The AFL Sydney bias finally goes our way

[joffaboy]

I am suprised that nobody has really mentioned this.

During the year Sydney cheated and played North with 19 men. While the 19th man was on the field Sydney kicked a match drawing point.

Because Sydney get a leg up all the time by a corrupt and hopelessly compromised AFL, they dont get the 2 competition points taken off them, which means effectively North were cheated out of two competition points.

Instead we get a hastily put together interchange rule implement mid season (from the same incompetent liars who have stated countless times that they never, never change rules mid season ) and use the sophicated post it note system for effect (and hopeless confusion).

In the wash up, the usual Sydney bias has cheated Nth out of a top four spot and the double chance.

Now I screamed as loud as anyone when the AFL took two points off us because of Sirengate. Those two points cost us a top four in 2006 and possibly (but as it transpires probably not) Grant Thomas's job.

Fast forward to 2008. Because of the inteference of the AFL once again, because of their inconsistency, and because of their blatant compromising of the competition, this time we, the Saints, have benefitted.

Why have to acknowledge that in that respect we have been lucky, just as we were stooged and cheated out of a top four in 2006.

As i always say, I take incompetence over conspirarcy every day of the week. We have to acknowledge that there is no conspirarcy toward the Saints, only gross incompetence and incredibly inconsistance on the part of the AFL as they try to maximise their earnings by protecting Non Victorian teams, especially Sydney.

Twice in three years the incompetents at AFL Headquarters have DIRECTLY influenced who has and who hasn't got a chance of winning the flag (historically no team has won the flag from outside the four).

So...
1) Time for us as Saints supporters to admit their is no conspirarcy against us, and

2) Time for Demetriou and Anderson to be sacked for gross incompetence by allowing their direct actions to so gravely disadvantage a football team twice in three years.

/rant

[n1ck]

As i always say, I take incompetence over conspirarcy every day of the week. We have to acknowledge that there is no conspirarcy toward the Saints, only gross incompetence and incredibly inconsistance on the part of the AFL as they try to maximise their earnings by protecting Non Victorian teams, especially Sydney.

Exactly right.

[JeffDunne]

In fairness to the AFL (puts on plugger's hat), the AFL would have been changing the rules mid-season had they docked the Swans two points.

I still don't agree with the decision we copped against Freo and I'm in no doubt had the shoe been on the other foot the AFL would have docked North the points.

[suss]

There's no conspiracy towards the Saints...it's more of a direct bias towards Sydney. The treatment of A Goodes at the tribunal has been laughable this year. And the Jude Bolton farce stands as the most recent example of their contemptible behaviour.

Heaven only knows how they'll treat Western Sydney team when it enters the competition...

[supersaints]

sssshhhhhh! don't say it to loud or Dimwit will come up with another ruling and make us change places with the kangas...... he obviously did not entertain us making the finals at all

[sainteronline]

(historically no team has won the flag from outside the four).

dont want to b piky but,
didnt the cows win from 7th 0r 8th?

[meher baba]

Totally agree. The AFL's pro-Sydney bias is an embarrassment. But is it entirely their fault? I assume that they are constantly put under pressure by sponsors and advertisers to increase their presence in Sydney. Hence the forthcoming western sydney fiasco

And what's the end result of it all? the swans are frequently outrated by SBS in Sydney and it looks as if a few phone booths full of fans are going to the game tonight

I fear that this curse will be with us for years to come

[saintsRrising]

In the wash up, the usual Sydney bias has cheated Nth out of a top four spot and the double chance.

No that is not correct on two counts.

North's current % is 97%

1/ Rules at the time were that North had to call fora head count. They did not..so nothing do do with the AFL.

2/ If they had of called for a head count..and say the Swans 64 points was wiped...their % would be 99.9% = sixth..

Saints would still be fourth.

[cowboy18]

And what's the end result of it all? the swans are frequently outrated by SBS in Sydney and it looks as if a few phone booths full of fans are going to the game tonight

If it keeps going like this you will see less than 20K at Homebush. It's a disgusting day today, cold, water EVERYWHERE and has been like that all day.

There will be NRL-like scenes at the stadium tonight, with abundant empty seats and the crowd will have individual mikes.

There is no buzz whatsoever about this game this week. The marketing and uptake by the local media is surprisingly lame - more has been made of the father of the year. Odd. Very odd.

[Mr Magic]

There is no buzz whatsoever about this game this week. The marketing and uptake by the local media is surprisingly lame - more has been made of the father of the year. Odd. Very odd.

I'm curious Cowboy.
Why is it like this?

Is it because Sydney has not truly embraced AFL?
If so, why?
DO they consider AFL to be a 'Melbourne game' and therefore reject it as part of that 'traditional Sydney/Melbourne rivalry'?

I happened to be working in Sydney the weekend of the Swans Premiership victory and I remember being amazed at the time as to the comments from people all over at the sight of red/white around town - the general comment was 'what di St.George win?

[rogerwa]

simple matter of the afl OWNING the swans..the afl took ownership when they went belly up yrs ago & the afl still own the licence

will be propped up no matter what it takes as will the bears, goldcoast & west syd

the rorting is here to stay

[st.byron]

Agree that there's been degrees of bias towards Sydney, soft tribunal results being the most outstanding examples.
FWIW I thought the outcome of both of the incidents mentioned in the OP (sirengate and 19 men on the field) were fair and reasonable. With sirengate it was clear that the game was over before Bakes kicked that point and the 19 men on the field incident was summarised by both coaches after the game as having no bearing on the result, and as another poster has pointed out, the onus was on North to ask for a head count.

[Mr Magic]

Agree that there's been degrees of bias towards Sydney, soft tribunal results being the most outstanding examples.
FWIW I thought the outcome of both of the incidents mentioned in the OP (sirengate and 19 men on the field) were fair and reasonable. With sirengate it was clear that the game was over before Bakes kicked that point and the 19 men on the field incident was summarised by both coaches after the game as having no bearing on the result, and as another poster has pointed out, the onus was on North to ask for a head count.

Thewn how do you explain that in 1 case (Sirengate) the 'rules' (game finishes when the umpire hears the siren) were deemed not be in use so that the Commission could hand the 4 points to Freo (moral decision by them?) whereas in the Swns/NM case (also required a 'moral' decision by teh AFL) the AFL states that the 'Rules' apply?

One could ponder what would have been the results if the team involoved had had their positions reversed?

Would the Saints have been awarded teh 4 points and would teh Swans have been awarded the 4 points in a 'moral decision'?

I don't believe anybody begrudges the results, just the blatant inconsistancy used by the AFL in making decisions.

[brown-coat]

Is it because Sydney has not truly embraced AFL?
If so, why?
DO they consider AFL to be a 'Melbourne game' and therefore reject it as part of that 'traditional Sydney/Melbourne rivalry'?

Err. Not quite. They just don't care about sport like Melbourne folk do.

Rugby League is supposed to be the premiere sport in Sydney but the crowds are abysmal and the competition is a pseudo-choreographed TV-fest.

The Sydney Swans as a brand and a club is never ever ever ever going to win the hearts of Sydney people. The red and white is atrocious, the SCG is a hole compared to the MCG or even Telstra Dome, it's in the heart of the city where rich North Sydney twats venture down to watch a spot of the novelty, AFL.

Build an awesome stadium in western sydney. Give the team vicious colours like black and blue with a SKULL emblazoned in the middle, drop ticket prices substantially, promote grass roots footy in the west. ETC ETC.

Get the hell off the swans, they aren't going to bring AFL to the Sydney properly.

PLEASE NOTE: Western Sydney and Sydney are different. Marketing to Sydney people isn't going to work because they're too obsessed with buying 2 million dollar 1 bedroom apartments in Newtown.

Western Sydney is a multicultural, growing, vibrant, poverty stricken, filthy hole (in some places...lol). Perfect for a vicious collingwood'esque team with feral supporters who are 100% commited.

[st.byron]

Agree that there's been degrees of bias towards Sydney, soft tribunal results being the most outstanding examples.
FWIW I thought the outcome of both of the incidents mentioned in the OP (sirengate and 19 men on the field) were fair and reasonable. With sirengate it was clear that the game was over before Bakes kicked that point and the 19 men on the field incident was summarised by both coaches after the game as having no bearing on the result, and as another poster has pointed out, the onus was on North to ask for a head count.

Thewn how do you explain that in 1 case (Sirengate) the 'rules' (game finishes when the umpire hears the siren) were deemed not be in use so that the Commission could hand the 4 points to Freo (moral decision by them?) whereas in the Swns/NM case (also required a 'moral' decision by teh AFL) the AFL states that the 'Rules' apply?

One could ponder what would have been the results if the team involoved had had their positions reversed?

Would the Saints have been awarded teh 4 points and would teh Swans have been awarded the 4 points in a 'moral decision'?

I don't believe anybody begrudges the results, just the blatant inconsistancy used by the AFL in making decisions.

no moral inconsistency in my view. Rules are there to interpreted, not necessarily followed to the letter of the law. In the case of sirengate, it was absolutely clear that the siren had gone well before Bakes kicked his point. To me it would have been an absolute travesty of justice if the outcome hadn't been as it was.
In the 'extra man' incident, having the extra man had no impact on the putcome of the game and was an aside to the game. Neither coach or club had any issue with it.
So in both cases the actual result of the game was as it should have been. The siren went before Bakes kicked his point and a just outcome was a Freo win. With the Sydney / North game any reversal of the result would have been unjust so the result stood. IMO the AFL got it right both times.

[Mr Magic]

Agree that there's been degrees of bias towards Sydney, soft tribunal results being the most outstanding examples.
FWIW I thought the outcome of both of the incidents mentioned in the OP (sirengate and 19 men on the field) were fair and reasonable. With sirengate it was clear that the game was over before Bakes kicked that point and the 19 men on the field incident was summarised by both coaches after the game as having no bearing on the result, and as another poster has pointed out, the onus was on North to ask for a head count.

Thewn how do you explain that in 1 case (Sirengate) the 'rules' (game finishes when the umpire hears the siren) were deemed not be in use so that the Commission could hand the 4 points to Freo (moral decision by them?) whereas in the Swns/NM case (also required a 'moral' decision by teh AFL) the AFL states that the 'Rules' apply?

One could ponder what would have been the results if the team involoved had had their positions reversed?

Would the Saints have been awarded teh 4 points and would teh Swans have been awarded the 4 points in a 'moral decision'?

I don't believe anybody begrudges the results, just the blatant inconsistancy used by the AFL in making decisions.

no moral inconsistency in my view. Rules are there to interpreted, not necessarily followed to the letter of the law. In the case of sirengate, it was absolutely clear that the siren had gone well before Bakes kicked his point. To me it would have been an absolute travesty of justice if the outcome hadn't been as it was.
In the 'extra man' incident, having the extra man had no impact on the putcome of the game and was an aside to the game. Neither coach or club had any issue with it.
So in both cases the actual result of the game was as it should have been. The siren went before Bakes kicked his point and a just outcome was a Freo win. With the Sydney / North game any reversal of the result would have been unjust so the result stood. IMO the AFL got it right both times.

Are you serious?

The extra man for the swans took place just before they kicked the point that tied the game. Even if the 'extra man' wasn't actually involoved in the play (there was certainly conjecture that he was), he allowed the Swans an extra player in their attacking zone which made it more difficult for NM to clear the ball out of danger. There seemed to ahve been widespread acceptance that the incident contributed to teh Swans being able to 'draw' the game.

As for your statement that 'rules are there to be interpreted', how far would you go?

Should the AFL overturn the result of a game if it is won with a blatantly incorrect free kick? If everybody bar the officiating umpire saw the incorrect free-kick that results in the winning goal, why shouldn't the AFL overturn the result?

What about goals that have been given that are blatantly umpiring mistakes (Porplyzia's last week as an example). To be consistant, shouldn't the AFL overturn that goal?

When does the 'morally correct' decision take precedence over the 'rules'?

I would humbly suggest that given the AFL never overturns any of these results that they consider the 'rules' to be the final arbiter of all decisions and that the 'Sirengate Decision' was a complete farce.

[st.byron]

Are you serious?

The extra man for the swans took place just before they kicked the point that tied the game. Even if the 'extra man' wasn't actually involoved in the play (there was certainly conjecture that he was), he allowed the Swans an extra player in their attacking zone which made it more difficult for NM to clear the ball out of danger. There seemed to ahve been widespread acceptance that the incident contributed to teh Swans being able to 'draw' the game.

As for your statement that 'rules are there to be interpreted', how far would you go?

Should the AFL overturn the result of a game if it is won with a blatantly incorrect free kick? If everybody bar the officiating umpire saw the incorrect free-kick that results in the winning goal, why shouldn't the AFL overturn the result?

What about goals that have been given that are blatantly umpiring mistakes (Porplyzia's last week as an example). To be consistant, shouldn't the AFL overturn that goal?

When does the 'morally correct' decision take precedence over the 'rules'?

I would humbly suggest that given the AFL never overturns any of these results that they consider the 'rules' to be the final arbiter of all decisions and that the 'Sirengate Decision' was a complete farce.

From memory, the extra man in the Sydney /North game had no influence on the game. Roos and Laidley both said so after the match, so maybe you can argue with them about it.
Re results being changed on the basis of free kicks or goal umpiring decisions being overturned, those examples go to the heart of my point about interpretation. Porplyzia's goal wasn't a goal. Field umpires make mistakes every game. It's part of the game and those mistakes are the result of interpretation of the rules by different individuals. Outcomes are the result of different umpires making judgement calls. That's their job.

With sirengate, it wasn't a judgement call that was in question. There was no doubt the siren had gone. It was a simple fact that it was too piss weak for the umpire to hear it. That's not a judgement call. It's a fact that's not in dispute.
Also, I can't remember there ever being another game where the result hinged on the umpires not hearing the siren.
It was a rare and unusual case. That fact and the fact that the siren clearly had gone made it a pretty east decision in my view. I think the AFL got it right.

[Solar]

In fairness to the AFL (puts on plugger's hat), the AFL would have been changing the rules mid-season had they docked the Swans two points.

I still don't agree with the decision we copped against Freo and I'm in no doubt had the shoe been on the other foot the AFL would have docked North the points.

Never stopped them before

according to the rules we drew that game in tasmania... guess what the record books have as the result...

but good point joffa

[JeffDunne]

Also, I can't remember there ever being another game where the result hinged on the umpires not hearing the siren.

Kerry Good ring any bells?

[Solar]

Are you serious?

The extra man for the swans took place just before they kicked the point that tied the game. Even if the 'extra man' wasn't actually involoved in the play (there was certainly conjecture that he was), he allowed the Swans an extra player in their attacking zone which made it more difficult for NM to clear the ball out of danger. There seemed to ahve been widespread acceptance that the incident contributed to teh Swans being able to 'draw' the game.

As for your statement that 'rules are there to be interpreted', how far would you go?

Should the AFL overturn the result of a game if it is won with a blatantly incorrect free kick? If everybody bar the officiating umpire saw the incorrect free-kick that results in the winning goal, why shouldn't the AFL overturn the result?

What about goals that have been given that are blatantly umpiring mistakes (Porplyzia's last week as an example). To be consistant, shouldn't the AFL overturn that goal?

When does the 'morally correct' decision take precedence over the 'rules'?

I would humbly suggest that given the AFL never overturns any of these results that they consider the 'rules' to be the final arbiter of all decisions and that the 'Sirengate Decision' was a complete farce.

From memory, the extra man in the Sydney /North game had no influence on the game. Roos and Laidley both said so after the match, so maybe you can argue with them about it.
Re results being changed on the basis of free kicks or goal umpiring decisions being overturned, those examples go to the heart of my point about interpretation. Porplyzia's goal wasn't a goal. Field umpires make mistakes every game. It's part of the game and those mistakes are the result of interpretation of the rules by different individuals. Outcomes are the result of different umpires making judgement calls. That's their job.

With sirengate, it wasn't a judgement call that was in question. There was no doubt the siren had gone. It was a simple fact that it was too piss weak for the umpire to hear it. That's not a judgement call. It's a fact that's not in dispute.
Also, I can't remember there ever being another game where the result hinged on the umpires not hearing the siren.
It was a rare and unusual case. That fact and the fact that the siren clearly had gone made it a pretty east decision in my view. I think the AFL got it right.

st byron there was a game (against the bluess?) where the crowd made so much noise the umpire didn't hear the siren, the blues player kicked the goal and won the match. As it states, the game is only over when the umpire hears the siren and signals the end of the match.....

ever wondered whether a mark was before or after the siren, this is based on when the umpire hears the siren and signals full time.

The facts were that under the rules that have been there for over 100 years a game is ONLY over when the umpire HEARS the siren and signals full time.

For the AFL to throw 100 odd years of rules into the waste was a disgrace. If you want to change the results of games 3 days later for MORAL reasons go ask libba about that goal in the 1997 prelim that would have got them through to the grand final. Or the hand of aker last week, or the aussie point, or the rocca point in that grand final.....

[JeffDunne]

Solar, I think this might refresh your memory

[Otiman]

Solar, I think this might refresh your memory

I don't think we need clash strips. Even looking at that footage, the shorts make all the difference.

[st.byron]

st byron there was a game (against the bluess?) where the crowd made so much noise the umpire didn't hear the siren, the blues player kicked the goal and won the match. As it states, the game is only over when the umpire hears the siren and signals the end of the match.....

ever wondered whether a mark was before or after the siren, this is based on when the umpire hears the siren and signals full time.

The facts were that under the rules that have been there for over 100 years a game is ONLY over when the umpire HEARS the siren and signals full time.

For the AFL to throw 100 odd years of rules into the waste was a disgrace. If you want to change the results of games 3 days later for MORAL reasons go ask libba about that goal in the 1997 prelim that would have got them through to the grand final. Or the hand of aker last week, or the aussie point, or the rocca point in that grand final.....

Have to agree to disagree then Solar. Can't remember the circumstances of the Libba incident you refer to. Aussies point - as per my last post a judgement call of one of the umpires. Handof Aker - judgement call of the umpires. Rocca's point- can't remember it. Sirengate was different IMO because the siren was inadequate. AFL's fault for sure, but even so, it was still the right call. It wasn't a subjective umpiring call. It was a clear fact and I'm betting that all of the posters in thread complaining about it would be saying it was the right call if the Saints and Dockers positions in the incident were reversed.

[Solar]

st byron there was a game (against the bluess?) where the crowd made so much noise the umpire didn't hear the siren, the blues player kicked the goal and won the match. As it states, the game is only over when the umpire hears the siren and signals the end of the match.....

ever wondered whether a mark was before or after the siren, this is based on when the umpire hears the siren and signals full time.

The facts were that under the rules that have been there for over 100 years a game is ONLY over when the umpire HEARS the siren and signals full time.

For the AFL to throw 100 odd years of rules into the waste was a disgrace. If you want to change the results of games 3 days later for MORAL reasons go ask libba about that goal in the 1997 prelim that would have got them through to the grand final. Or the hand of aker last week, or the aussie point, or the rocca point in that grand final.....

Have to agree to disagree then Solar. Can't remember the circumstances of the Libba incident you refer to. Aussies point - as per my last post a judgement call of one of the umpires. Handof Aker - judgement call of the umpires. Rocca's point- can't remember it. Sirengate was different IMO because the siren was inadequate. AFL's fault for sure, but even so, it was still the right call. It wasn't a subjective umpiring call. It was a clear fact and I'm betting that all of the posters in thread complaining about it would be saying it was the right call if the Saints and Dockers positions in the incident were reversed.

don't want to say it but do you actually follow the game outside of stkilda or have a grasp of VFL history. Because it has happened twice, once involving stkilda. Both times the siren was not heard because of the loud crowd.

The libba goal was a long one where upon romero and johno picked him up... before they relised it had been called a point. Rocca's was in the wet in 2002, looked a goal to everyone but the goal umpire.

Point is that there are rules to govern it, it is simply put and has been used for over 100 years. I find it strange that you can play by the rules and lose points, while another team cheats and gets 2 points....

[st.byron]

don't want to say it but do you actually follow the game outside of stkilda or have a grasp of VFL history. Because it has happened twice, once involving stkilda. Both times the siren was not heard because of the loud crowd.

The libba goal was a long one where upon romero and johno picked him up... before they relised it had been called a point. Rocca's was in the wet in 2002, looked a goal to everyone but the goal umpire.

Point is that there are rules to govern it, it is simply put and has been used for over 100 years. I find it strange that you can play by the rules and lose points, while another team cheats and gets 2 points....

it's a fairly unsubtle way to insult someone by prefacing whatever you want to say with "Ã