The AFL Sydney bias finally goes our way

[joffaboy]

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, as usual missed the point.

Above is the whole point of the incompetence and inconsitancy of the AFL and its dealing with the lovechild Sydney.

One team plays to the rules and is ultimately deprived a top four position and a realistic shot at the flag, while another team cheats, whether intentional or not is another matter, and the victim basically loses a potential top four spot because the team that cheated by having an extra man on the field is not punished.

Instead the AFL attempt to smokescreen by introducing the idiotic interchang rule.

One team plays by the accepted ruls of a game that has gone on for 112 years and is punished for it.

Another is caught out cheating and is not punished.

It has nothing to do with the results, it has everything to do with the influence on the outcome of the competition by the AFL and the tainting and compromising of results to suit the AFL commissions agenda.

[saintspremiers]

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

[Solar]

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, as usual missed the point.

Above is the whole point of the incompetence and inconsitancy of the AFL and its dealing with the lovechild Sydney.

One team plays to the rules and is ultimately deprived a top four position and a realistic shot at the flag, while another team cheats, whether intentional or not is another matter, and the victim basically loses a potential top four spot because the team that cheated by having an extra man on the field is not punished.

Instead the AFL attempt to smokescreen by introducing the idiotic interchang rule.

One team plays by the accepted ruls of a game that has gone on for 112 years and is punished for it.

Another is caught out cheating and is not punished.

It has nothing to do with the results, it has everything to do with the influence on the outcome of the competition by the AFL and the tainting and compromising of results to suit the AFL commissions agenda.

what he said

ps my points re: goal umpiring blues is about the "moral" value of overturning a result.... where do you stop?

[st.byron]

[quote="joffaboy"][quote="Solar"]


St.Byron, as usual missed the point.

/quote]

Joffaboy as usual, plays the man and not the ball. You just can't resist can you Joffa?

You said nothing in your post that hasn't been said elsewhere in the thread. I have a different view to you. Your entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine.

[st.byron]

Solar, SP 2008, I've read your most recent posts on this thread and neither of you have said anything new.
Like I said, I think sirengate is a unique and unusual occurrence and as such is worthy of unique and unusual consideration.

[Mr Magic]

Solar, SP 2008, I've read your most recent posts on this thread and neither of you have said anything new.
Like I said, I think sirengate is a unique and unusual occurrence and as such is worthy of unique and unusual consideration.

StByron,
How many times in the last 30 years (not 100) has one team been found to have more than 18 players on the ground?

Under your definition, surely this also qualifies as a 'unique and unusual occurrence and as such is worthy of unique and unusual consideration'.

The problem is that the AFL deliberately chose not to apply 'unique and unusual consideration' to this occurrence and are therefore inconsistant.

Surely if they (the AFL) chose to give the points to Freo on 'moral/ethical' grounds' then they should have acted in a similar fashion in the NM/Sydney fiasco.
To do anything other is blatantly inconsistant.

[st.byron]

Solar, SP 2008, I've read your most recent posts on this thread and neither of you have said anything new.
Like I said, I think sirengate is a unique and unusual occurrence and as such is worthy of unique and unusual consideration.

StByron,
How many times in the last 30 years (not 100) has one team been found to have more than 18 players on the ground?

Under your definition, surely this also qualifies as a 'unique and unusual occurrence and as such is worthy of unique and unusual consideration'.

The problem is that the AFL deliberately chose not to apply 'unique and unusual consideration' to this occurrence and are therefore inconsistant.

Surely if they (the AFL) chose to give the points to Freo on 'moral/ethical' grounds' then they should have acted in a similar fashion in the NM/Sydney fiasco.
To do anything other is blatantly inconsistant.

yeh I can see your logic, but in the case of the Sydney / North game none of the coaches, commentators or players were even aware of the extra man until well after the game. When they did become aware of it they all agreed it was irrelevant to the outcome. Degree of impact on the game = zero. So yes it's unique and unusual, but in this case had no impact on the outcome.
In the case of sirengate, it was a hotly contested issue as it happened and did have an unarguable direct bearing on the outcome. Completely different circumstance IMO.
I don't really believe you and Joffaboy and others are genuinely pissed off about the rules not being applied to the letter of the law in this case when they have been in others. I think it's more about looking for ammo to sh*tbag the AFL and support conspiracy theories against the Saints or for Sydney.
Tell me this, would you be arguing about it if the Saints and Dockers positions were reversed and the Saints had been the beneficiaries of an overturned result? I doubt it. I suspect you'd be making a case that the AFL had to overturn the result because they were negligent in having such a crappy siren.

[Mr Magic]

Solar, SP 2008, I've read your most recent posts on this thread and neither of you have said anything new.
Like I said, I think sirengate is a unique and unusual occurrence and as such is worthy of unique and unusual consideration.

StByron,
How many times in the last 30 years (not 100) has one team been found to have more than 18 players on the ground?

Under your definition, surely this also qualifies as a 'unique and unusual occurrence and as such is worthy of unique and unusual consideration'.

The problem is that the AFL deliberately chose not to apply 'unique and unusual consideration' to this occurrence and are therefore inconsistant.

Surely if they (the AFL) chose to give the points to Freo on 'moral/ethical' grounds' then they should have acted in a similar fashion in the NM/Sydney fiasco.
To do anything other is blatantly inconsistant.

yeh I can see your logic, but in the case of the Sydney / North game none of the coaches, commentators or players were even aware of the extra man until well after the game. When they did become aware of it they all agreed it was irrelevant to the outcome. Degree of impact on the game = zero. So yes it's unique and unusual, but in this case had no impact on the outcome.
In the case of sirengate, it was a hotly contested issue as it happened and did have an unarguable direct bearing on the outcome. Completely different circumstance IMO.
I don't really believe you and Joffaboy and others are genuinely pissed off about the rules not being applied to the letter of the law in this case when they have been in others. I think it's more about looking for ammo to sh*tbag the AFL and support conspiracy theories against the Saints or for Sydney.
Tell me this, would you be arguing about it if the Saints and Dockers positions were reversed and the Saints had been the beneficiaries of an overturned result? I doubt it. I suspect you'd be making a case that the AFL had to overturn the result because they were negligent in having such a crappy siren.

Ansolutely!
I'm not arguing for the points one way or the other.
I'm arguing for CONSISTANCY!!

As for the result not being affected in the NM/Swans game, I'll say it again. You're kidding.
NM didn't complain because they're under the hammer financially with the AFL.
I suppose over in WA because it didn't involve either WCE or Freo you didn't hear much. Over here where it happened there were days of heated debate about it, with the vast consensus being that Sydney benefitted from the 'mistake'. Media commentators were calling for the 2 points to be taken away from the Swans and given to NM, using the 'sirengate' precedent.
The extra player on the ground was involved in the play that Sydney scored the tieing point.
Sydney tried to 'cover their ass' by coming out later and stating that a different player didn't come off so the 'extra man on' (who was involved in the play) should have been on anyway. Complete and utter bs spin from them.

The incident occurred late in the last quarter and the Swans scored the behind that tied the game during this time.

[st.byron]

[quote="Mr Magic"]

Ansolutely!
I'm not arguing for the points one way or the other.
I'm arguing for CONSISTANCY!!

As for the result not being affected in the NM/Swans game, I'll say it again. You're kidding.
NM didn't complain because they're under the hammer financially with the AFL.
I suppose over in WA because it didn't involve either WCE or Freo you didn't hear much.
[quote="Mr Magic"]


Correct. All the coverage we had here was grabs of Roos and Laidley both saying they weren't aware of the issue when it happened and when they did become aware of it, they thought it was irrelevant.


[quote="Mr Magic"]
Over here where it happened there were days of heated debate about it, with the vast consensus being that Sydney benefitted from the 'mistake'. Media commentators were calling for the 2 points to be taken away from the Swans and given to NM, using the 'sirengate' precedent.
The extra player on the ground was involved in the play that Sydney scored the tieing point.
Sydney tried to 'cover their ass' by coming out later and stating that a different player didn't come off so the 'extra man on' (who was involved in the play) should have been on anyway. Complete and utter bs spin from them.
The incident occurred late in the last quarter and the Swans scored the behind that tied the game during this time.[quote="Mr Magic"]

I can see your point of view re consistency and agree that if indeed the extra man on the field had an impact on the result, then it would have been consistent for the AFL to take the points off Sydney.
Still think the final outcome of sirengate was the correct one.

[Mr Magic]

Morally/Ethically Freo should have got the points.
but just as equally
Morally/Ethically NM should have got the points.

The fact that the AFL didn't apply the same 'logic' leaves them wide ope for criticism of inconsistancy.

[st.byron]

Morally/Ethically Freo should have got the points.
but just as equally
Morally/Ethically NM should have got the points.

The fact that the AFL didn't apply the same 'logic' leaves them wide ope for criticism of inconsistancy.

If what you say about the impact of the extra man is true then yep I agree with you.
Still think these kinds of incidents are separate to issues where the judgement call of an umpire is involved. ie Hand of Aker, Aussie's point etc.
Retrospectively changing the call of an umpire is absolutely not on in IMO. In cases where no subjective judgement is made like an extra man or sirengate, then I think retrospective action is ok.