Fans sue AFL over Sirengate
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Fans sue AFL over Sirengate
Five punters who tipped Freemantle want their money. Ill get to the twist after the story.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html
EXCLUSIVE: FIVE disgruntled punters are suing the AFL over the siren shambles that triggered one of football's biggest controversies.
In a writ served on league bosses late Friday, the tipsters demand $128,000 - the amount they believe they should have won for backing the Dockers in one of footy's most infamous games.
The 2006 St Kilda-Fremantle match ended in farce when the umpires failed to hear the final siren and allowed play to continue.
Though the Dockers were in front by one point when the siren first sounded, the Saints drew the Round 5 game. Bookies paid out on a draw, but the AFL Commission later awarded the game to the Dockers after a protest.
You can continue reading the article by following the link.
This is the thing and I can see it coming from a mile off. The AFL will argue, that at the time the fax was sent to the betting agencies, according to the rules it was actually a draw. That the law states "when the umpire hears the siren the game is concluded" and it was on this basis that the fax was sent out.
Pity that they forgot the rules 4 days later when they reversed the decision.
mic
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html
EXCLUSIVE: FIVE disgruntled punters are suing the AFL over the siren shambles that triggered one of football's biggest controversies.
In a writ served on league bosses late Friday, the tipsters demand $128,000 - the amount they believe they should have won for backing the Dockers in one of footy's most infamous games.
The 2006 St Kilda-Fremantle match ended in farce when the umpires failed to hear the final siren and allowed play to continue.
Though the Dockers were in front by one point when the siren first sounded, the Saints drew the Round 5 game. Bookies paid out on a draw, but the AFL Commission later awarded the game to the Dockers after a protest.
You can continue reading the article by following the link.
This is the thing and I can see it coming from a mile off. The AFL will argue, that at the time the fax was sent to the betting agencies, according to the rules it was actually a draw. That the law states "when the umpire hears the siren the game is concluded" and it was on this basis that the fax was sent out.
Pity that they forgot the rules 4 days later when they reversed the decision.
mic
No one ever built a statue for a critic.
still can't believe that they changed that and didn't change the 19 man cheat by sydney this year.....
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12792
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 802 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
Probably we will have to foot the bill.Eastern wrote:The AFL appear to be in the chyt on this one. The vindictive nature of those at the top suggests that someone, somewhere will pay. Who it is and how they will pay remains to be seen. The only thing we can be sure of is that it won't be them, they will definately pass it on !!
Afterall we brought the game into disrepute by having the temerity to play by the prevailing rules - when the umpire signals the end of the game.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
i think probably because it is now going to court.Raven wrote:I wonder why this is just coming to light now and not closer to the actual event?
at the time i thought the league couldn't possibly change the result because they had declared "correct weight" and paid out on the draw 30 minutes after the "siren".
to my mind these guys are in the right and should get their money, along with interest.
an embarrassing balls up/fiasco that made the AFL look amateurish, weak and resembling a bunch of bungling clowns. i hope this makes them squirm.
the fact that they pathetically bowed to public opinion and changed the result after paying out on the draw shows their leadership up for the knee-jerk d#ckheads that they are.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Tue 30 May 2006 7:34pm
- Location: the new home of the saints :)
bit different don't you think..who did drugs in this case?plugger66 wrote:Dont think they would have a chance afterall in horse racing if a horse is disquailfied due to drugs in the system the punters do not get their money if they backed the second horse.
or did i miss something?
Robert Harvey- Simply the best
- Gehrigs_son
- Club Player
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Sun 07 May 2006 11:06pm
The point is the second horse becomes the winner but the punter still doesnt get his money. Would think it is exactly the same as the Saints Freo game.fonz_#15 wrote:bit different don't you think..who did drugs in this case?plugger66 wrote:Dont think they would have a chance afterall in horse racing if a horse is disquailfied due to drugs in the system the punters do not get their money if they backed the second horse.
or did i miss something?
- Eastern
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
I think this one will come down to who has the "Better" Lawyers !!plugger66 wrote:The point is the second horse becomes the winner but the punter still doesnt get his money. Would think it is exactly the same as the Saints Freo game.fonz_#15 wrote:bit different don't you think..who did drugs in this case?plugger66 wrote:Dont think they would have a chance afterall in horse racing if a horse is disquailfied due to drugs in the system the punters do not get their money if they backed the second horse.
or did i miss something?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
i guess it comes down to the result of the game.
did fremantle win or was it a draw?
the league said to pay out on a draw, then said fremantle won.
which one is it?
these guys backed fremantle. the record books show that fremantle won the game.
how can they not get the money?
the league shouldn't be able to get away with saying both results were correct because they stripped us of premiership points.
did fremantle win or was it a draw?
the league said to pay out on a draw, then said fremantle won.
which one is it?
these guys backed fremantle. the record books show that fremantle won the game.
how can they not get the money?
the league shouldn't be able to get away with saying both results were correct because they stripped us of premiership points.
Last edited by bigcarl on Sun 06 Jul 2008 7:11pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Launcestonsaint
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2558
- Joined: Tue 16 Mar 2004 10:19pm
- Location: Watching our games on tele or listening to the radio :(
Bakes kicked the point after the alledged siren went. The AFL wll suspend him for 2 years as it took that long to come to this & fine him whatever the fine is plus $500000 for him being Bakes..Eastern wrote:The AFL appear to be in the chyt on this one. The vindictive nature of those at the top suggests that someone, somewhere will pay. Who it is and how they will pay remains to be seen. The only thing we can be sure of is that it won't be them, they will definately pass it on !!
St Kilda's 2 premiership captains are Tassie born. The Doc & Roo.
Like a said its the same as horse racing. You may pay on one horse and it then gets disquailfied and the second horse will be shown as the winner in the record books but the punter doesnt get his money.bigcarl wrote:i guess it comes down to the result of the game.
did fremantle win or was it a draw?
the league said to pay out on a draw, then said fremantle won.
which one is it?
these guys backed fremantle. the record books show that fremantle won the game.
how can they not get the money?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
Its still the same thing though as the result was changed after the payout.bigcarl wrote:that's a different scenario plugger.plugger66 wrote:Like a said its the same as horse racing. You may pay on one horse and it then gets disquailfied and the second horse will be shown as the winner in the record books but the punter doesnt get his money.
st kilda wasn't disqualified.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12792
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 802 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
But in that instance, isn't a 'protest' filed and a warning siren is broadcast around the racecourse to warn all punters about it?plugger66 wrote:Like a said its the same as horse racing. You may pay on one horse and it then gets disquailfied and the second horse will be shown as the winner in the record books but the punter doesnt get his money.bigcarl wrote:i guess it comes down to the result of the game.
did fremantle win or was it a draw?
the league said to pay out on a draw, then said fremantle won.
which one is it?
these guys backed fremantle. the record books show that fremantle won the game.
how can they not get the money?
Also, don't the Bookies and TAB not pay out until the Stewards declare 'correct weight'?
In this case, the AFL declared 'correct weight' on a draw which meant that the betting agencies paid out on that result.
Some time later they (the AFL) declared Freo the winner, thereby quashing the 'correct weight' they had advised earlier. I don't blame the betting agencies - they did what they were required to.
It is the AFL, and solely the AFL, who are responsible for these punters missing out on their correctly won money (according to the AFL's official results)
Not talking about protests. I am talking about when a result is changed after the payout and for that example I used a horse being found with drugs in the system. And as I have said the record books will show the winner as the horse that was originally second but the punter will not get any money.Mr Magic wrote:But in that instance, isn't a 'protest' filed and a warning siren is broadcast around the racecourse to warn all punters about it?plugger66 wrote:Like a said its the same as horse racing. You may pay on one horse and it then gets disquailfied and the second horse will be shown as the winner in the record books but the punter doesnt get his money.bigcarl wrote:i guess it comes down to the result of the game.
did fremantle win or was it a draw?
the league said to pay out on a draw, then said fremantle won.
which one is it?
these guys backed fremantle. the record books show that fremantle won the game.
how can they not get the money?
Also, don't the Bookies and TAB not pay out until the Stewards declare 'correct weight'?
In this case, the AFL declared 'correct weight' on a draw which meant that the betting agencies paid out on that result.
Some time later they (the AFL) declared Freo the winner, thereby quashing the 'correct weight' they had advised earlier. I don't blame the betting agencies - they did what they were required to.
It is the AFL, and solely the AFL, who are responsible for these punters missing out on their correctly won money (according to the AFL's official results)
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
will be an interesting case. i know which way i'd see it.plugger66 wrote:Its still the same thing though as the result was changed after the payout.bigcarl wrote:that's a different scenario plugger.plugger66 wrote:Like a said its the same as horse racing. You may pay on one horse and it then gets disquailfied and the second horse will be shown as the winner in the record books but the punter doesnt get his money.
st kilda wasn't disqualified.
these guys backed fremantle. fremantle won, according to the league.
pretty simple. pay them the money.
or is the afl now trying to say they got the result wrong?
Then why dont punters get their money in the same sort of situation.bigcarl wrote:will be an interesting case. i know which way i'd see it.plugger66 wrote:Its still the same thing though as the result was changed after the payout.bigcarl wrote:that's a different scenario plugger.plugger66 wrote:Like a said its the same as horse racing. You may pay on one horse and it then gets disquailfied and the second horse will be shown as the winner in the record books but the punter doesnt get his money.
st kilda wasn't disqualified.
these guys backed fremantle. fremantle won, according to the league.
pretty simple. pay them the money.
Once again the AFL manage to create a logical paradox that would stump even the deepest thinker.
This is up there with Des Headland being let off for striking due to provocation by Adam Selwood. Of course Selwood was also found not guily of saying anything. Not sure how that works but in the Kafkaesque nightmare that is the AFL these all make perfect sense.
I think if you fed all the AFL and tribunal decisions into a computer it would explode shouting Does Not Compute!
This is up there with Des Headland being let off for striking due to provocation by Adam Selwood. Of course Selwood was also found not guily of saying anything. Not sure how that works but in the Kafkaesque nightmare that is the AFL these all make perfect sense.
I think if you fed all the AFL and tribunal decisions into a computer it would explode shouting Does Not Compute!
"The humble improve" Wynton Marsalis