Rather a moderator who talks like he does is more likely to undermine the entire forum.

As to your second point- perhaps we can discuss it on Friday.

On your first point:

Imagine having to deal with the fools that post on here on a daily basis. As most would know, I have the patience of Job, but even I'd struggle.

And yes, PM me if you like and we'll catch up.

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by Ben-Hur

ts all good i went to the last page , and found out , cheers , and bugger as i had a really funny thing to add , ah well , ya get that

save it, I think jack will reopen, at a later date.

On your first point:

Imagine having to deal with the fools that post on here on a daily basis. As most would know, I have the patience of Jove, but even I'd struggle.

And yes, PM me if you like and we'll catch up.

You really come out with some funny stuff at times.

I won't PM - look for the placard option.

Good night to all.

So based on this definition of tanking the Tigers tanked against Gold Coast this year.

The last 3 minutes of that was described by the commentators as the worst 3 minutes of football they'd seen - the fumble count was off the charts! Tanking?

Maybe we can borrow 6 words from Vlad's famous words

"There is no such thing as fumbling" (on purpose)

I can't believe Haddad and Clothier have put the fumbling bit in as part of the charges (?) . Just goes to show how detached both of them are from what is reality and what isn't .

We can only hope there are copious references to 'fumbling' throughout the whole report . The 'Fink' could have a field day (whether the whole saga ends up in court or not)

The fumbling bit has to eventually strengthen our position even if there's only one mention of it . How on earth do you prove intentional 'fumbling' ? It's just ridiculous .

Though maybe 'Mack and Myer' have tried to lighten the mood and decided to add some comedic elements to the investigation

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by Macca

I won't PM - look for the placard option.

Good night to all.

OK, I'll do the "windmill" for 30 seconds and if you notice come over.

Any longer and I'll look like an idiot.

Btw, you won't be able to PM me as you'll be banned for disrespecting moderation.

Geez, if we are going to get hung for fumbling then we're rooted. We've fumbled through almost every bloody season I've seen for the last 40 years.

The AFL is becoming a Mel Brooks comedy if any of todays info is intended to stick.

Geez, if we are going to get hung for fumbling then we're rooted. We've fumbled through almost every bloody season I've seen for the last 40 years.

so was Eva Braun, fumbled, got a worried look on her face, & then bang!? the 3rd reich is still listening, sshh.

Geez, if we are going to get hung for fumbling then we're rooted. We've fumbled through almost every bloody season I've seen for the last 40 years.

Think of the repercussions if by some absolute miracle the charge of fumbling sticks ! The mind boggles with the permutations

Tribunal nights could be a tad busy if 'fumbling' is somehow 'outlawed'

Suspensions could be as follows ...

I week for an accidental fumble

2 weeks for a reckless fumble

4 weeks for an intentional fumble

1 full season for a 'Lairising' fumble

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by Macca

I was watching Sky News just before and they said that they "can reveal further details about the case against Melbourne, AFL investigators questioning why the Demons made four changes before their round 21 2009 loss to Carlton. That day the Demons played three ruckmen, and made only 56 rotations instead of the average of around 100..." They then showed the team selections for that game - Out: Nathan Jones, Clint Bartram, Brad Miller, Lynden Dunn In: Mark Jamar, Jake Spencer, Matthew Whelan, Jordie McKenzie. I would have thought that those selections and changes were quite in order at that time. Remember that Jones was nowhere near the player then that he is today, so nothing ground-breaking about him being dropped back then, and Bartram, Miller and Dunn had all been in and out of the side then and in subsequent seasons. Mark Jamar, the leading ruckman, Jake Spencer a young promising ruckman in 2009, Matthew Whelan one of Melbourne's best in that era when fit, and Jordie McKenzie, a promising young midfielder, all justifiable inclusions I would have thought.

If that is typical of the material contained in "the case against Melbourne", then I wouldn't think that Melbourne and their legal representatives would have much difficulty at all in responding to that and defending their integrity.

^^Its called "clutching at straws"....

The AFL is becoming a Mel Brooks comedy if any of todays info is intended to stick.

What do you mean if?

They are already:

The CEO says we didn't tank

This investigation was started by a quote by a disgruntled player

The year in question was all the way back in 2009 including a game we lost after the siren

Anderson has left

The investigation is being run by two cowboys hell bent on getting some form of evidence and have included practices such as duress and stop starting recordings

Fueled buy repetitive churnalists

Initial reports of hardcore evidence being downgraded to a joke

References of a systematic and formal meeting down graded to a tin shed and some sketchy meeting at a house

And this all lies on one of the most extremely vague and ambiguous rules in the AFL

Funnier than Adam Sandler's movie Jack and Jill, more awkward than seeing Tom Cruise in anything past 2005, and as sad as Mel Gibson all in one.

What do you mean if?

They are already:

The CEO says we didn't tank

This investigation was started by a quote by a disgruntled player

The year in question was all the way back in 2009 including a game we lost after the siren

Anderson has left

The investigation is being run by two cowboys hell bent on getting some form of evidence and have included practices such as duress and stop starting recordings

Fueled buy repetitive churnalists

Initial reports of hardcore evidence being downgraded to a joke

References of a systematic and formal meeting down graded to a tin shed and some sketchy meeting at a house

And this all lies on one of the most extremely vague and ambiguous rules in the AFL

Funnier than Adam Sandler's movie Jack and Jill, more awkward than seeing Tom Cruise in anything past 2005, and as sad as Mel Gibson all in one.

Churnalists. P.J. That is spot on mate.

That is exactly what Wilson is.

She started this fight.

Mclean was just a pawn.

"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".

This is another example of misleading journalism by The Age.

I'm certain the word 'Tanking' is not defined by anything in the AFL regulations. There is a regulation 19 (A5) which says the above, but even this regulation does not define the term 'perform on their merits'. I'd hate to be a prosecutor here.

Q. Why did you play big slow Paul Johnson on Nathan Brown in THAT match?

A. 'Cos big slow Paul Johnson was the second fastest person in our side!'.

Churnalists. P.J. That is spot on mate.

That is exactly what Wilson is.

She started this fight.

Mclean was just a pawn.

Cheers WYL - thought you might like that

Gone is the art of journalism, replaced by modern, sensationalist, inept churnalism.

Use it as much as possible!

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by PJ_12345

Cheers WYL - thought you might like that

Gone is the art of journalism, replaced by modern, sensationalist, inept churnalism.

Use it as much as possible!

will do.

There is only one Martin Flanagan.

Emma Quayle may make it if she stays wide of Wilsons trash.

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by why you little

will do.

There is only one Martin Flanagan.

Emma Quayle may make it if she stays wide of Wilsons trash.

True, but CW is interesting. Unless she is attacking your own club then no one has an issue with her.

She stirrers the pot and people like reading that - as long as its not about their club.

She knows it, the Age knows it and eveyone is happy that she does it because she makes a name for herself and gets paid, the Age gets money, and eveyone gets a good read as long as its not their club.

One man trash is another mans treasure.

Wilson is a reporter not a journalist. A true journalist paints a picture with words.

Her opinions and bias are always to strong for me to take to seriously.

But she does dig i will give you that.

Wilson is a reporter not a journalist. A true journalist paints a picture with words.

Her opinions and bias are always to strong for me to take to seriously.

But she does dig i will give you that.

She has gone quiet on the tanking issue. Has she been benched? The more I read about our alleged tanking the happier I become with the outcome. What a laugh when they use deliberate fumbling as an act of bringing the game into disrepute. The Richmond game would the weakest one when attempting to prove 'tanking'. We were ahead when the siren went. Gee that takes some doing. We must have known EXACTLY how much time was left in the match. As for Interchanges, surely the coach can do as many or as little as he likes. No rule states otherwise. No, things are looking better every day. QED.

On your first point:

Imagine having to deal with the fools that post on here on a daily basis. As most would know, I have the patience of Jove, but even I'd struggle.

And yes, PM me if you like and we'll catch up.

I think the correct metaphor should be the patience of Job.

Jove I beleive was a funny guy, one with a sense of humor, which too many here seem to lack.

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by monoccular

well if clothier and hadad are citing fumbling as an issue

then this is quite a new twist because now they are saying that the players tanked

and by extension that they were asked to tank by the coach (or other club officials)

this is very serious but without any corroboration is just bizarre

to my knowledge no-one has previously even suggested the players might have been tanking

just bizarre

I was watching Sky News just before and they said that they "can reveal further details about the case against Melbourne, AFL investigators questioning why the Demons made four changes before their round 21 2009 loss to Carlton. That day the Demons played three ruckmen, and made only 56 rotations instead of the average of around 100..." They then showed the team selections for that game - Out: Nathan Jones, Clint Bartram, Brad Miller, Lynden Dunn In: Mark Jamar, Jake Spencer, Matthew Whelan, Jordie McKenzie. I would have thought that those selections and changes were quite in order at that time. Remember that Jones was nowhere near the player then that he is today, so nothing ground-breaking about him being dropped back then, and Bartram, Miller and Dunn had all been in and out of the side then and in subsequent seasons. Mark Jamar, the leading ruckman, Jake Spencer a young promising ruckman in 2009, Matthew Whelan one of Melbourne's best in that era when fit, and Jordie McKenzie, a promising young midfielder, all justifiable inclusions I would have thought.

If that is typical of the material contained in "the case against Melbourne", then I wouldn't think that Melbourne and their legal representatives would have much difficulty at all in responding to that and defending their integrity.

Geez. They are really getting desperate if they are picking up on 4 team changes in a week as "evidence if tanking".

How many did their precious GWS make before they risked a possible victory over GC ? Was it 8 or close to? But of course they can do no wrong, (even signing up contracted players mid season).

As for interchange numbers, as I have pointed out before, using "acceptable numbers" had been doing us a fat lot of good to date so why not try something radically different for a change. Perhaps a bit more stability within a match could help players know what they were expected to be doing rather than the often shambolic stuff we see with them sprinting off then on to who knows where and to what role?

Even the infallible AFL themselves have mooted a significant reduction as perhaps being better for the game, so maybe we should be lauded for being the innovators.

Edited January 9, 201312 yr by monoccular

So far the 'leaks' from the report have mainly focussed on actions - eg; Jurrah taken off the ground against St Kilda; the low number of rotations; odd match-ups against Richmond.

I haven't seen a 'smoking' gun - that the club gave directions to the coaching panel or the players to deliberately throw matches (or not perform on their merits).

I haven't seen evidence of an email or memo or deposition from a witness that says they were ordered or gave instructions to 'tank'. Maybe it's somewhere in the 800 pages. i don't know.

There is no evidence that anyone conspired to lose games.

Team changes, fumbling the ball, trying players in new positions etc. happen every week n football.

No rules have been broken : This is where our solicitors will have a field day, and the fact that there is no clear definition of tanking.

Some background on our interrogators FYI.

Seems they have experience in everything except football. They have decided to model their operations on horse racing.

Former UN officer takes AFL bet role AFL names Brett Clothier as integrity services manager