowds/Ratings prove the game is better than it ever has been. That's Andrew Demetrious line when asked anything other than how are the crowds and ratings.

Reporter: So Andrew what was your opinion on the Swans/North draw?

Andrew: The game has never been in a better position $800 million tv contract, With record crowds.

Reporter: So the 19th player on the field had no meaning on the result?

Andrew: With this record growth we are going to expand onto the Gold Coast and Western Sydney, our bottom line has never been better.

Sorry but those lines don't mean a crap to the average supporter.

I wan't to hear about the tribunal getting the decisions right.

I wan't to hear about umpires making fewer mistakes and what steps they are taking to improve decision making.

I wan't to hear about an equitable draw where teams play the same amount of times over a few years. This means St Kilda not playing Freo at Freo 16 times in 16 years.

I wan't to hear about changes to the rules due to developments in the game and technology. This means revising the rules on say the 19 players proactively instead of reactively.

If you see this as us having a whinge about the saint's playing poorly thats your perogative. Just don't call us that, when you are just an apologist for the worst administration the game has ever had during my lifetime.

mic

[To the top]

To draw Plugger66 in, it is not what happended 3 years ago - it is what is going to happen tomorrow.

When you manage by crisis, with no ground rules and therefore no consistency, who knows?

And that IS the issue.

So, can a side run 19 players on the field in a Grand Final, win the game and cop a fine to deter them from taking such actions again?

The game is supposed to be professional, hence the outcome of the St Kilda v. Fremantle game, but, given a side at the elite AFL level has 19 players on the field, exactly how professional is it?

Don't clubs have Interchange Stewards who document every exit and entry from the field of play? The same as every game has Time-keepers, scorers etc. etc. etc.

And there has to be someone responsible for ensuring the siren is loud enough to be heard, surely?

And remember, people bet on the results of football games.

The real problem is that the AFL is out to lunch.

Who's paying?

[saintspremiers]

A caller this afternoon to SEN stated that he thought Sydney/Paul Roos may have deliberately played 19 men.......which, who knows, may indeed be the case.

But good 'ol SEN outrighted dismissed this as being a foolish thing to think.

Is this SEN, part owned by the AFL, being censored in their real thoughts I wonder??

I reckon if we are within a goal in any game we play this year, we should chuck on an extra player, risk a 25K fine and try and win that way.

But no doubt if we, or another team, tries this stunt ("accidental" of course!), they'll throw the book down, take away premiership points, and be consistently inconsistent yet again.

Fools, damm fools the lot of 'em!