AFL "integrity rule" re Freo and North resting players

[Stopher]

Speaking of the AFL and 'integrity'....

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...-league-decision/story-fnelctok-1227506070493

So a team doing what it believes is best to win the PREMIERSHIP is having its integrity questioned by the AFL's very own flog journo Barrett. Yet here we have even more conflicts of interest involving AFL campaigner big wigs.

Care to comment, Damo?

 

[estibador]

Speaking of the AFL and 'integrity'....

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...-league-decision/story-fnelctok-1227506070493

So a team doing what it believes is best to win the PREMIERSHIP is having its integrity questioned by the AFL's very own flog journo Barrett. Yet here we have even more conflicts of interest involving AFL campaigner big wigs.

Care to comment, Damo?

The AFL are starting to give FIFA a run for their money for shadyness. Or are they past that into WWE territory already?

 

[wormburner67]

Even if this decision DID affected other teams finals aspirations, would that matter?

Firstly we've earned that right as minor premiers.
Secondly if you're in a position where this call will affect you then you probably won't make it anyway!

Either or I think RTB has the right to rest who he bloody well wants...

 

[SSwans2011]

Don't see the problem with it. It's purely tactics.

 

[tunksy]

freo are minor premiers and winning the cup is their goal. no issue with them resting players, they earnt that advantage by winning enough games so that they could

 

[StingBitten]

How is this even a debate?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Ross Lyon should be allowed to pick whatever side he likes. His job is to give his side the best possible chance of winning the flag, not pander to the AFL and associated betting agencies. If he believes that resting a heap of players is in the best interests of his team then that is his call.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

How is this even a debate?

Because the deadshits at AFL House just have to be involved in everything.

 

[estibador]

Because the deadshits at AFL House just have to be involved in everything.

Seems to be more the AFL journos trying to create the news as usual rather than report it.

Has the AFL even said anything this time? Their rule pretty clearly says you can mass rest for the purposes of managing fatigue, they only really rewrote it to tighten it up so teams wouldn't try doing it to influence their ladder position.

 

[Aussie in exile]

Integrity is a word that the AFL use a lot.
Whether they know the meaning of the word is a different matter. I have my doubts.

 

[Kwality]

Absolutely and top premier league clubs play 50-60 games per season across four competitions.

so what? My croquet squad play 50-60 too.

 

[The 747]

AFL integrity lol. Freo should be free to pick whatever side they like.

 

[BloodRet]

I don't think it's a great look but hey go for it

 

[WowWeee]

Listening to Barrett was unbearable, what an absolute fking idiot. Resting players an 'ugly look'

Freo can rest their whole starting 22 if they want, it's their call and not some s**t idiot Journo or AFL head honcho. They're first on the ladder and have finals in mind. Not the same as a club trying to lose on purpose so they can gain a better pick.

 

[D-N-R]

Whilst the result of this game won't affect the 8, this kind of tactic could easily have an effect on a team's position in the 8 in the future. You can't simply apply this rule when you feel like it. Either it is allowed with all the possible repercussions or it isn't.

Personally, I'm against it purely on the 'what-if' factor. When a team gets bumped from the eight or the top four, or loses home advantage because another team has let themselves get flogged, then people will be asking questions.

 

[telsor]

But that has nothing to do with Freo, and should have absolutely no impact on what their selectors decide to do to prepare themselves for a run a the flag.

But it should impact the AFL's decision on if it's allowed.

 

[wormburner67]

Whilst the result of this game won't affect the 8, this kind of tactic could easily have an effect on a team's position in the 8 in the future. You can't simply apply this rule when you feel like it. Either it is allowed with all the possible repercussions or it isn't.

Personally, I'm against it purely on the 'what-if' factor. When a team gets bumped from the eight or the top four, or loses home advantage because another team has let themselves get flogged, then people will be asking questions.

If your in that position you shouldn't be there!!

 

[Cory]

They earned the right, who cares? slow news day

 

[calaisking]

Listening to Barrett was unbearable, what an absolute fking idiot. Resting players an 'ugly look'

Freo can rest their whole starting 22 if they want, it's their call and not some s**t idiot Journo or AFL head honcho. They're first on the ladder and have finals in mind. Not the same as a club trying to lose on purpose so they can gain a better pick.

Yeah what a flog. Imagine if you've played every game of the season, playing in a game which has no ramifications what so ever and you get injured one week out of finals.

To me that's an ugly look.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Whilst the result of this game won't affect the 8, this kind of tactic could easily have an effect on a team's position in the 8 in the future. You can't simply apply this rule when you feel like it. Either it is allowed with all the possible repercussions or it isn't.

Personally, I'm against it purely on the 'what-if' factor. When a team gets bumped from the eight or the top four, or loses home advantage because another team has let themselves get flogged, then people will be asking questions.

that situation is unlucky. but better that than a league where the coach of football sides takes his directions from the AFL about which players he's allowed start.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

But it should impact the AFL's decision on if it's allowed.

But the AFL doesnt really have a leg to stand on given the inequalities of the draw.
Some teams get to play Brisbane and/or Carlton twice this year. In the expansion years, some teams got to play GC and/or GWS twice, and some didnt.

Who would you rather play? Freos "B" team, or Carlton? Or an expansion GC/GWS team? The fact thats theres a possible argument there, means that there is no basis that Port is particularly advantaged by this. In fact Port would probably rather play Freos usual lineup just playing at 80% coz all they are thinking about is staying healthy for finals.

 

[master bate]

If the AFL didn't allow it then they would be deliberately forcing Freo to play players against their wishes and harming Freo's chances of winning the flag.

In other words they'd be stuffing with the integrity of the competition by hurting Freo.

Personally I think we should move to a final 10, with a wildcard weekend of 7v10, 8v9 and then straight in to 3 weeks of elimination finals. As the top 6 would get a week off they wouldn't have any desire to rest players and almost every other team would be fighting for a top 6 spot or top 10 spot anyway. 10 is too many for finals but the bottom 4 are likely knocked out after the first 2 weeks anyway and the top 6 all have a pretty even shot at a flag.

 

[Tbonefreo]

ross better hope it works ut for him this time

Clubs including freo might suddenly tire of hs methods

All it says to me is ross isnt confident his team can compete in two games in a row against top opposition.

Theres no week off between PF and GF

What? Nah man no way. Not only is travel a serious factor in the rest, we also have the oldest list in the league. I doubt Ken Hinkley would spit out his latte at the news

 

[D-N-R]

If your in that position you shouldn't be there!!

If a team drops a position on percentage and loses a home final just because another team has thrown a game and gets belted, there will be hell to pay.

Throwing a game because your position in the top eight is secure is no different than throwing a game because your position in the bottom 10 is secure. If a bottom 10 team made 15 changes to the final game which allowed a team in the top 8 to change a position they probably wouldn't have, then that affects the integrity of the competition.

 

[Spoken4]

Whilst the result of this game won't affect the 8, this kind of tactic could easily have an effect on a team's position in the 8 in the future. You can't simply apply this rule when you feel like it. Either it is allowed with all the possible repercussions or it isn't.

Personally, I'm against it purely on the 'what-if' factor. When a team gets bumped from the eight or the top four, or loses home advantage because another team has let themselves get flogged, then people will be asking questions.

You have two options, both of which will culminate in the same outcome. Either you have transparency as with the approach that Fremantle is taking by putting the issue on the table and sending over a team with a large number of junior players who will still want to perform to make the most of the opportunity they have been given. Or you have coaches taking in their existing side but "resting" all of their key players within the game by playing them out of position, reducing their game time, slowing down the tempo, eliminating the 1%, being second to the ball and minimising overall team effort. Which would you rather?