News Tanking lid about to blow - Melbourne in the gun

[Turbocat]

Can someone define "Tanking" for me. Does a club tank when they leave a poor FB on a FF to teach him how to play. Or a kid on a gun mid? What about hard training to the detriment of your short term form.

Melb tried to arrange to win..long term. That they were incompetent while doing it say's a lot. One game they were trying to lose took a kick after the kick after the siren by Richmond to have the result happen.The AFL has a system of over rewarding teams for playing badly , they encouraged teams to play a certain way. Melb was only following the path that the AFL set in play. That the system was flawed shows how deluded so many "experts" were. Why reward a team that plays badly for one year , when a trying team who plays to its ability but fails to climb above 12th for multiple seasons gets little assistance. Why reward teams with kids that will probably take years to help turn a club around. Has Kruzer mad a huge impact at Carlton?

 

[manboob]

Match fixing is a federal offence.
The AFL have to abide by laws like everyone else.
The sports minister has the power to overrule what the AFL or Melbourne does if it breaks the law.
I hope they get punished the same way Carlton has in the past and the same way Adelaide will.
Just because they are a shocking side atm and the AFL want a more equal exciting comp shouldn't excuse anyone from breaking the law. The AFL needs to make a stand and set a precedent here, the government likewise.

Yup pages of legislation. If someone in the government is looking to go on a trip of the power kind it could end in a senate committee etc. Fun. Times. Ahead.

The AFL has a system of over rewarding teams for playing badly , they encouraged teams to play a certain way. Melb was only following the path that the AFL set in play. That the system was flawed shows how deluded so many "experts" were.

The AFL have brought this on themselves with the utter lack of transparency and ad-hoc-ery they engage in year in year out. Even just finding the rules on this was hard enough. Hopefully some heads will end up rolling at AFL house...

 

[FredLeDeux]

Match fixing is a federal offence.
The AFL have to abide by laws like everyone else.
The sports minister has the power to overrule what the AFL or Melbourne does if it breaks the law.
I hope they get punished the same way Carlton has in the past and the same way Adelaide will.
Just because they are a shocking side atm and the AFL want a more equal exciting comp shouldn't excuse anyone from breaking the law. The AFL needs to make a stand and set a precedent here, the government likewise.

Under what federal legislation is match-fixing illegal, just for my own interest?

OK- I'm sure it will be in here somewhere.
http://www.aflpa.com.au/images/uploads/AFL_Player_Rules_-_March_2011.pdf

Can't see anything express in there apart from the old catch-all 1.6 "conduct unbecoming" as mentioned above.

 

[manboob]

Under what federal legislation is match-fixing illegal, just for my own interest?

Can't see anything express in there apart from the old catch-all 1.6 "conduct unbecoming" as mentioned above.

Just goes to prove my point about how opaque everything the AFL does.

Re the law:
http://www.regional.gov.au/sport/programs/match_fixing.aspx

So I guess its up to individual states to enact? Looks like nothing at this stage. These things always seem to end up being solved using some other angle. Fraud, tax evasion etc etc

 

[Sttew]

At least we know for sure we'll never be part of tanking investigations. No bottom four finishes for quarter of a century!

And who knows - losing Ablett may have been a blessing as the temptation may have been to engage in some creative accounting to accommodate GAJ and the others.

 

[strauchnyy]

If it turns out that they did in fact tank, Melbourne might lose their pick 4 in this draft, which means our first pick moves to #15.. which increases our chance at Menzel or Stringer.

Hope the AFL comes down like a tone of bricks on Melb!

 

[Ikan Bodoh]

Find it difficult to believe Melbourne will be found guilty of anything given they would have won the game in question if Richmond had missed the shot for goal after the siren.

It would be much easier to prove they tanked if those weren't the circumstances.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Just goes to prove my point about how opaque everything the AFL does.

Re the law:
http://www.regional.gov.au/sport/programs/match_fixing.aspx

So I guess its up to individual states to enact? Looks like nothing at this stage. These things always seem to end up being solved using some other angle. Fraud, tax evasion etc etc

Yes, it will be up to each state to pass relevant legislation.
NSW has announced it's on its way, but I'm not aware of it hapening yet in Vic.
The term "match-fixing" is defined very widely and includes tanking.

 

[catempire]

Find it difficult to believe Melbourne will be found guilty of anything given they would have won the game in question if Richmond had missed the shot for goal after the siren.

It would be much easier to prove they tanked if those weren't the circumstances.

There was some ambiguity about whether it was just that match that was in question or a "cluster" of matches.

 

[Ikan Bodoh]

There was some ambiguity about whether it was just that match that was in question or a "cluster" of matches.

That's right but didn't it come down to that last match which if they won then they lost the priority pick?

If you were tanking in that instance, there is no way you would let it get that close to jeopardising the effort put into losing the earlier matches in the "cluster" when you are only one loss away from the result you are aiming for.

 

[catempire]

That's right but didn't it come down to that last match which if they won then they lost the priority pick?

If you were tanking in that instance, there is no way you would let it get that close to jeopardising the effort put into losing the earlier matches in the "cluster" when you are only one loss away from the result you are aiming for.

I reckon if you were being clever about it you would make it as far away from obvious as possible.

 

[Baudolino]

Why reward a team that plays badly for one year , when a trying team who plays to its ability but fails to climb above 12th for multiple seasons gets little assistance. Why reward teams with kids that will probably take years to help turn a club around. Has Kruzer mad a huge impact at Carlton?

I would hazard a guess that the answer to both these questions is that the AFL system of assigning draft picks by reverse ladder order, in combination with the salary cap and various other measures, has contributed to our sport having one of the most effective equalisation policies in world sport. Since the advent of these policies, every club bar the most recent expansion teams have competed in a preliminary final, and since the AFL begun in 1990 eleven different clubs have enjoyed a premiership. Not only does the system work, the degree to which it does work is almost without precedent worldwide. Rewarding failure in the form of draft picks is the best way to equailise and cultivate a league which has competitive depth.

If you wanted to take a different perspective, the "rewarding failure" statement could be inverted, and one could say that since the league rewards failure, ipso facto, it also punishes success. I prefer not to look at it that way; as much as the poorer clubs like to complain about getting poorer while the rich get richer, draft picks are a form of capital the AFL gives out on a yearly basis to the competitions struggling clubs. Every draft pick is a form of capital, so even if you're a club that finished high on the ladder and therefore do not have access to the higher draft picks, you're still gaining capital. There are variables involved of course, but generally speaking the better your draft pick is, the more likely you are to procure a quality player, and thus the more valuable an asset you will have in your hands.

Anyway, the AFL are being dishonest with themselves about tanking, as the premise of their argument - that tanking throws the game in to disrepute and compromises its integrity - is pointlessly hypocritical in its denial of the AFL-approved, institutionalised rewarding of failure via the draft system. If actively trying to gain access to better draft picks when you know you won't make finals is commensurate with disreputable conduct, then so is creating an incentive for clubs to do just that. And it is abundantly clear, as I said, that there exists an incentive - whether this incentive is a false incentive or not is a matter for debate, but largely irrelevant - to finish lower on the ladder and therefore receive greater compensation from the AFL from failing to make finals. The phrase "integrity of the game" is mostly used anachronistically in the context of tanking, as it usually refers to a simplistic, romantic notion of The Game as the coming together of two fierce combatants with their only objective being to beat their opposition. This flagrantly ignores the multi-faceted demands placed on clubs, players, coaches and administrators in the modern game, where expectations often differ week to week, and planning for long-term success is the norm.

I endorse an anti-tanking stance, but the AFL should eschew the self-righteous "it compromises the integrity of the game" rhetoric. There are obvious rewards, and logical reasons, for wanting to finish lower on the ladder if you know you can't make finals, and if the AFL properly acknowledged this, it would really help. Clubs are rightfully allowed to engage in list management throughout the season, compromising their ability to win home and away matches for the sake of finals preparation, so what we need is the AFL to give persuasive reasons as to why tanking (i.e. the deliberate loss of games for the purpose of obtaining draft picks) should be outlawed. Whether these reasons are financial (it drives away fans), legal (it could be construed as match-fixing), or some other miscellaneous reason, I don't mind, so long as we get something with a bit more substance than "tanking compromises the integrity of our game/teams should always be putting in the maximum at all times/winning the game on the weekend should always take priority over the medium- or long-term plan for success."

 

[Boxhead_31]

I would say rewarding teams for losing, and then charging them for trying to do so, is ridiculous.

Because the AFL never make rules up on the run that never make sense

 

[Boxhead_31]

Can someone define "Tanking" for me. Does a club tank when they leave a poor FB on a FF to teach him how to play. Or a kid on a gun mid? What about hard training to the detriment of your short term form.

Melb tried to arrange to win..long term. That they were incompetent while doing it say's a lot. One game they were trying to lose took a kick after the kick after the siren by Richmond to have the result happen.The AFL has a system of over rewarding teams for playing badly , they encouraged teams to play a certain way. Melb was only following the path that the AFL set in play. That the system was flawed shows how deluded so many "experts" were. Why reward a team that plays badly for one year , when a trying team who plays to its ability but fails to climb above 12th for multiple seasons gets little assistance. Why reward teams with kids that will probably take years to help turn a club around. Has Kruzer mad a huge impact at Carlton?

Think it would defined as a ruckman Paul Johnson playing on Nathan Brown out of the goal square as a fullback when James Frawley is playing forward pocket

 

[AM]

I would say rewarding teams for losing, and then charging them for trying to do so, is ridiculous.

Think the brainstrust at the AFL were a little slow on that one. Took awhile for them to alter the Special Assistance (Priority Picks).

 

[pinion]

good. glad there's finally evidence, rather than it just being bleedingly obvious for everyone except the AFL.

anyone in that infamous meeting should be banned for life

 

[thejester]

Where is the law?

I've never seen anything written that says a team must 'try' 100% to win every game.

Geelong doesn't try 100% to win every game.

Runners don't try 100% to win every race (heat) and that's fine. Badminton teams didn't try to win every match (heat) at the Olympics and were banned.

Surely the aim is the premiership and teams are able to do what they like within the rules to get there.

I don't disagree with your general sentiment SJ - tanking has always struck me as an extremely fuzzy term, particularly given there's never been any suggestion that the players aren't 100% committed to winning. But I think an entire football department colluding to lose brushes away that fuzziness - as others have said, that goes beyond tanking and into the realm of match fixing, which in turn renders AFL rules irrelevant: it's a crime. Still hard to believe Melbourne could have been so catastrophically stupid, though.

 

[Moggy]

...And it is abundantly clear, as I said, that there exists an incentive - whether this incentive is a false incentive or not is a matter for debate, but largely irrelevant - to finish lower on the ladder and therefore receive greater compensation from the AFL from failing to make finals....

I think this is a really important point. Behaviour will always align itself with the incentives, and the AFL control the incentives.

To give clubs incentives to finish as low as possible - if finals are out of reach - and then to punish them (much later on) for doing so, is a very lop-sided approach to balancing the incentives.

The end of the priority-pick is a step in the right direction, as would be allocating picks based on last 3 years, rather than last year.

I must admit, I find it hard to accept the "punish success" aspect of this arrangement, but maybe I am just getting greedy after the recent, unexpected windfall of premierships.

 

[Moggy]

Also, isn't match-fixing a red herring.

Match fixing is against federal law because it relates directly to gambling.

Tanking, IMO, is to lose games to get a better position in the draft.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Also, isn't match-fixing a red herring.

Match fixing is against federal law because it relates directly to gambling.

Tanking, IMO, is to lose games to get a better position in the draft.

Tanking could also be used (among other things) to manipulate ladder positions and, of course, for corrupt gambling.
Gambling is, of course, essentially a State responsibility.
All Australian governments have agreed to pass consistent laws to make match-fixing (which includes tanking) illegal, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Moggy]

Tanking could also be used (among other things) to manipulate ladder positions and, of course, for corrupt gambling.
Gambling is, of course, essentially a State responsibility.
All Australian governments have agreed to pass consistent laws to make match-fixing (which includes tanking) illegal, but it hasn't happened yet.

My point is that "tanking for draft picks" is of no interest to the State/Federal governments.

 

[Moggy]

Also, anything in the AFL Player Association rules, while relevant for individual players, is not something that can be used to punish the club - or at least, I would not think so.

 

[thejester]

My point is that "tanking for draft picks" is of no interest to the State/Federal governments.

The DPP and the AG would at least have to decide if there was a case to answer though. Even if the intention of the Dees coaching staff wasn't monetary gain, the implication should have been obvious to them. Committing a crime is committing a crime.

 

[Moggy]

The DPP and the AG would at least have to decide if there was a case to answer though. Even if the intention of the Dees coaching staff wasn't monetary gain, the implication should have been obvious to them. Committing a crime is committing a crime.

Sure, but that is separate from the AFL's investigation and subsequent punishment, if any.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Also, anything in the AFL Player Association rules, while relevant for individual players, is not something that can be used to punish the club - or at least, I would not think so.

The title "Player Rules" is misleading; extensive parts apply to clubs and officials as well, including 1.6.

My point is that "tanking for draft picks" is of no interest to the State/Federal governments.

Yes, agreed. Unless and until some busybody decides to stick his nose into somebody else's business - unlikely though.