The AFL decision.....

Which I think will be tested by a legal one in the not to distant future......

Edit ...spelling....

Edited February 5, 201312 yr by Bossdog

I don't know how many times I've seen this type of comment, but I cannot agree that it's irrelevant that other clubs have not been investigated or charged.

This is not a case of burglary or another clearly defined law.

This is a poorly drafted rule that is vague and basically inoperative without some form of clarification from those in charge of administering the rule.

You could ask 20 people what the rule is about and you'd get 20 different answers.

Therefore, the fact that certain conduct (e.g. what Carlton did in 2007) has been deemed by those in charge of administering the rule as satisfactory and not in breach of the rule shows how the rule is interpreted and applied by those in charge. Even if it was only tacit acceptance by the AFL (for what it's worth I think it was more than that), then I think the clubs are entitled to rely on such tacit acceptance in formulating their understanding of the rule and the interpretation and application of the rule by those administering it.

Even during the 2009 season the CEO of the AFL publicly backed what Melbourne was doing!

If a club cannot rely on the administering body's interpretation and application of a vague, poorly drafted rule, then what can they rely on?

So no, the speeding ticket example is not relevant to the current circumstances. Everyone knows that you cannot drive over the speed limit. No one knows what the hell 'on their merits' means. Hence the need for guidance and the relevance of administrative acceptance of similar prior conduct by other clubs.

What other clubs did is certainly relevant to our defence lawyers and quite possibly the outcome of any court proceeding, but to constantly hear "what about the other clubs" is tiresome in the extreme.

No-one was as obvious, or as clumsy as our club.

Btw, I don't think we should be sanctioned for a host of reasons. I just become amused at the denial I read on here. If anyone could put their hand on their heart and honestly say that they don't believe we tanked then I'll show you a very stupid person.

I could be wrong but I'm going to presume Caro has been on holidays for a while and only just got back to work. Coincidence that the AFL are poised to make an announcement on the investigation only now that she's returned? Worries me because if the AFL were intending to announce an 'all-clear', surely they'd have been better off doing this while CW was away.

Or maybe the AFL just completely disregards CW in making this decision, as they should?

What other clubs did is certainly relevant to our defence lawyers and quite possibly the outcome of any court proceeding, but to constantly hear "what about the other clubs" is tiresome in the extreme.

No-one was as obvious, or as clumsy as our club.

Btw, I don't think we should be sanctioned for a host of reasons. I just become amused at the denial I read on here. If anyone could put their hand on their heart and honestly say that they don't believe we tanked then I'll show you a very stupid person.

I don't agree -- I merely think the microscope intensified over time, and we were scrutinised the closest.

Unfortunate timing.

Or maybe the AFL just completely disregards CW in making this decision, as they should?

yep one thing is for sure, CW has absolutley no say in the outcome of this investigation

What other clubs did is certainly relevant to our defence lawyers and quite possibly the outcome of any court proceeding, but to constantly hear "what about the other clubs" is tiresome in the extreme.

No-one was as obvious, or as clumsy as our club.

Btw, I don't think we should be sanctioned for a host of reasons. I just become amused at the denial I read on here. If anyone could put their hand on their heart and honestly say that they don't believe we tanked then I'll show you a very stupid person.

I think there is so much argueing at cross purposes ( and I am party to that as well)

1/ The broad intentions of the club during the later part of 2009 - pretty obvious what went down and your point, BH ( and one I dont disagree with)

2/ What we did in the later 2009 put into context against poorly drafted rules with no defined actions against a backdrop of similar/same tacitly approved precedents ? nothing to see here - move on . Where i sit

Would you not agree with the above BH ?

I could be wrong but I'm going to presume Caro has been on holidays for a while and only just got back to work. Coincidence that the AFL are poised to make an announcement on the investigation only now that she's returned? Worries me because if the AFL were intending to announce an 'all-clear', surely they'd have been better off doing this while CW was away.

Shouldn't have any influence on announcement whatsoever!

Go to the top of the class Scoop Junior.

Indeed, it goes further than that. The AFL is acting as the administrative body dealing with the rights of all constituent clubs. It can't apply its rules in one way with one club and refuse to apply them to others without good reason.

Further, if good reason isn't evident, then I don't know how one could reach any other conclusion than the AFL have an agenda to kill off the MFC.

I think there is so much argueing at cross purposes ( and I am party to that as well)

1/ The broad intentions of the club during the later part of 2009 - pretty obvious what went down and your point, BH ( and one I dont disagree with)

2/ What we did in the later 2009 put into context against poorly drafted rules with no defined actions against a backdrop of similar/same tacitly approved precedents ? nothing to see here - move on . Where i sit

Would you not agree with the above BH ?

Yes. And I agree that it's going around and around.

We tanked.

Most wanted to.

Poorly defined rules.

Others did it.

Very difficult to prove.

Shouldn't be found guilty.

The above sums up my position. I just get sick of the bleating and victim mentality by many with regards to this issue. They want to blame every critic, but there's not one word about how embarrassingly inept we were in orchestrating our ladder position.

Yes. And I agree that it's going around and around.

We tanked.

Most wanted to.

Poorly defined rules.

Others did it.

Very difficult to prove.

Shouldn't be found guilty.

The above sums up my position. I just get sick of the bleating and victim mentality by many with regards to this issue. They want to blame every critic, but there's not one word about how embarrassingly inept we were in orchestrating our ladder position.

Ahh ... but if we emerge unscathed and have Toumpas and Hogan to show for it, then just how inept were we?

Will you be lambasting our ineptitude if the latter kicks 8 in a grand final victory?

We took some huge risks as a club back in '08 and '09. Huge risks can be dangerous (as we are witnessing now), but they can also be hugely rewarding. It's a fine line and not everything is absolutely under one's control.

I'm happy as a supporter that we took the punt, regardless of whether or not our 'tanking' was executed flawlessly.

Yes. And I agree that it's going around and around.

We tanked.

Most wanted to.

Poorly defined rules.

Others did it.

Very difficult to prove.

Shouldn't be found guilty.

The above sums up my position. I just get sick of the bleating and victim mentality by many with regards to this issue. They want to blame every critic, but there's not one word about how embarrassingly inept we were in orchestrating our ladder position.

I think most of us agree with your list. But you exaggerate the 'victim mentality' of other posters and how inept our 'experimenting/tanking' was. As someone posted earlier today, there doesn't have to be a conspiracy, just an unfortunate set of circumstances and timing for us being the target. But why not grumble about that and some of the so-called journalism we have seen? - it's therapeutic for starters.

Anyway, I'd rather read that sort of grumbling than read people calling us totally inept and deserving of being clobbered. And some posters even appear to take some masochistic pleasure out of all that .

(Not ascribing that to you personally BH. But just as you are sick of 'bleating/victim mentality', I'm sick of those who beat their hairy-chests saying everyone should be sacked and that we are the most inept club in the league).

Let's hope this will all be over and we can start arguing about which players should be sent to Casey.

Yes. And I agree that it's going around and around.

We tanked.

Most wanted to.

Poorly defined rules.

Others did it.

Very difficult to prove.

Shouldn't be found guilty.

The above sums up my position. I just get sick of the bleating and victim mentality by many with regards to this issue. They want to blame every critic, but there's not one word about how embarrassingly inept we were in orchestrating our ladder position.

Agree with all the above except a couple of points.

1/ retrospective investigations by the responsible body should have included others who participated in the same practices - this is not victim mentality

2/ I dont believe we were any more embarrassingly inept than Carlton - Mitchell and Fevola vs Bailey and Mclean - both Bails and Brock spoke with bias - one being just sacked and the other (IMO) embittered at his departure. Would I have preferred that both said nothing - you bet. The wink wink nudge nudge stuff of CC and an un-named board member was preschool stuff. Carlton for its actions, WCE for its actions, Richmond for its Terry Wallace comments in my opinion should be included in any investigation. If they want to find us guilty then fine - but others must also be held up to the same standard.

No-one was as obvious, or as clumsy as our club.

Really,BH?

I thought the Blues used pretty bloody obvious tactics when they lost the last 11 in a row.

Freo were pretty blatant about playing their virtual reserves against Hawthorn in Tassie in round 22, 2011.

So we were clumsy and they were skilful?

I'm in no way denying we tried to optimise draft picks, but I just think this statement is a bit of unnecessary self-flagellation!

What other clubs did is certainly relevant to our defence lawyers and quite possibly the outcome of any court proceeding, but to constantly hear "what about the other clubs" is tiresome in the extreme.

No-one was as obvious, or as clumsy as our club.

Btw, I don't think we should be sanctioned for a host of reasons. I just become amused at the denial I read on here. If anyone could put their hand on their heart and honestly say that they don't believe we tanked then I'll show you a very stupid person.

The problem here is in the definition of tanking. It is not clearly defined by the rules or the CEO, so we end up with grossly different interpretations.

My definition would include the coach specifically ordering the players to hold back, to not chase, and to miss targets ( a bit like the [censored] football played by Richmond that day).

Someone else might define it as deliberately missing shots at goal, or purposely giving away free kicks. However if this is tanking, then we need to revisit the 1987 preliminary final (as painful as that can be).

2 guys missing open goals in the last Q; a third misses a set shot from 10 yards out; and two free kicks given away to help Buckenara kick THAT goal after the siren.

Imagine if Melbourne had done that in the Richmond match in 2009.

Our problem in 2009 is - we expected to lose. We had a perception that the club should to tank to lose matches ( i plead very guilty here), and we went along and applied that perception - that pre-judgement - to the actions on the field. In any match other than 2009, trying Paul Johnson on the flank would have been accepted as a part of the game. But because of the discussion about winning no more than 4 games, such a move was regarded as clear evidence of tanking.

Perceptions can be funny things. I watched Miller in the Swans match in round 17 in Canberra 2009. He had a set shot from 10 years out - couldn't miss. So he missed, and i thought - aha - clear evidence of tanking. The next week against Richmond he has a running shot from 50metres - on the boundary line. And he dobs it through!. He wasn't tanking against the Swans. It was just Miller being Miller.

"No-one was as obvious, or as clumsy as our club. "

Really,BH?

I thought the Blues used pretty bloody obvious tactics when they lost the last 11 in a row.

Freo were pretty blatant about playing their virtual reserves against Hawthorn in Tassie in round 22, 2011.

So we were clumsy and they were skilful?

I'm in no way denying we tried to optimise draft picks, but I just think this statement is a bit of unnecessary self-flagellation!

No other club has been investigated to the level of our club so how do we know if we were most clumsy or not.

They want to blame every critic, but there's not one word about how embarrassingly inept we were in orchestrating our ladder position.

Not one word?!

Oh, right. I'm ignored...

Ahh ... but if we emerge unscathed and have Toumpas and Hogan to show for it, then just how inept were we?

Will you be lambasting our ineptitude if the latter kicks 8 in a grand final victory?

We took some huge risks as a club back in '08 and '09. Huge risks can be dangerous (as we are witnessing now), but they can also be hugely rewarding. It's a fine line and not everything is absolutely under one's control.

I'm happy as a supporter that we took the punt, regardless of whether or not our 'tanking' was executed flawlessly.

You can bet your bile duck, he'll be celebrating with the rest of us and he'll be over the moon if one of those becomes an absolute star. Like a kid in a lolly shop.

Not one word?!

Oh, right. I'm ignored...

And boring.

Tim Watson said on SEN said this morning that we will hear from the AFL with there punishment in the next 24 to 48 hours.

He also said it was more then likely that this will go to court.

And boring.

Which is a very equinanimous response

Edited February 5, 201312 yr by iv'a worn smith

Tim Watson said on SEN said this morning that we will hear from the AFL with there punishment in the next 24 to 48 hours.

He also said it was more then likely that this will go to court.

I'll wait for Deegirls information

And boring.

Yeah, but oh so handsome...

Yeah, but oh so handsome...

Settle down RPFC. You're drawing a long bow now.

Ahh ... but if we emerge unscathed and have Toumpas and Hogan to show for it, then just how inept were we?

Will you be lambasting our ineptitude if the latter kicks 8 in a grand final victory?

We took some huge risks as a club back in '08 and '09. Huge risks can be dangerous (as we are witnessing now), but they can also be hugely rewarding. It's a fine line and not everything is absolutely under one's control.

I'm happy as a supporter that we took the punt, regardless of whether or not our 'tanking' was executed flawlessly.

You may remember that I was one of the first to advocate trading pick 3 for Hogan. I had it in my signature for months. When did you come on board ?

Btw, Hogan and Toumpas have nothing to with measuring how inept we were. Obviously we gained the desired picks and just as obviously we were comical in the process.

Really,BH?

I thought the Blues used pretty bloody obvious tactics when they lost the last 11 in a row.

Freo were pretty blatant about playing their virtual reserves against Hawthorn in Tassie in round 22, 2011.

So we were clumsy and they were skilful?

I'm in no way denying we tried to optimise draft picks, but I just think this statement is a bit of unnecessary self-flagellation!

Touche and the Blues and their officials and board members giggled themselves stupid over it to boot.

The myth that we handled what we were doing any differently to other clubs is based on misinformation and delusional thinking.

Let them all be investigated for six months and we'll find out how clumsy they were in the way they did things.