North looking at resting players

[Demon Disciple 12,274]

Since when is that the definition of tanking? Since when was there a time frame on it?

The base definition is deliberately losing to gain something. That's all there is to it.

I'd define tanking as deliberately not trying your utmost to win a match.

Dictionary.com defines tanking as: To go through the motions of a match but deliberately lose because of an illicit prearrangement or fix; throw a fight.

So the AFL will hide behind such a definition and say that given it has received the tick of approval, it isn't tanking. But it's all complete BS.

Deliberately not playing your best, or not putting your best on the field when you can, is tanking afaic.

[chookrat 4,268]

Following Freo's request to rest players for their match, the Kangas are looking at doing the same thing. This is very interesting because it may well be in their best interest to lose this match, the only way for them to face an away trip to Adelaide is if they beat the Tigers, Adelaide beat the cats, and the dogs lose to Brisbane (unlikely but it is at the GABBA). Therefor could this be seen as a form of match fixing/tanking? If they win all they do is open the door for the possibility of a trip to Adelaide, whereas if they lose they almost guarantee at least a Melbourne final. Sydney could potentially drop out of the 4 but they would have to lose to GC at home and the Tiges would have to thump the Roos.

This also poses difficult questions for the AFL as they have already granted Freo's request to do it.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/north-melbourne-poised-to-rest-8-10-players-against-richmond-ahead-of-afl-finals/story-fni5f986-1227510514665

I don't think it's tanking if the strategy improves the teams odds at winning the flag in the season in question. It would be absurd to investigate the premiers for tanking in the season they win a flag.

As for match fixing, the bookies and punters should be able to factor in such

circumstances into the odds.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,300]

It's not tanking. Tanking is the players/coaches deliberately trying to lose a match.

A club has 38 players on its list and is entitled to choose the 22 it wants to play on any given week as long as those players play to win once selected. Who is the AFL to say which players a club should or shouldn't play?

[sue 9,145]

It's not tanking. Tanking is the players/coaches deliberately trying to lose a match.

A club has 38 players on its list and is entitled to choose the 22 it wants to play on any given week as long as those players play to win once selected. Who is the AFL to say which players a club should or shouldn't play?

Then why did they ask the AFL?

Could a near-bottom club make up a team largely of their players who hadn't ye thad a game or were injured?

Edited September 3, 2015 by sue

[rjay 25,091]

so you're encouraging the AFL to just randomly make rulings here and there and be inconsistent between clubs and different situations

if they dont like something just arbitrarily call it disrepute

great idea

They don't need much encouragement 'Curry', it's how the organisation runs.

[Je Roos Salem 661]

I agree that teams should be allowed to pick whoever. However I'd argue it hasn't proved to be an effective strategy for teams who've dropped so many

[stuie 7,374]

But where do you draw the line? Resting a midfielder for a few minutes on the Bench might make you worse off for a short time, but you'll be better off once they're back. Is that "tanking"?

You have to draw a line between strategy and tanking somewhere. I think at the end of each season is a pretty good place to draw that line.

It's the consequences that make it tanking. Yeah you rest players during the game, but you're trying to win that game. North are resting players to try and lose. If the benefit doesn't matter then why such a fuss about us losing to gain picks?

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

They don't need much encouragement 'Curry', it's how the organisation runs.

Yes but I am saying that it is a rubbish way to run things, and them making some ruling against North now would be the continuation of these rubbish ways, which I am opposed to

[Chook 15,022]

It's the consequences that make it tanking. Yeah you rest players during the game, but you're trying to win that game. North are resting players to try and lose. If the benefit doesn't matter then why such a fuss about us losing to gain picks?

You rest players during the season, but you’re trying to win that season. You delist good hardworking players who are too old to win you a premiership; but that’s okay, you’re trying to win the Premiership five years from now. Etcetera.

And what if you still win despite your efforts to lose? Is that not tanking? Obviously your results-based metric doesn’t account for that. It’s all one big grey area. Your definition is no better (or, admittedly, worse) than mine.

Our only trouble is that someone’s definition should be used, and that definition should have a clear reasoning behind it. Unfortunately this still has not yet happened. But that’s the AFL for you.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Chook

[mo64 5,881]

The only reason they were fined is that it was a nationally televised rematch with the Miami Heat. Apples and mouldy oranges

You're right, but isn't the Friday Night game considered a blockbuster ratings wise?

[daisycutter 29,738]

so you're encouraging the AFL to just randomly make rulings here and there and be inconsistent between clubs and different situations

if they dont like something just arbitrarily call it disrepute

great idea

not at all

they could have just declined freo and north's request in the first place

simple really, no need to complicate it or look for loopholes

[picket fence 17,502]

Envious player management!! Well done Norf & Freo ( Freo who are incidentally, my pick for premiers!)

Great player management!!

Well done AFL! all down to you!

[monoccular 17,574]

How good would it be for both Freo and Norf to "go off the boil" and lose next week.....don't really care to whom, just as long as they lose, badly. The look on Scott's face would be priceless.

It would be interesting though to see just how any sporting body (even an organization with genuine integrity, unlike the AFL) could word and enforce a rule limiting the "resting" of players. It would have been far better that they just shut up (hard for them I know) and let these guys flirt with form at their own peril.

I bet their betting agency sponsors are truly pi55ed off....not that I care a toss about them either.

Edited September 3, 2015 by monoccular

[Earl Hood 6,101]

I haven't followed all the commentary here and it may have been covered but I hadn't realised that North taking a dive jeopardises Adeliade's chance to host a home final, and they are not happy, quite rightly. Now that shows the AFL up big time as having zero integrity on this. And if I was Channel 7 I would be asking for a refund for who is going to bother to watch a compromised game.

I am not sure what the solution is but the AFL does have a rule to cover teams resting multiple players for no apparent reason and they have chosen to ignore it for whatever reason.

[ucanchoose 1,816]

You're right, but isn't the Friday Night game considered a blockbuster ratings wise?

Well Carlton aren't playing so it might be!

[Grapeviney 9,800]

the fact is there is no rule that prevents them from doing this, so the AFL can't just arbitrarily tell them what to do!

There is a rule - it says you cannot rest players to manipulate your position in the finals. The AFL have chosen to ignore this with respect to North, and have granted permission on the basis that they are being managed for injury and fatigue, which is allowed.

[Macca 17,034]

What Freo & North are doing has been done on a number of occasions in the last 5-6 years

From memory Freo have done it at least twice before, the Saints rested 9 one time against the Hawks and might have done it a 2nd time, Geelong did against the Gold Coast and the Swans did it last year. There's possibly a couple more instances as well.

This is the brave new world of professional sports that footy has entered into and whilst it seems to happen in other sports without too much incident, I'm not at all sure that it's suited to our sport. The circumstances and outcomes are often quite different too (in other sports)

Where it will get very awkward is if another team or other teams are definitely advantaged or disadvantaged by such a practice. As it stands, as Grapeviney mentions above, the Crows stand to lose a home final by North not going all out for a win ... and that's a significant price to pay considering how even those sides from 5th to 8th are.

It's my belief that the AFL should knock it on the head but they won't ... they'll wait for such an awkward situation to arise and then act in hindsight. They denied that tanking ever existed even when the practice of tanking was completely out of control (no fewer than 9 priority picks were handed out over a 3 year stretch from '03 - '05)

Tanking is more associated with teams trying to gain a better placed draft pick ... however tanking and whatever this practice might be called is an integrity of the sport issue.

.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Macca

[Bombay Airconditioning 6,408]

Hawks still have to travel west.

Crows are in good form and won't flirt with that.

Eagles/Dockers will have to travel to Melbourne should they make the GF.

Great teams can travel and win against quality opposition.

North only have themselves fooled.

Having said that I want them to knock Richmond out in the first week only to get knocked out themselves week two. Would love to see the Dogs rattle some cages.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Al's Demons

[titan_uranus 25,043]

There is no evidence that Fremantle stands to gain by losing this match. It follows from this that their decision to rest players cannot be tanking. Hence no one is upset.

There is evidence that North Melbourne stands to gain by losing this match (if they win, they run the sizeable risk of drawing Adelaide in Adelaide in the first final). It follows from this that their decision to rest players can be tanking (there is a plausible reason why North Melbourne may want to lose this game). Hence, many are upset.

The Fremantle situation is a perfect example of why resting players is not, on its own, tanking.

The North situation, IMO, is no different to the Melbourne situation - coaches doing things that make winning a particular game something other than the highest priority, with there being a plausible benefit to be gained by losing.

Edited September 3, 2015 by titan_uranus

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

not at all

they could have just declined freo and north's request in the first place

simple really, no need to complicate it or look for loopholes

what's the rule though?

you're not allowed to declare a player unfit for duty and omit him without proof he is genuinely interested?

you can only have a certain number of omissions each week?

if a player has a certain level of performance he cannot be dropped?

do we then bring in a selection review panel to decide if a team has crossed the tanking line or not?

think about what you are saying, it doesn't make sense

[daisycutter 29,738]

There is no evidence that Fremantle stands to gain by losing this match. It follows from this that their decision to rest players cannot be tanking. Hence no one is upset.

There is evidence that North Melbourne stands to gain by losing this match (if they win, they run the sizeable risk of drawing Adelaide in Adelaide in the first final). It follows from this that their decision to rest players can be tanking (there is a plausible reason why North Melbourne may want to lose this game). Hence, many are upset.

The Fremantle situation is a perfect example of why resting players is not, on its own, tanking.

The North situation, IMO, is no different to the Melbourne situation - coaches doing things that make winning a particular game something other than the highest priority, with there being a plausible benefit to be gained by losing.

i dunno

having half your team getting a week off one week before the finals is some advantage (theoretically) that other finals sides don't have

i don't like it

hope it fails spectacularly

[daisycutter 29,738]

what's the rule though?

you're not allowed to declare a player unfit for duty and omit him without proof he is genuinely interested?

you can only have a certain number of omissions each week?

if a player has a certain level of performance he cannot be dropped?

do we then bring in a selection review panel to decide if a team has crossed the tanking line or not?

think about what you are saying, it doesn't make sense

freo resting 11 makes it obvious

norf resting 9 makes it obvious

i can't help it if you are blind as well a dumb

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

freo resting 11 makes it obvious

norf resting 9 makes it obvious

i can't help it if you are blind as well a dumb

so is it you that's going to be appointed to make an assessment and declaration of what constitutes 'obvious'

perhaps you can personally conduct fitness tests after thursday night selections, to verify that all omissions are in fact genuinely unfit to play

and then you can just dish out whatever penalty feels right at the time

makes perfect sense mate, well done

ps if stuie likes your post you are in trouble and its time to reassess

Edited September 3, 2015 by Curry & Beer

[stuie 7,374]

so is it you that's going to be appointed to make an assessment and declaration of what constitutes 'obvious'

perhaps you can personally conduct fitness tests after thursday night selections, to verify that all omissions are in fact genuinely unfit to play

and then you can just dish out whatever penalty feels right at the time

makes perfect sense mate, well done

ps if stuie likes your post you are in trouble and its time to reassess

Yeah you're right, maybe those 11 Freo players and 9 North players all got the flu...

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Yeah you're right, maybe those 11 Freo players and 9 North players all got the flu...

so you're not going to attempt to answer the question properly then

figured as much