Doesn't look to be much or actually any substantial evidence for such a long enquiry. Give them the answers then we can get on with season 2013.

Unless there is something that has been held back....well there really is nothing here.

And lack of rotations? You can argue that we were trying to see what sort of tank the players really had. Jurrah confirmed he didn't have much of a tank at all, so he was taken off stuffed.

If all that is all the AFL has, it sounds like they just want MFC to make a list of responses which isn't entirely farcical and then put it all to bed. Let's hope so.

On the contrary, the lack of rotations is probably the most damning evidence of the lot. When a side is averaging roughly 100 rotations and goes down to 40 it's quite evident that it's an attempt to tire the players and reduce their effectiveness.

On the contrary, the lack of rotations is probably the most damning evidence of the lot. When a side is averaging roughly 100 rotations and goes down to 40 it's quite evident that it's an attempt to tire the players and reduce their effectiveness.

There's at least 2 ways of looking at the reduced rotations ...

1 - The AFL knew about it at the time and turned a blind eye . (why would they not know, being the governing body?) The club/Fink could argue that and therefore possibly have the 'charge' thrown out .

2 - The AFL didn't notice or they could say they didn't notice . We could argue that they should have noticed (back then) and because they didn't, it's partly their own fault . The club/Fink could argue that the AFL weren't strong enough on their own rules (back then) . Thus making the 'charge' hard to stick.

Those are the 2 things that come to mind but there are probably more ways of looking at it . My view has a fair bit of bias . The Pro AFL view is one that I'd like to see explained (by anyone)

Edited January 8, 201312 yr by Macca

On the contrary, the lack of rotations is probably the most damning evidence of the lot. When a side is averaging roughly 100 rotations and goes down to 40 it's quite evident that it's an attempt to tire the players and reduce their effectiveness.

The Great Contrarian strikes again!

lol

We had injured players, and that means less rotations. We also had no depth, which means less rotations.

This is embarrassing for the AFL is that is all they have. I agree with Jose that surely this isn't it?!

I said before that Clothier and Haddad have not shown a great deal o understanding of footy with the questions they have asked - this latest news nicely suits that idea.

Surely they have more than positional moves, Schwab's ashen face, and fewer rotations?!

Unless the AFL plan to throw Clothier under the bus at the next Committee meeting?

"We find nothing in the evidence presented by the investigation that hasn't been answered satisfactorily by the MFC, all charges are dropped and the matter resolved."

So now they're accusing the players of fumbling on purpose. They're implying that the players could have avoided fumbling.

Seems like they haven't watched much other footage of the MFC in 2009.

To argue that the players weren't trying because they fumbled in the dying minutes of a tied game (during a season in which we were insipid at our best) is so incredibly pathetic, it actually made me laugh.

The Age

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-3-minutes-that-mattered-20130108-2cev1.html

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/call-for-tanking-amnesty-20130108-2ces3.html

The Hun

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/former-melbourne-coach-dean-bailey-takes-legal-action-to-defend-tanking-claims/story-e6frfkp9-1226549823559

Edited January 8, 201312 yr by My TD

Funny coincidence Jade Rawlings was the opposition Coach in the Richmond Game lol.

Weren't rotations down in the Richmond game because the team was down to one player on the bench?

Again, it comes back to the point we all established on Demonland which is the motive for any positional changes or drop in rotations.

The Age

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/the-3-minutes-that-mattered-20130108-2cev1.html

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/call-for-tanking-amnesty-20130108-2ces3.html

The Hun

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/former-melbourne-coach-dean-bailey-takes-legal-action-to-defend-tanking-claims/story-e6frfkp9-1226549823559

The Hun article talks of a 1000 page dossier (c.f. 800). This will be a big case indeeed particularly if it expands to include all the other Clubs which have manipulated their final ladder position since 1999.

And lack of rotations? You can argue that we were trying to see what sort of tank the players really had. Jurrah confirmed he didn't have much of a tank at all, so he was taken off stuffed.

If all that is all the AFL has, it sounds like they just want MFC to make a list of responses which isn't entirely farcical and then put it all to bed. Let's hope so.

I fail to see how any of this constitutes 'new' evidence. Didn't the AFL conduct an investigation in relation to this issue previously, including examining these games, and then clear us?

Honestly, this is pathetic stuff.

Under this (wholly flawed) methodology, Neeld should be nailed to the cross for some of his moves in 2012. After all, we still finished with only 4 wins, and some of Neeld's moves were more radical and experimental than anything I observed under Bailey.

But hey - the priority pick is no longer in play, so no one gives a stuff about 2012, including the AFL's "Integrity" bozos.

I question the integrity of every single club playing in the AFL. As soon as a player kicks a goal he is rewarded by following the team instruction of "run off the ground and sit on the bench" - if that ain't tanking I dont know what is

Are these guys serious?

Deliberate fumbling...wow.

OK, so they are saying we were so utterly desperate to lose the game that the players deliberately fumbled near the end. Yet we were happy to take the 'risk' of hitting the front with three minutes to go, How brilliant a strategy, how crafty an execution. Hit the front with three minutes left and then allow the opposition an after the siren shot at goal. He may miss, but again we'll take the risk of that happening as part of our strategy to disguise the tank. Then what we'll do is have the players drop to the ground heartbroken that they have lost. They won't suspect a thing because we will ensure we put on a performance Tom Hanks will be proud of.

I cannot believe it has reached this level of stupidity.

'Lumbering' ruckman Paul Johnson hey Pierek? Obviously he never saw him play, lumbering being a word you could not possibly associate with him. A more mobile, athletic and flexible tall I have hardly seen. A flanker trapped in a big man's body.

I find all of this quite hilarious - Dean Bailey not coaching to he full potential ?? Oh please this is the same coach and the same bunch of hapless water buffalo that went down the highway and got belted by 186 points - FFS give me a break .

Lets just not focus on two games lets look at how many Victorian based teams this team has beaten in the past 3 seasons - it's totally embarrassing. How anyone could conclude that the MFC was capable of winning anything based on a sustained period of underperformance is completely beyond me.

So now they're accusing the players of fumbling on purpose. They're implying that the players could have avoided fumbling.

They would have to have evidence that the players were instructed to lose to prove anything here. If they do, which I would doubt as it would have come out by now then we would be up the creek.

Do they really have this sort of rubbish in their submission of evidence or is this just an aside in the media.

The Hun article talks of a 1000 page dossier (c.f. 800). This will be a big case indeeed particularly if it expands to include all the other Clubs which have manipulated their final ladder position since 1999.

In my experience as a writer of documentation, I would say that as far as door stops go, they now have enough there to keep a good sized door open... case closed.

On the contrary, the lack of rotations is probably the most damning evidence of the lot. When a side is averaging roughly 100 rotations and goes down to 40 it's quite evident that it's an attempt to tire the players and reduce their effectiveness.

We were ahead of the curve anticipating that the AFL is going to restrict rotations - we wanted to be the first and best prepared.

I find all of this quite hilarious - Dean Bailey not coaching to he full potential ?? Oh please this is the same coach and the same bunch of hapless water buffalo that went down the highway and got belted by 186 points - FFS give me a break .

Lets just not focus on two games lets look at how many Victorian based teams this team has beaten in the past 3 seasons - it's totally embarrassing. How anyone could conclude that the MFC was capable of winning anything based on a sustained period of underperformance is completely beyond me.

Sydee, we tanked this game too.

But don't tell the AFL "Intergrity" bozos - they'll throw this game into the mix as well.

"As per AFL Regulation 19 (A5), tanking is defined as "a person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match – or in relation to any aspect for the match, for any reason whatsoever".

By the AFL's own definition Schwab and Connolly have a strong case to defend, in that they weren't employed as coaches, or assistant coaches. It may be technical, but it's also fact.

Thinking we should all send the afl investigators a bag of straws. As every day passes our problem seem to be getting smaller

"As per AFL Regulation 19 (A5), tanking is defined as "a person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match – or in relation to any aspect for the match, for any reason whatsoever".

By the AFL's own definition Schwab and Connolly have a strong case to defend, in that they weren't employed as coaches, or assistant coaches. It may be technical, but it's also fact.

Well you'll note the charges reported ...

As tension between those facing sanctions and the AFL increases, it has emerged that Bailey is facing three allegations: bringing the game into disrepute, tampering with the national draft, and not coaching to his utmost in 2009. Schwab and Connolly are facing charges of bringing the game into disrepute and tampering with the draft.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/dees-charges-revealed-20130107-2ccw7.html#ixzz2HQGcX2wP

Only Bailey is alleged to be charged under that rule.

'Lumbering' ruckman Paul Johnson hey Pierek? Obviously he never saw him play, lumbering being a word you could not possibly associate with him. A more mobile, athletic and flexible tall I have hardly seen. A flanker trapped in a big man's body.

Think at the time was the second fastest on our list, and resting rucks in the forward and back pockets has been part of Aussie Rules since i was a kid.....

On the contrary, the lack of rotations is probably the most damning evidence of the lot. When a side is averaging roughly 100 rotations and goes down to 40 it's quite evident that it's an attempt to tire the players and reduce their effectiveness.

Well, we weren't exactly killing off the competition with 100 rotations, so why not experiment with 40 to see if that made a difference?

And they seem to forget that we were ahead at the final siren in the "McMahon game". How can they say we tried to lose that one?

Most rotations come from the players themselves, therefore I'm not surprised rotations are up when a team is winning. Players will be up and about, more proactive and playing with more confidence, therefore more likely to make a rotation and make the effort to sprint off the ground.

I think rotations are often a reflection of how a team is playing, not the other way around.

A cunning ploy. They raise deliberate fumbling (by what was clearly the best team in the league) to take our attention away from defending any serious accusations.

(No, I'm not serious).

"As per AFL Regulation 19 (A5), tanking is defined as "a person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match – or in relation to any aspect for the match, for any reason whatsoever".

By the AFL's own definition Schwab and Connolly have a strong case to defend, in that they weren't employed as coaches, or assistant coaches. It may be technical, but it's also fact.

I'll go one step further - they have no case to answer under this rule as it does not apply - it is not technical as you say - it is fact - end of story. ( the AFL are aware that we will go legal so they will not charge Schwab and Connolly under this rule)