Tanking Footy

[robbiefrom13 892]

I do not think the AFL should punish a club for its players not putting in enough effort - the club should deal with that. I can see that players not putting in enough effort is a sort of tanking, but I see it as a kind of internal tanking, with all sorts of possible causes. Goodness knows it would be a mess if the AFL started trying to measure how much a given player put himself on the line, or positioned himself correctly, or sweated in a game...

All the other questions relate to those judgment calls, where individual coaches (who vary as to their adventurousness and cautiousness) weigh up the multitude of factors that those outside the club don't fully know about, and try to balance risk against hope, in pursuit of success. Pain threshholds, progress in recovery from injuries, circumstances at home affecting players, contracts, building for the future, lifting the bar in the development of a up-and-coming player, I don't know what - all of these sorts of things will be mixed with the natural leaning of the coach's personality and result in decisions like those identified in the poll. Like everyone else at the club, the coach unquestionably has success as his objective, and clubs sack coaches who fail to balance all these things right, in the pursuit of success.

What the poll lacked was a question about the coach explicitly instructing the players not to put in the effort to win. Even for one game, it would be wrong, and the AFL should come down on it - wrong because people have paid money to see a contest, there is gambling on it, and such an instruction would inevitably undermine the integrity of the whole competition.

I said yes to the first question (players not playing to win), but did not think the AFL should punish the club for it, and therefore could not register my vote.

Edited August 4, 2012 by robbiefrom13

[Sir Why You Little 37,122]

I do not think the AFL should punish a club for its players not putting in enough effort - the club should deal with that. I can see that players not putting in enough effort is a sort of tanking, but I see it as a kind of internal tanking, with all sorts of possible causes. Goodness knows it would be a mess if the AFL started trying to measure how much a given player put himself on the line, or positioned himself correctly, or sweated in a game...

All the other questions relate to those judgment calls, where individual coaches (who vary as to their adventurousness and cautiousness), weigh up the multitude of factors that those outside the club don't fully know about, and try to balance risk against hope in pursuit of success. Pain threshholds, progress in recovery from injuries, circumstances at home affecting players, contracts, building for the future, lifting the bar in the development of a up-and-coming player, I don't know what - all of these sorts of things will be mixed with the natural leaning of the coach's personality and result in decisions like those identified in the poll. Like everyone else at the club, the coach unquestionably has success as his objective, and clubs sack coaches who fail to balance all these things right, in the pursuit of success.

What the poll lacked was a question about the coach explicitly instructing the players not to put in the effort to win. Even for one game, it would be wrong, and the AFL should come down on it - wrong because people have paid money to see a contest, there is gambling on it, and such an instruction would inevitably undermine the integrity of the whole competition.

I said yes to the first question (players not playing to win), but did not think the AFL should punish the club for it, and therefore could not register my vote.

Agreed Robbie, and this is why the whole Tanking issue must be put to rest completely. It is up to the AFL to do it.

[Range Rover 1,935]

I do not think the AFL should punish a club for its players not putting in enough effort - the club should deal with that. I can see that players not putting in enough effort is a sort of tanking, but I see it as a kind of internal tanking, with all sorts of possible causes. Goodness knows it would be a mess if the AFL started trying to measure how much a given player put himself on the line, or positioned himself correctly, or sweated in a game...

All the other questions relate to those judgment calls, where individual coaches (who vary as to their adventurousness and cautiousness), weigh up the multitude of factors that those outside the club don't fully know about, and try to balance risk against hope in pursuit of success. Pain threshholds, progress in recovery from injuries, circumstances at home affecting players, contracts, building for the future, lifting the bar in the development of a up-and-coming player, I don't know what - all of these sorts of things will be mixed with the natural leaning of the coach's personality and result in decisions like those identified in the poll. Like everyone else at the club, the coach unquestionably has success as his objective, and clubs sack coaches who fail to balance all these things right, in the pursuit of success.

What the poll lacked was a question about the coach explicitly instructing the players not to put in the effort to win. Even for one game, it would be wrong, and the AFL should come down on it - wrong because people have paid money to see a contest, there is gambling on it, and such an instruction would inevitably undermine the integrity of the whole competition.

I said yes to the first question (players not playing to win), but did not think the AFL should punish the club for it, and therefore could not register my vote.

I wish people would begin to understand the issue.

It matters not whether you win lose or draw or what tactics are employed. All that matters here is if a hard evidence surfaces of an instruction to lose, either from the coach to the players or from the top brass to the coach.

Written documents, recorded voices demonstrating clear messages to that effect, showing that motive.

The issue really has very little to do with the questions posed in Rpfc's poll.

[Range Rover 1,935]

And to add to that, no-one (unless they are central figures in the matter involved) can say with any degree of certainty that such evidence doesn't exist and that therefore "nothing will happen".

Only the parties involved know this.

That's why Melbourne supporters have every right to feel nervous. And why any player who might be considering an offer to join the club - like Cloke for instance - would probably be very wary as well.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Range Rover

[Biffen 12,946]

The whole argument is "irrelevant" because the AFL/the media are confused about the actual meaning of the word TANKING.

"Match -fixing" pertains to deliberately "dumping" or "throwing" a match which we have not been accused of .

These are American terms and are all different ways of describing a deliberate attempt BY THE PLAYERS to lose a game or match.

We have not done this either.

What we may have done,following the examples of Carlton and Collingwood as well as nearly every other club ,is known as "SANDBAGGING"

Keep calm and Carry on -we have to get off the bottom of the ladder and back to a place of dominance after 50 years.

We have no case to answer.

"whatever it takes".

Be strong Demons-the parasites are leaving the body and it is beginning to function properly-let our opponents eat sh!t and die.

[rpfc 28,763]

The issue really has very little to do with the questions posed in Rpfc's poll.

Obviously I disagree.

The poll has illustrated that the definition of tanking is so wide amongst footy fans that it is meaningless for people to discuss it until they can define exactly what 'tanking' involves.

AD believes 'tanking' is players not putting in effort and attempting to lose (and of course that is upon instruction, that is absolutely tacit in the question) and by having such a narrow definition of 'tanking' it is easier to legislate and prosecute.

Essentially, the 'bar' to prosecution is so high that even the dumbest of sporting institutions won't get caught.

AD is, and has been - right on this issue all along. I used to believe he was kidding himself but he isn't - he is just a realist on this issue.

We didn't tank.

We cleared our list of older players, brought in youth, played that youth over older players, experimented with players' positions as winning isn't the first priority, didn't risk injured players, and we lost a number of games accordingly.

That isn't tanking.

[Sir Why You Little 37,122]

Obviously I disagree.

The poll has illustrated that the definition of tanking is so wide amongst footy fans that it is meaningless for people to discuss it until they can define exactly what 'tanking' involves.

AD believes 'tanking' is players not putting in effort and attempting to lose (and of course that is upon instruction, that is absolutely tacit in the question) and by having such a narrow definition of 'tanking' it is easier to legislate and prosecute.

Essentially, the 'bar' to prosecution is so high that even the dumbest of sporting institutions won't get caught.

AD is, and has been - right on this issue all along. I used to believe he was kidding himself but he isn't - he is just a realist on this issue.

We didn't tank.

We cleared our list of older players, brought in youth, played that youth over older players, experimented with players' positions as winning isn't the first priority, didn't risk injured players, and we lost a number of games accordingly.

That isn't tanking.

We played to win 4 games a year in both 2008-09 in order to maximize the value of draft picks on offer. Is that Tanking?

It is what actually happened.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Obviously I disagree.

The poll has illustrated that the definition of tanking is so wide amongst footy fans that it is meaningless for people to discuss it until they can define exactly what 'tanking' involves.

AD believes 'tanking' is players not putting in effort and attempting to lose (and of course that is upon instruction, that is absolutely tacit in the question) and by having such a narrow definition of 'tanking' it is easier to legislate and prosecute.

Essentially, the 'bar' to prosecution is so high that even the dumbest of sporting institutions won't get caught.

AD is, and has been - right on this issue all along. I used to believe he was kidding himself but he isn't - he is just a realist on this issue.

We didn't tank.

We cleared our list of older players, brought in youth, played that youth over older players, experimented with players' positions as winning isn't the first priority, didn't risk injured players, and we lost a number of games accordingly.

That isn't tanking.

Regardless of what one party or another thinks 'tanking' is, if someone can show that a coach or official demontrated a clear 'motive to lose', then that person is in trouble. The ifs and buts of 'tanking' won't even enter the equation. The AFL will call it bringing the game into disrepute. It won't matter what moves were made on which day, only that hard evidence or corroborated testimony exists that person A told person B it would be in their best interests or in the best interests of entity X, to lose.

I'm not saying whether I agree with it or not. But that's how I see it.

It may be just fantasy, but I also think a clever legal team could defend the charge on the grounds of "lose the battle to win the war", in effect putting the AFL drafting system on trial. But whether you'd want to take on the might of league headquarters in such a case ... that's quite another story.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Range Rover

[45HG 1,559]

Not that I think we will get done, but if we do they'd have to have a serious look at Fremantle 2010!

[rpfc 28,763]

We played to win 4 games a year in both 2008-09 in order to maximize the value of draft picks on offer. Is that Tanking?

It is what actually happened.

I know it is.

But if tanking is prosecutable, what we did wasn't tanking.

[Sir Why You Little 37,122]

I know it is.

But if tanking is prosecutable, what we did wasn't tanking.

We certainly did not play to win each week. So what category is that?

Grey area i know.

[rpfc 28,763]

We certainly did not play to win each week. So what category is that?

Grey area i know.

It's life in any sport - there can be only one winner each year - some teams are aiming to win it 2 years down the track - some are aiming to win it 7 years down the track.

If we are aiming to eventually win, then I guess we can all say 'who gives a rip?'

[Face Your Demons 175]

Maybe Melbourne is guilty of Tanking in the draft itself.

[Sir Why You Little 37,122]

It's life in any sport - there can be only one winner each year - some teams are aiming to win it 2 years down the track - some are aiming to win it 7 years down the track.

If we are aiming to eventually win, then I guess we can all say 'who gives a rip?'

No i am talking about years 2008-09 not sometime in the future in a galaxy far far away....

[rpfc 28,763]

BUMP

Did this poll in August - have a think about what tanking is and whether you think it's punishable or too broad an idea to be punished.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

None of your options define tanking. Tanking is actively trying to manipulate losses by the board and/or coaching staff.

Of course positional changes and playing youth are not tanking in themselves, but if they are part of a greater plan to ensure a loss, that is tanking.

If there is proof of this as said by certain journos, we are in the shite and are going to have to scrap hard over the next decade to get out of it.

[mjt 640]

BUMP

Did this poll in August - have a think about what tanking is and whether you think it's punishable or too broad an idea to be punished.

put it in the other 7 threads, use your brains.

[rpfc 28,763]

put it in the other 7 threads, use your brains.

Why don't you complete the poll?

[rpfc 28,763]

None of your options define tanking. Tanking is actively trying to manipulate losses by the board and/or coaching staff.

Of course positional changes and playing youth are not tanking in themselves, but if they are part of a greater plan to ensure a loss, that is tanking.

If there is proof of this as said by certain journos, we are in the shite and are going to have to scrap hard over the next decade to get out of it.

What an attitude.

You can't legislate retroactively against a 'vibe.' Intent is hard to glean as this poll shows.

Needless to say I would appeal any sanction.

[mjt 640]

Why don't you complete the poll?

its not about coaches and players anymore, its about CS and CC conspiring to lose games.

[ILLDieADemon 804]

I think the AFL need to rewrite the rules of tanking considering every team brakes one of those rule through the corse of every season.

[rpfc 28,763]

its not about coaches and players anymore, its about CS and CC conspiring to lose games.

One is the CEO and the other was head of the FD. How they 'conspire to tank' without doing one of the above actions outlined in the poll is beyond me.

The narrative is being changed by Wilson and you are falling for it.

[beelzebub 23,382]

its not about coaches and players anymore, its about CS and CC conspiring to lose games.

youre right its about CS and CC but not for why you think. CW has a personal vendetta against them.

[FNQ Demon 180]

First time poster, long long time reader. This poll is absolutely ridiculous and I hold it in the same respect as I do Mrs CW article in the Age.

I spoke with three senior members of the MFC FD to-day and they all said the subject of tanking was being fuelled mostly by MFC supporters. Their one wish was for supporters to keep supporting and concentrate on pre-season and getting down to support the club.

They were not concerned one bit about BS allegations. I have never before seen more focused and determined people in all my life.

Please no more. Let’s get together support the club and back the current administration to deal with the AFL and we can all concentrate on our players, pre-season and the great improvement we are going to have in the up-coming years.

I love the Dees and I love you all.

CARN THE DEES.

[felixdacat 459]

My take is that if they (AFL) had the smoking gun then we would be gone. Its all well and good for the Journo's to be talking about the Vault and an alleged meeting where some stuff was said but the point is the AFL will have to prove it, and be sure that their proof is rock solid because MFC will contest. It will come down to one version of events against another and unless there is written or recorded minutes/notes it will be a stalemate.