NORTH TANKING ALLOWED!!!

[Allefgib]

Hypothetical question, all right and wrong answers welcome:

If we knew the result of the Bulldogs-Brisbane game already, and the Bulldogs had won - making today's game the quintessential dead rubber - would you advocate resting a handful of stars today?

Yes.

 

[Allefgib]

The rules don't mention home ground advantage for finals. Perhaps they should?!

Yeah possibly.
My positron in all this had been what i think is important not the rules.
The rules just happen to support what north did.

 

[Deaneus!]

Hypothetical question, all right and wrong answers welcome:

If we knew the result of the Bulldogs-Brisbane game already, and the Bulldogs had won - making today's game the quintessential dead rubber - would you advocate resting a handful of stars today?

I would.

I should point out however my outrage isn't that North tested half their team - they should be able to play whomever they like - but that the AFL has a rule in place specifically forbidding it, but signed off on it anyway (as per my sig)

 

[Red mist]

Darren berry just let his true colors be shown as host on triple mmm. He thinks we should shut up because we didn't win enough games. someone should ask him does he mean the geelong game on july fifth.

That bloke is vile scum and a Victorian.

Playing the bad cop on that program. Then you've got KG and Jars to pump everything up and go over the top. Talk backs no good with no callers.

 

[dogs105]

Talk backs no good with callers

Talk backs no good

Talk backs good with no callers.

FTFY

 

[Slippery Pete]

Yes.

Agreed.

I'm glad we're not doing it today because of the risk - however unlikely it is - of egg on our faces if Brisbane win.

Doing it today would be tempting the footy gods just a little too much.

 

[Red mist]

FTFY

Is that you Rooch?

 

[dogs105]

Is that you Rooch?

Doesn't he love talkback?

 

[Thewlis Dish]

I would.

I should point out however my outrage isn't that North tested half their team - they should be able to play whomever they like - but that the AFL has a rule in place specifically forbidding it, but signed off on it anyway (as per my sig)

For us to have changed our ladder position or play you in Adelaide the first week, the following would have needed to happen:

1) Brisbane beat WB (unlikely given the first picks in the ND and PSD are at stake) and us win so you finish 5th
2) Us beat Richmond by 80-100 points to go above them, or 40-50 points to go over WB (in the event they lost)

In short, us losing to the Dogs almost completely eliminated any chance of us playing you in the first week.

Both pretty unlikely scenarios, especially given Richmond needed to win to ensure a home final and maybe even get to 4th in the event of a Sydney loss. Deliberately losing also brings a first up final against Sydney into play. The best case scenario for us was winning narrowly and you beating Geelong, so we would get WB first up at the MCG (assuming they beat Brisbane).

The AFL signed off on it because we presented a case that we were managing player injury/fatigue (we provided medical reports, although it's up to you to decide how "real" they were) and the AFL's rule on picking your strongest team specifically states that player fatigue/injury can be taken into account.

I can fully understand your frustration given it has likely cost you a home final, but the line between us managing player fitness and manipulating a finals draw is getting unfairly skewed a long way towards the latter. Does it suit the preferred narrative better?

 

[Red mist]

Doesn't he love talkback?

Nah he just likes talking without listening.

 

[Allefgib]

I would.

I should point out however my outrage isn't that North tested half their team - they should be able to play whomever they like - but that the AFL has a rule in place specifically forbidding it, but signed off on it anyway (as per my sig)

You're reading it wrong mate.
Not that i care about the semantics.

 

[Deaneus!]

The AFL signed off on it because we presented a case that we were managing player injury/fatigue (we provided medical reports, although it's up to you to decide how "real" they were) and the AFL's rule on picking your strongest team specifically states that player fatigue/injury can be taken into account.

Yup, and we look forward to VFL House interpreting that rule to suit their narrative, whatever their narrative may be, when it suits them.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Yup, and we look forward to VFL House interpreting that rule to suit their narrative, whatever their narrative may be, when it suits them.

I expect it will get changed next year.

 

[Allefgib]

For us to have changed our ladder position or play you in Adelaide the first week, the following would have needed to happen:

1) Brisbane beat WB (unlikely given the first picks in the ND and PSD are at stake) and us win so you finish 5th
2) Us beat Richmond by 80-100 points to go above them, or 40-50 points to go over WB (in the event they lost)

In short, us losing to the Dogs almost completely eliminated any chance of us playing you in the first week.

Both pretty unlikely scenarios, especially given Richmond needed to win to ensure a home final and maybe even get to 4th in the event of a Sydney loss. Deliberately losing also brings a first up final against Sydney into play. The best case scenario for us was winning narrowly and you beating Geelong, so we would get WB first up at the MCG (assuming they beat Brisbane).

The AFL signed off on it because we presented a case that we were managing player injury/fatigue (we provided medical reports, although it's up to you to decide how "real" they were) and the AFL's rule on picking your strongest team specifically states that player fatigue/injury can be taken into account.

I can fully understand your frustration given it has likely cost you a home final, but the line between us managing player fitness and manipulating a finals draw is getting unfairly skewed a long way towards the latter. Does it suit the preferred narrative better?

A million percent this.
Thank you for expressing it respectfully on our board.

 

[Stopher]

I'm not sure a couple of players getting accidental knocks in a contact sport like Australian Rules football means much, despite Scott claiming otherwise.

Him demanding apologies from people for daring to suggest that what actually did happen would happen, is one of the stupidest things I've heard.

Brad, ultimately you played within the rules set out by the league and achieved your desired result. No need to be a massive twat about it.

 

[Cap]

This kind of thread is even more embarrassing when the Crows turn up and play like they are.

Perhaps next year people can keep their knickers on till after the round finishes

 

[Mattrox]

This kind of thread is even more embarrassing when the Crows turn up and play like they are.

Perhaps next year people can keep their knickers on till after the round finishes

Doubt they would be blegh if last nights game wasn't a farce.

 

[Interloperer]

Are you saying they fielded their best side?

I'm saying there was no notable difference between this week and last week.

Are you saying that every club that talks about "managing" older players through a year should suffer harsh penalties? or maybe this is the end goal of the "AFL handing the premiership to Gold Coast/GWS" conspiracy after every other team is expelled for fielding weak teams against them in their early years?

 

[Allefgib]

Doubt they would be blegh if last nights game wasn't a farce.

Mate.... you are better than that. Where was norths incentive to play any different to how we are right now.

Our problem now is we need to get some confidence going again before next week.

 

[Slippery Pete]

This kind of thread is even more embarrassing when the Crows turn up and play like they are.

Perhaps next year people can keep their knickers on till after the round finishes

I bet Andrew Fagan wishes he could take back that shambolic media release now.

This is a valuable lesson for our club, and you heard it first from Slippery Pete.

If you want to not be a laughing stock of the competition, consult me about this s**t first. I won't even charge you my full rate.

P.S - what happened to all the traffic in this thread? Hello????!!!

 

[Interloperer]

Adelaide name an unchanged side despite players meriting dropping in the name of placing the speculative goal of "continuity going into the finals" ahead of the 4 points.

Sub out a moderately injured player before half time as a "precaution", weakening the side and forcing a more seriously injured player to play the full game.

Adelaide suffer a heavy defeat in a game they should have won.

I assume this subforum will be advocating a points penalty and Adelaide missing the finals?

 

[HenrikLundqvist]

Tanking against the cats to play away against the Bulldogs was a bold strategy for you guys. Let's see if it pays off.

 

[The Karma Bus]

Tanking against the cats to play away against the Bulldogs was a bold strategy for you guys. Let's see if it pays off.

Who are you playing next week?
Haven't checked the possible draw yet.

 

[Horace]

Just thought I'd mention that North will no doubt bow out next week.

But seems that last night's result meant nothing anyway. Right now the Lions are up by 16 against the Dogs and if they continue you could have a home final.

Wait, what was that result down at Skilled? Oh the Cats by 40 points?

Should have concentrated on winning your own game.

Never mind there is always next week.

 

[Dodecahedron]

Apologies will be accepted