PDA

View Full Version : AFL floats crackdown on league's fakers


The Coon Dog
13-10-2009, 06:21 PM
By Luke Holmesby 5:35 PM Tue 13 October, 2009

PLAYERS staging for free kicks could be penalised as a result of an AFL review of the tribunal.

The AFL has written to all 16 clubs as part of a review of the tribunal in a bid to obtain feedback on eight major points, with one of the biggest talking points sure to be fines for staging.

Football operations manager Adrian Anderson contacted the clubs to get their feedback on the tribunal this year.

Article in full... (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/86043/default.aspx)

The topics up for discussion are:

1. Misconduct Staging. Should players face a financial sanction for obvious staging?

2. Umpire Contact. The 2009 year saw 28 players charged for making Negligent/Reckless/ Intentional Contact with an Umpire. A number of players continue to set up behind the umpire. Are the current sanctions adequate?

3. Player prior Record. The maximum loading a player can receive for offences during the past three AFL years is capped at 50 per cent. Should a player who has been suspended for more than five matches in the previous three years, face a higher loading than 50 per cent?

4. Brownlow Eligibility. Players are currently ineligible for the Brownlow Medal if they are found guilty of an offence if the base points are 100 or more. The consequence of this is that many players who can accept reprimands (eg for an offence worth 125 points) are deemed ineligible for the Brownlow even though they have not been suspended. 125 points will usually be applicable only in cases where the offence is at the lower end of the scale. There is no proposal to change the requirement that the Brownlow is an award for the “Best and Fairest”. Is it appropriate however to permit players found guilty of offences worth 125 points (for which they could usually accept a reprimand with a guilty plea) to remain eligible for the Brownlow Medal? Should a player who has not been suspended be deemed ineligible for the Brownlow Medal?

5. Misconduct for making unnecessary and unreasonable contact to the face. Such contact to an opponent’s face has been viewed seriously in the past due to the need to protect player’s eyes and the damage done to the image and reputation of the game by players making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the face of an opponent. The penalty is currently equivalent to Rough Conduct and Charging. Are the current sanctions appropriate?

6. Sling Tackles. Should we deal more strictly with dangerous sling tackles?

7. Jury Members. Would it be more beneficial to have a regular panel of three (3) Jury Members each week where available or is the rotation system more appropriate?

8. Intra Club Matches. Should incidents from Intra Club Matches be dealt with under the AFL Tribunal System?
bulldogtragic
13-10-2009, 06:30 PM
Meh.

If Riewoldt was given a legitimate free kick because "it was there", then no-one will ever be charged with 'diving'. So why waste everyone's time talking about it!!! You shouldn't change the game unless there's a problem, so until the AFL or umpires department come out and say there's a problem (which they have NOT, and as they had the perfect opportunity to do, and as soccer has done) then it need not be addresseded. It's all moot and lipservice. Just what we need, another un-enforcible rule so they can give lipservice to the fans who are watching the game turn into crap.
Sockeye Salmon
13-10-2009, 06:50 PM
How about:

No
No
No
No
No
No
No and
No
EasternWest
13-10-2009, 06:53 PM
Meh.

If Riewoldt was given a legitimate free kick because "it was there", then no-one will ever be charged with 'diving'. So why waste everyone's time talking about it!!! You shouldn't change the game unless there's a problem, so until the AFL or umpires department come out and say there's a problem (which they have NOT, and as they had the perfect opportunity to do, and as soccer has done) then it need not be addresseded. It's all moot and lipservice. Just what we need, another un-enforcible rule so they can give lipservice to the fans who are watching the game turn into crap.

Bingo!
boydogs
13-10-2009, 07:10 PM
How about:

No
No
No
No
No
No
No and
No


2. Umpire Contact.
Are the current sanctions adequate?

4. Brownlow Eligibility.
Should a player who has not been suspended be deemed ineligible for the Brownlow Medal?

5. Misconduct for making unnecessary and unreasonable contact to the face.
Are the current sanctions appropriate?

I guess that means you want to make a change on points 2, 4 and 5 ;)
chef
13-10-2009, 07:13 PM
6. Sling Tackles. Should we deal more strictly with dangerous sling tackles?

Yes for me as I don't like these.
Sockeye Salmon
13-10-2009, 07:19 PM
I guess that means you want to make a change on points 2, 4 and 5 ;)

I never even read them properly, I just assumed that if the AFL wanted it, it must be bad so I'm against it. ;)
LostDoggy
13-10-2009, 07:48 PM
1. Misconduct Staging. Should players face a financial sanction for obvious staging?


Look out Brent Harvey!!!! ;)
hujsh
13-10-2009, 07:49 PM
1. Misconduct Staging. Should players face a financial sanction for obvious staging?


Look out Brent Harvey!!!! ;)

And Johnno:(
EasternWest
13-10-2009, 08:34 PM
And Joel Selwood. Even Hitler knows he ducks his head.
LostDoggy
13-10-2009, 08:54 PM
Even if they don't implement any new rules, it means that the umpires will interpret these points differently from now.
firstdogonthemoon
13-10-2009, 10:05 PM
And Joel Selwood. Even Hitler knows he ducks his head.

Funny :D
AndrewP6
13-10-2009, 11:52 PM
1. Misconduct Staging. Should players face a financial sanction for obvious staging?

2. Umpire Contact. The 2009 year saw 28 players charged for making Negligent/Reckless/ Intentional Contact with an Umpire. A number of players continue to set up behind the umpire. Are the current sanctions adequate?

3. Player prior Record. The maximum loading a player can receive for offences during the past three AFL years is capped at 50 per cent. Should a player who has been suspended for more than five matches in the previous three years, face a higher loading than 50 per cent?

4. Brownlow Eligibility. Is it appropriate however to permit players found guilty of offences worth 125 points (for which they could usually accept a reprimand with a guilty plea) to remain eligible for the Brownlow Medal? Should a player who has not been suspended be deemed ineligible for the Brownlow Medal?

5. Misconduct for making unnecessary and unreasonable contact to the face. Are the current sanctions appropriate?

[B]6. Sling Tackles. Should we deal more strictly with dangerous sling tackles?

7. Jury Members. Would it be more beneficial to have a regular panel of three (3) Jury Members each week where available or is the rotation system more appropriate?

8. Intra Club Matches. Should incidents from Intra Club Matches be dealt with under the AFL Tribunal System?

My responses, in order

1. Yes, and while we're at it, make the Saints pony up retrospectively - it'd fill the coffers instantly!
2. Yes - a fine is fine, if they must..
3. No - they've served their time.
4. No and yes..(there were two questions!). I reckon if the tribunal finds you guilty, you shouldn't be able to win a "Best and Fairest"... if you've been found to have committed an infringement that is reportable, you're not fairest.
5. Yes - let's not get too carried away.
6. No, just do it consistently!
7. Rotate them...don't know why, just seems the right option :)
8. No - the Kangaroo Court would be better. In our club's situation, put the offending player in the ring with Bazza. That'd sort 'em out!
LostDoggy
14-10-2009, 12:53 PM
Yes, the entire St Kilda football squad needs to look out for number 1 right there.
They were diving all over the shop during the GF.
LostDoggy
14-10-2009, 12:57 PM
Wait.

So when it actually did happen they said 'Riewoldt didn't dive, there's no problem there, what's all the fuss about'.

Then six weeks later they release a bloody novel detailing how they're going to deal with diving, when they went to great lengths to convince everyone it doesn't happen.

What the?
Go_Dogs
14-10-2009, 01:31 PM
The AFL has about no credibility left, and they give the intelligence of fans very little respect.

Massive back track, and very disappointing considering what we saw during finals. It would have been nice if they came out publicly and at least acknowledged it was an issue, rather than standing by their decisions and then doing this. The inequalities of the AFL and the playing favourites that continues to this very day, constantly astounds me.

I'd love for an honest audit of all their operations, decisions and statements. But, like them using common sense and fairness, it will never happen...
KT31
15-10-2009, 09:22 AM
And Joel Selwood. Even Hitler knows he ducks his head.

Good timing on the retirement Matty Loyd.
EasternWest
15-10-2009, 01:34 PM
:
Good timing on the retirement Matty Loyd.

At the pre-season game V Essendon an old Bombers fan had a go at me about Brad Johnson flopping (which I didn't deny, Johnno can over dramatise). I told him I can't take anyone seriously on that topic when they have LLoyd in their side. His response was "He doesn't do that any more". To which I replied, "True, but he doesn't do it any less." He was a bit miffed at that, but at least from that point on I got to watch the game in peace.:)
Doc26
16-10-2009, 07:22 PM
6. Sling Tackles. Should we deal more strictly with dangerous sling tackles?
[B]

Aker didn't even get a free kick awarded to him for Adcock's sling on him in the Qualifying Final. Aker was quote vocal post match about his views on Adcock's intent.
Doc26
16-10-2009, 07:26 PM
3. Player prior Record. The maximum loading a player can receive for offences during the past three AFL years is capped at 50 per cent. Should a player who has been suspended for more than five matches in the previous three years, face a higher loading than 50 per cent?
?

Will only support this one in 2 - 3 years time.