I have an inkling people's idea of what consitutes 'tanking' varies widely.

So I thought a poll would crystallise opinions and what it means to tank and what you have to do to prove a club is tanking.

Go for it.

Note: added last question.

Edited August 2, 201213 yr by rpfc

I don't think the AFL should act, but it wouldn't let me put no answer for that question

I don't think the AFL should act, but it wouldn't let me put no answer for that question

Might have to redo - I added a last question.

I believe that 'tanking' in footy has a more expansive definition that, let's say, Olympic Badminton and that most of these acts cannot be solely be described as tanking.

It is only 'context' that we were accused of tanking for putting our defenders forward in 2009 and not accused when we did it in 2012.

And that is why nothing will happen.

I only voted on the players in odd postions. This is the only instance where you might be caught out and discretion really needs to be applied.

• Sending players for ealry surgery is setting you up for next year when you know this year is shot.
  
• Blooding youngsters in place of more experienced players is the nature of the beast and prevalent in all professional sports
  
• Delistings happen for a reason
  
• I can't buy into a player not putting in the effort
  

Good poll.

To me, the big question is the motive.

All can be considered tanking if the motive is explicitly to lose. But, if the number one priority is not winning, instead say future development then no, that is not tanking.

Motives are however very hard to prove either way.

I have a problem with the poll as it is too black or white.

Do you think 'tanking' involves - Sending players for early season ending surgeries?

Yes or no

Well it may or it may not.

Clubs out of final contention send players for early surgery, but may not be looking to improve their draft picks... but some may send them off early because they are looking to improve their draft picks.

As was said above, it depends on the motive, and without knowing the motive of those involved it's impossible to know the answer...

Edited August 2, 201213 yr by PaulRB

To me, the big question is the motive.

All can be considered tanking if the motive is explicitly to lose. But, if the number one priority is not winning, instead say future development then no, that is not tanking.

Motives are however very hard to prove either way.

Yes, I have called it 'context' but you're right - it would be impossible to prove that we did the couple of things that I think are 'tanking' that we did, but that we are doing now and we are not.

I only voted on the players in odd postions. This is the only instance where you might be caught out and discretion really needs to be applied.

• Sending players for ealry surgery is setting you up for next year when you know this year is shot.
  
• Blooding youngsters in place of more experienced players is the nature of the beast and prevalent in all professional sports
  
• Delistings happen for a reason
  
• I can't buy into a player not putting in the effort
  

Good poll.

Ahh, yes, but Garland against Essendon this year could be considered blatant tanking as he had not been in the forward line since his first two, let's say, underwhelming games.

It could be considered tanking - except for the fact that he helped win us the game.

Couldn't complete the poll as structure forced me to a "logic point" that doesn't represent my view.

I.e see above

Ahh, yes, but Garland against Essendon this year could be considered blatant tanking as he had not been in the forward line since his first two, let's say, underwhelming games.

It could be considered tanking - except for the fact that he helped win us the game.

And let's also argue that he was dragged in the last couple of minutes because of his efforts.

Mind you, he and the coach looked pretty happy about winning.

To me, the big question is the motive.

All can be considered tanking if the motive is explicitly to lose. But, if the number one priority is not winning, instead say future development then no, that is not tanking.

Motives are however very hard to prove either way.

Clint's exactly right it's about motive, not about the specific actions.

Couldn't complete the poll as structure forced me to a "logic point" that doesn't represent my view.

I.e see above

I understand, and that is the surreptitious point of the poll.

You are supposed to hit questions and say 'well, yeah, it is, but not all the time.'

When you hit that 'logic point' you are tacitly saying that you cannot prove tanking on that particular point.

IMO, the only definitive tanking that can only be considered tanking is the first question over player effort.

The rest is in the murky world of motive and context - and you can't legislate based on that.

I have a problem with the poll as it is too black or white.

Do you think 'tanking' involves - Sending players for early season ending surgeries?

Yes or no

Well it may or it may not.

Clubs out of final contention send players for early surgery, but may not be looking to improve their draft picks... but some may send them off early because they are looking to improve their draft picks.

As was said above, it depends on the motive, and without knowing the motive of those involved it's impossible to know the answer...

IMO this isnt tanking Freo played Hawks in 2010 down in Launceston rested half therir side and got smashed, their ladder position was not going to change. The following week they played the Hawks at Subi in an elimination final and smashed them.

They looked ahead their players needed to refresh so they went in with an undermaned side down in Tassie, they weren't deliberatley going in to lose but if they didn't win it wasn't the end of the world, which is where I think we were at under Bailey and that is why a lot of kids got games without really earning them

To me, the big question is the motive.

All can be considered tanking if the motive is explicitly to lose. But, if the number one priority is not winning, instead say future development then no, that is not tanking.

Motives are however very hard to prove either way.

Spot on. And the only way you can prove such motive is through weight of hard evidence.

A group of blokes with one side saying "he said this and I took it to mean this" and the other saying "well our recollection is that we said that and took it to mean this" .... sorry that 'aint gonna cut it.

Unless they've got the powers that be incriminating themselves on paper or tape, this thing goes nowhere.

If found guilty of tanking MFC should be stripped of all premiership points for 2012 and all premierships for past 47 years.

Might have to redo - I added a last question.

I believe that 'tanking' in footy has a more expansive definition that, let's say, Olympic Badminton and that most of these acts cannot be solely be described as tanking.

It is only 'context' that we were accused of tanking for putting our defenders forward in 2009 and not accused when we did it in 2012.

And that is why nothing will happen.

Context and trying to narrow down the terms is key.

Some will respond no to your first question because they might label this 'match fixing' or 'throwing'. Some will answer no because they believe the players always try & tanking is more likely decisions made by top brass.

FWIW this is my rationale for my responses:

I think tanking involves players deliberately putting in not enough effort, in tennis, when a set is borderline lost the playing will conserve energy & focus on the next set ergo it is possible that a group of footballers getting caned may not go as hard at the end of a game. This is where I believe the term originally came from.

I think playing players in foreign positions isn't tanking in all contexts - I don't believe Neeld trying Garland & Rivers forward is tanking, just as Collingwood aren't tanking with Chris Tarrant. However Warnock & Frawley up forward against Richmond in 09 was a little smelly.

I think sending players away for season ending surgeries is a bit similar to point 1. You're getting smashed so what's the point of risking future life & limb for a futile cause? I don't see how it is tanking in isolation but it could be contextually applied as part of a wider tanking strategy.

Delisting experienced players & opting for youth is rebuilding not tanking. Although the W/L outcomes are similar.

If there was an orchestrated plot by players to throw games or manipulate results, the AFL should come down on them like a ton of bricks.

I think the MFC's approach to gaining a PP in 09 was multifaceted. The AFL will find it hard to prosecute unless there is hard evidence from a reliable source that DB was to rest players, play them out of position, play youth ahead of experience in a large conspiracy to attain a priority pick. If there were directives from top brass to specifically do these things as well as bench players who were running "hot" & such evidence comes to light we are in deep [censored]. For now there's yet to be a smoking gun. Brock & Gardner's, Dennis Denuto style "it was the vibe, it's Mabo" cannot do us in.

There was a good suggestion IMO in the HS (incredible I know), someone said they should have a moratorium on tanking where any breaches are forgotten and we move on but let everyone know that it will be very closely monitored and breaches will be dealt with harshly.

This means they recognise that it may have gone on (they don't worry about naming and shaming clubs because everyone already pretty much knows who the culprits were), and everyone knows where they stand if they try it again.

Simple and it closes the book on past tanking so we don't need to talk about it again.

I couldn't complete the poll. There needs to be another option under AFL punishment - 'none of the above'.

I couldn't complete the poll. There needs to be another option under AFL punishment - 'none of the above'.

You don't want clubs that have players that deliberately lose to be punished?

You don't want clubs that have players that deliberately lose to be punished?

What if it was the players who form a conspiracy to deliberately lose without knowledge of the coach (indeed in spite of the coach)?

Clubs shouldn't be punished for that. Just the players involved.

You don't want clubs that have players that deliberately lose to be punished?

Does 'deliberately lose' mean giving the ball to the opposition, or just only putting in 90%? And is it every player?

Good Poll RP,

I think one of the confusing bits here is exactly about What is Tanking.... if there isn't a definition, how can they punish us or any other club

Does 'deliberately lose' mean giving the ball to the opposition, or just only putting in 90%? And is it every player?

Ahh, now we are getting it...

But if it was 'proven' that players deliberately perfrormed poorly I would expect something a scandal similar to this:

http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/4957

The motives of the MFC were to gain as many high draft picks as quick as we could.

Is that unlawful or Tanking?

It is hard to say as we did not "break" any AFL laws. But should we have done it??

There is nothing wrong with the motive of securing as many high draft picks as you can. That is not the issue. This can be achieved through a number of means (eg trading players for picks)

The issue is motive to deliberately underperform in a game. That is the issue