Fans sue AFL over Sirengate

bigmicka · Post: # 599122Post **bigmicka** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 1:35pm

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

Solar · Post: # 599127Post **Solar** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 1:40pm

still can't believe that they changed that and didn't change the 19 man cheat by sydney this year.....

plugger66 · Post: # 599130Post **plugger66** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 1:42pm

Solar wrote:still can't believe that they changed that and didn't change the 19 man cheat by sydney this year.....

Amazing isnt it.

esaint66 · Post: # 599137Post **esaint66** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 1:46pm

That is wrong.

How can they do that the TAB should just do a 2nd payout ..... after all who tips fremantle ??

Eastern · Post: # 599153Post **Eastern** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 2:27pm

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 !!

Mr Magic · Post: # 599158Post **Mr Magic** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 2:49pm

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 !!

Probably we will have to foot the bill.
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.

bigcarl · Post: # 599189Post **bigcarl** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 3:56pm

interesting thought.

if the finding is in these guy's favour would it mean legally that we are entitled to the two premiership points?

Raven · Post: # 599207Post **Raven** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 4:50pm

I wonder why this is just coming to light now and not closer to the actual event?

bigcarl · Post: # 599212Post **bigcarl** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 5:01pm

Raven wrote:I wonder why this is just coming to light now and not closer to the actual event?

i think probably because it is now going to court.

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.

plugger66 · Post: # 599254Post **plugger66** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 6:39pm

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.

fonz_#15 · Post: # 599256Post **fonz_#15** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 6:42pm

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.

bit different don't you think..who did drugs in this case?
or did i miss something?

Gehrigs_son · Sun 06 Jul 2008 6:47pm

footy is footy, rules are apply to create games of footy and begin to footy

bigmicka · Post: # 599259Post **bigmicka** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 6:48pm

i think my brain just exploded.

mic

plugger66 · Post: # 599263Post **plugger66** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 6:52pm

fonz_#15 wrote:
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.
bit different don't you think..who did drugs in this case?
or did i miss something?

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.

Eastern · Post: # 599264Post **Eastern** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 6:53pm

plugger66 wrote:
fonz_#15 wrote:
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.
bit different don't you think..who did drugs in this case?
or did i miss something?
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.

I think this one will come down to who has the "Better" Lawyers !!

bigcarl · Post: # 599271Post **bigcarl** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 7:05pm

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.

Launcestonsaint · Sun 06 Jul 2008 7:07pm

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 !!

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..

plugger66 · Post: # 599275Post **plugger66** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 7:08pm

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?

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 · Post: # 599280Post **bigcarl** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 7:13pm

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.

that's a different scenario plugger.

st kilda wasn't disqualified.

plugger66 · Post: # 599281Post **plugger66** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 7:14pm

bigcarl wrote:
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.
that's a different scenario plugger.

st kilda wasn't disqualified.

Its still the same thing though as the result was changed after the payout.

Mr Magic · Post: # 599284Post **Mr Magic** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 7:16pm

plugger66 wrote:
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?
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.

But in that instance, isn't a 'protest' filed and a warning siren is broadcast around the racecourse to warn all punters about it?

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)

plugger66 · Post: # 599287Post **plugger66** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 7:19pm

Mr Magic wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
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?
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.
But in that instance, isn't a 'protest' filed and a warning siren is broadcast around the racecourse to warn all punters about it?

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.

bigcarl · Post: # 599289Post **bigcarl** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 7:20pm

plugger66 wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
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.
that's a different scenario plugger.

st kilda wasn't disqualified.
Its still the same thing though as the result was changed after the payout.

will be an interesting case. i know which way i'd see it.

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?

plugger66 · Post: # 599291Post **plugger66** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 7:21pm

bigcarl wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
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.
that's a different scenario plugger.

st kilda wasn't disqualified.
Its still the same thing though as the result was changed after the payout.
will be an interesting case. i know which way i'd see it.

these guys backed fremantle. fremantle won, according to the league.

pretty simple. pay them the money.

Then why dont punters get their money in the same sort of situation.

gooner · Post: # 599337Post **gooner** » Sun 06 Jul 2008 8:24pm

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!