On 14/02/2013 at 05:27, daisycutter said:

if you look top left you'll see smoke. someone's having a sneaky dart. wouldn't be you dee-luded would it?

That must be Hazy!

He has a tendency to waft in now and then.

  On 14/02/2013 at 05:50, Flying Cloud said:

If tanking is so disgusting, why hasn't the AFL created a specific rule to address it?

It's pretty obvious that in their original rules they never envisaged clubs would try to manufacture losses.

  On 14/02/2013 at 05:26, binman said:

Did Bernard Tomic tank last year because as he admitted he did not commit himself to training and he and his coach made some poor (or in the current vernacular unusual) scheduling decisions?

or

did he tank when he clearly threw in the towel in several matches (in tennis parlance tanking, which i guess is where the phrase came from and as such perhaps is the closest thing to a universally understood definition of the word ie a player not trying)

From Wikipedia: when a team intentionally loses a game, or does not score as high as it can, to obtain a perceived future competitive advantage (for instance, earning a high draft pick) rather than gamblers being involved, the team is often said to have tanked the game instead of having thrown it.

my head hurts

Intentionally losing is a level 7 Offence according to this NBA-based article by Mike Prada. Perhaps the AFL could adopt a kindred model and align and impose Tanking Penalties as and when identified according to level.

It could form part of the duties of the Match Review Panel and The Tribunal. Maybe Adrian Anderson, with his fitting experience, could be persuaded to undertake the drafting of the schedule.

Blatant Fumbling might attract say a $10,000 fine.

http://www.sbnation.com/2010/3/16/1375410/nba-power-rankings-tanking-kevin-love-lebron-james-cavaliers-timberwolves-kobe-bryant

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:05, Ben-Hur said:

It's pretty obvious that in their original rules they never envisaged clubs would try to manufacture losses.

The original rules...so we're at fault which ever way you look at it because we wrote them!

Bloody Wills...

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:06, CHAMP said:

Intentionally losing is a level 7 Offence according to this NBA-based article by Mike Prada. Perhaps the AFL could adopt a kindred model and align and impose Tanking Penalties as and when identified according to level.

It could form part of the duties of the Match Review Panel and The Tribunal. Maybe Adrian Anderson, with his fitting experience, could be persuaded to undertake the drafting of the schedule.

Blatant Fumbling might attract say a $10,000 fine.

http://www.sbnation.com/2010/3/16/1375410/nba-power-rankings-tanking-kevin-love-lebron-james-cavaliers-timberwolves-kobe-bryant

Gee champ we would have been broke around mid 2008

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:10, old dee said:

Gee champ we would have been broke around mid 2008

With such a system in place a number of clubs would have been wiped out since the introduction of the Priority Pick.

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:05, Ben-Hur said:

It's pretty obvious that in their original rules they never envisaged clubs would try to manufacture losses.

Yeah but they have changed every other rule in the last 10 years. There's hardly a rule from the original that hasn't been tinkered with....

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:05, Ben-Hur said:

It's pretty obvious that in their original rules they never envisaged clubs would try to manufacture losses.

Are they that naive?

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:16, jnrmac said:

Yeah but they have changed every other rule in the last 10 years. There's hardly a rule from the original that hasn't been tinkered with....

Yeah, wonder boy didn't show much foresight.

Probably never thought a club would tank so badly.

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:16, jnrmac said:

Yeah but they have changed every other rule in the last 10 years. There's hardly a rule from the original that hasn't been tinkered with....

......harris/elliot rules. cap in hand, & mums the word.

  On 14/02/2013 at 05:46, rpfc said:

I'm the one taking the photo of you losers...

cheapskate, buy yourself a decent remote control and join the losers party

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:05, Ben-Hur said:

It's pretty obvious that in their original rules they never envisaged clubs would try to manufacture losses.

it should have been pretty obvious to these highly paid execs that they might.

It used to be a disgrace to finish last, until the AFL attached a prize to it.

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:28, sue said:

it should have been pretty obvious to these highly paid execs that they might.

exactly and seeing as how they copy all these type of rules from us pro sport they would have known all about "tanking" (whatever that means) and "list management"

Oh and before i forget, "tanking" & list management existed before they brought in priority picks (admittedly to a lesser extent)

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:22, Ben-Hur said:

Yeah, wonder boy didn't show much foresight.

Probably never thought a club would tank so badly.

From memory, carltank lost 11 in a row; the filth 10 in a row. Reckon their efforts outway ours by some margin.

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:33, Mono said:

From memory, carltank lost 11 in a row; the filth 10 in a row. Reckon their efforts outway ours by some margin.

You're not allowed to talk about other sides, sorry mate.

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:22, Ben-Hur said:

Yeah, wonder boy didn't show much foresight.

Probably never thought a club would tank so badly.

just delete the words 'a club would tank so badly'.

Cheer up BH - you almost revel in the thought that we are the pits. Perhaps understandable in a passionate supporter disappointed for so long.

So, tomorrow must be the big day?

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:05, Ben-Hur said:

It's pretty obvious that in their original rules they never envisaged clubs would try to manufacture losses.

I get that, but there has been plenty of rule changes since 2009, they could have brought one in since then.

  On 14/02/2013 at 07:14, McQueen said:

So, tomorrow must be the big day?

maybe, but i wouldn't put my house on it

  On 14/02/2013 at 07:14, McQueen said:

So, tomorrow must be the big day?

They'll be waiting for us to have something else to get excited over, so we don't put as much energy into this thread.

They are worried about us supporters responses & intensity.

No doubt sometime tomorrow, or shortly after. After we see some of our New recruits in action so we talk about them.

How weak is the AFL, & their media lackies.

  On 14/02/2013 at 07:30, daisycutter said:

maybe, but i wouldn't put my house on it

What's the housing market like in Bangalla at the moment?

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:46, sue said:

just delete the words 'a club would tank so badly'.

Cheer up BH - you almost revel in the thought that we are the pits. Perhaps understandable in a passionate supporter disappointed for so long.

Tanking badly would actually mean you accidentally won a game or two (almost like that infamous 2009 match agin Richmond).

  On 14/02/2013 at 06:05, Ben-Hur said:

It's pretty obvious that in their original rules they never envisaged clubs would try to manufacture losses.

Yes but you work for the other side otherwise why would you serially post this position. Unless of course you are cleverly trying to lose the argument.

Can this thread be merged with the no-BS no-TS one? As everyone seems to have officially gone round the twist.