The Bulldogs and Umpires: Time for a Royal Commission?

Remove this Banner Ad

conrad_437 said:
Don't be disingenuine. The Melbourne Football Club was found not guilty of tanking, but the AFL did find Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly guilty of "acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the competition".

I'm sure (hope) you're smart enough to recognise that this is essentially a roundabout way of saying that the club essentially set out to lose games, i.e. tanking. It is also suggested by people a lot more involved with this saga than I am that the club was not sanctioned heavily (or at all) with draft picks and other penalties in an effort to ensure the club would survive, so poor was their on-and-off-field performances.

Yeah bro I believe you, the Dees didn't tank.
Click to expand...

Melbourne were one of the worst clubs in the history of the game and you're comparing us getting a priority pick to the dogs a priority pick who were a finals contending team?

Melbourne deserved that priority pick 100 times more than the dogs deserved Ugle-Hagan. I think we would've got the priority pick anyway.

Yeah Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly were found guilty of sending injured players off for season ending surgery and experimenting with positions during a time that there was no incentive to win. Every club in our position would (and did) do the same thing for many years before us. It was nothing new. This is why we were found NOT GUILTY of tanking. You can't argue with the official findings.
 
danster168 said:
Melbourne were one of the worst clubs in the history of the game and you're comparing us getting a priority pick to the dogs a priority pick who were a finals contending team?

Melbourne deserved that priority pick 100 times more than the dogs deserved Ugle-Hagan. I think we would've got the priority pick anyway.

Yeah Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly were found guilty of sending injured players off for season ending surgery and experimenting with positions during a time that there was no incentive to win. Every club in our position would (and did) do the same thing for many years before us. It was nothing new. This is why we were found NOT GUILTY of tanking. You can't argue with the official findings.
Click to expand...
Right. So now it's convenient for you to take the AFL at its word.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

conrad_437 said:
Don't be disingenuine. The Melbourne Football Club was found not guilty of tanking, but the AFL did find Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly guilty of "acting in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the competition".

I'm sure (hope) you're smart enough to recognise that this is essentially a roundabout way of saying that the club essentially set out to lose games, i.e. tanking. It is also suggested by people a lot more involved with this saga than I am that the club was not sanctioned heavily (or at all) with draft picks and other penalties in an effort to ensure the club would survive, so poor was their on-and-off-field performances.

Yeah bro I believe you, the Dees didn't tank.
Click to expand...

You're just lucky there was no WADA ... ooga booga ... of tanking to come in over the top.
 
danster168 said:
And now you're not?
Click to expand...
I honestly couldn't care less about Melbourne's tanking scandal. Just funny how you continually bang on about how corrupt the AFL is but hold up the AFL's word as the gospel (despite, y'know, still finding the head coach and the general manager guilty of the same thing*) when it concerns you.


*Let's not pretend it isn't.
 
conrad_437 said:
I honestly couldn't care less about Melbourne's tanking scandal. Just funny how you continually bang on about how corrupt the AFL is but hold up the AFL's word as the gospel (despite, y'know, still finding the head coach and the general manager guilty of the same thing*) when it concerns you.


*Let's not pretend it isn't.
Click to expand...

Well my opinion is that bottom teams should go into a lottery for priority picks every year. It takes way too long for bottom teams to improve. Not everyone gets 1/3 of their lift from father/sons. Would anyone really object to North Melbourne being given multiple priority picks for example.
 
danster168 said:
Well my opinion is that bottom teams should go into a lottery for priority picks every year. It takes way too long for bottom teams to improve. Not everyone gets 1/3 of their lift from father/sons. Would anyone really object to North Melbourne being given multiple priority picks for example.
Click to expand...
Right. Well that's completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having but anyway, I'll take it that this segue as a sign that you've realised how stupid your suggestion of corruption was.
 
conrad_437 said:
Right. Well that's completely irrelevant to the discussion we were having but anyway, I'll take it that this segue as a sign that you've realised how stupid your suggestion of corruption was.
Click to expand...
Huh? I think it's pretty clear that there is corruption mate. I've pointed out not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 reasons why it exists. I've given you examples of umpiring decisions that aren't just one-sided but are pulled literally out of thin air. Not to mention the Ugle-hagan decision. Your feeble arguments of 'you can't make decisions within the year' I pulled apart like my dees pulled your mob apart in the GF. Not to mention that corruption can stem from commercial sponsors and partnerships but you failed to address that either. Very convenient.

I think the reason why you are so defensive about this is because deep down you know that once you strip away the umpiring and afl corruption, there's really nothing impressive about the dogs and my prediction of a Dees GF win by 50+ was correct. And yours wasn't. So you misread your list which means you can misread what's going on here.
 
danster168 said:
Huh? I think it's pretty clear that there is corruption mate. I've pointed out not 1, not 2, not 3 but 4 reasons why it exists. I've given you examples of umpiring decisions that aren't just one-sided but are pulled literally out of thin air. Not to mention the Ugle-hagan decision. Y...
Click to expand...
Can you point me to the posts where you've pointed out your 4 reasons why corruption exists ? Just their numbers, no need to repeat. I've been back to page 68 but can't find any.
 
O Grobbecker said:
Whichever is the more convenient to you and thankyou.
Click to expand...
well I think the 4 points I mentioned were (1) the afl not changing the NGA rules until after Ugle-Hagan. (2) The free kick differential which was about 3 standard deviations above the mean (3) Specifically, the Essendon final where Flopman was gifted about 3 goals that simply weren't there and (4) the afl refusing the change the father son rule which has kept the dogs relevant for 10 years. It wouldn't surprise me if they altered the Father son rule as early as next year now that the dogs have got their last cash in with Darcy further disadvantaging other clubs like how they changed the NGA rules. I think there was also a 5th point where I stated the Bontempelli was a protected species. This was evident in one decision. The 'dangerous tackle' that was awarded against Mason Redman despite it being a clear holding the ball. It showcased the afl's bias in one decision.

Even in the grand final, the umps tried hard to keep the dogs in it with some centre clearances like the one in my profile pic as well as one for Libba. Not to mention the high tackle on Hunter that was awarded but not the identical one on Pickett. Throw in the hands in the back for the johannison mark.

Anyway, we had the last laugh.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

danster168 said:
well I think the 4 points I mentioned were (1) the afl not changing the NGA rules until after Ugle-Hagan. (2) The free kick differential which was about 3 standard deviations above the mean (3) Specifically, the Essendon final where Flopman was gifted about 3 goals that simply weren't there and (4) the afl refusing the change the father son rule which has kept the dogs relevant for 10 years. It wouldn't surprise me if they altered the Father son rule as early as next year now that the dogs have got their last cash in with Darcy further disadvantaging other clubs like how they changed the NGA rules. I think there was also a 5th point where I stated the Bontempelli was a protected species. This was evident in one decision. The 'dangerous tackle' that was awarded against Mason Redman despite it being a clear holding the ball. It showcased the afl's bias in one decision.

Even in the grand final, the umps tried hard to keep the dogs in it with some centre clearances like the one in my profile pic as well as one for Libba. Not to mention the high tackle on Hunter that was awarded but not the identical one on Pickett. Throw in the hands in the back for the johannison mark.

Anyway, we had the last laugh.
Click to expand...
You’ve convinced me. There is a clear bias and conspiracy by the AFL. Anybody know a club that I can support now?
 
danster168 said:
well I think the 4 points I mentioned were (1) the afl ,,,n

Anyway, we had the last laugh.
Click to expand...
Thankyou. I'm sure that your 2 & 3 have been debated fiercely. To secure Ugle-Hagan, the Club had to weaken its trade and draft positions to raise points, just like other clubs have to. The AFL tinkers with those sorts of rules to try and equalise the competition, after 2020, it saw fit to tinker again. It's a long shot to think that it delayed for the advantage of a specific club. Similarly with the Father-Son rules. The club that most benefitted was Geelong, back then there was no matching offers etc so Hawkins, a natural top 3 pick, cost Geelong a pick 41, enabling it to pick up Selwood at 7. Under present rules, it would never have got both. The Club goes out of its way to cultivate the father-son relationships by inviting the boys to train etc and keeps an eye on them. That's good administration.

Do you have any real evidence of corruption ? You'd think that if the AFL pressured umpires, there'd be too many involved to keep it quiet. If someone was looking after the 'dogs, don't you think there'd be a leak ? The AFL isn't run as well as it would like you to think and leaks to the press are hardly uncommon.

Do you think that the recent announced holding the ball interpretation is a reaction to Petracca's takle breaking technique ?
 
O Grobbecker said:
Thankyou. I'm sure that your 2 & 3 have been debated fiercely. To secure Ugle-Hagan, the Club had to weaken its trade and draft positions to raise points, just like other clubs have to. The AFL tinkers with those sorts of rules to try and equalise the competition, after 2020, it saw fit to tinker again. It's a long shot to think that it delayed for the advantage of a specific club. Similarly with the Father-Son rules. The club that most benefitted was Geelong, back then there was no matching offers etc so Hawkins, a natural top 3 pick, cost Geelong a pick 41, enabling it to pick up Selwood at 7. Under present rules, it would never have got both. The Club goes out of its way to cultivate the father-son relationships by inviting the boys to train etc and keeps an eye on them. That's good administration.

Do you have any real evidence of corruption ? You'd think that if the AFL pressured umpires, there'd be too many involved to keep it quiet. If someone was looking after the 'dogs, don't you think there'd be a leak ? The AFL isn't run as well as it would like you to think and leaks to the press are hardly uncommon.

Do you think that the recent announced holding the ball interpretation is a reaction to Petracca's takle breaking technique ?
Click to expand...

Every club invites the father/son boys to train and places a large emphasis on it. Such is the advantage of getting a father/son in the door.

To secure Ugle-Hagan you had to trade later picks, but essentially you went from having a late first round pick to pick 1 as a team who came 2nd the previous year. 'Trading down' as you say but it doesn't come close to what the true value of draft pick 1 is. If we're being serious, pick 1 is probably worth 3 mid-round first rounders. That's what should be offered for it to be 'fair'. No difference to clubs offering 3 first rounders to North for Horne-Francis in the recent trade period.

It's a completely disgrace that the afl changed the rules AFTER the Ugle-Hagan draft when they would have known ahead of time that he was going to be a top pick. Then you throw into the mix that melbourne had the rights to Mac Andrew and probably had more involvement in his development than the dogs did with Ugle-Hagan but due to the unjust nature of the dogs getting Ugle-Hagan, they changed the rules and prevented Melbourne from getting Mac Andrew which compounded the advantage that the dogs got.

Yes, I agree that Geelong has also been a major beneficiary of the F/s. Not just the dogs. And that's why I've always had an asterisk in my mind in what Geelong have achieved over the years because they did so by getting Scarlett, Ablett, Hawkins and many others for free.

People try and mention Melbourne's tanking as some sort of feeble comeback but my personal view is that tanking or not tanking, we were one of the worst clubs in modern history and needed every single pick given to us just to get us to being average.

I think the recent holding the ball interpretation is silly. It's just going to stop our inside bulls from shaking tackles. I would've much preferred them address ducking/diving/leading with the head. And I would issue 1 match bans for anyone that excessively plays for frees to stamp it out of the game.
 
danster168 said:
Every club invites the father/son boys to train and places a large emphasis on it. Such is the advantage of getting a father/son in the door.

To secure Ugle-Hagan you had to trade later picks, but essentially you went from having a late first round pick to pick 1 as a team who came 2nd the previous year. 'Trading down' as you say but it doesn't come close to what the true value of draft pick 1 is. If we're being serious, pick 1 is probably worth 3 mid-round first rounders. That's what should be offered for it to be 'fair'. No difference to clubs offering 3 first rounders to North for Horne-Francis in the recent trade period.

It's a completely disgrace that the afl changed the rules AFTER the Ugle-Hagan draft when they would have known ahead of time that he was going to be a top pick. Then you throw into the mix that melbourne had the rights to Mac Andrew and probably had more involvement in his development than the dogs did with Ugle-Hagan but due to the unjust nature of the dogs getting Ugle-Hagan, they changed the rules and prevented Melbourne from getting Mac Andrew which compounded the advantage that the dogs got.

Y...
Click to expand...
Do you have anything that tips the Ugle-Hagan situation from being a stroke of good fortune of being at the right place at the right time to being a cynical, unfair favouritism to the extent of corruption ? Why is it that your allegation is limited to the pages of Bigfooty ?
 
O Grobbecker said:
Do you have anything that tips the Ugle-Hagan situation from being a stroke of good fortune of being at the right place at the right time to being a cynical, unfair favouritism to the extent of corruption ? Why is it that your allegation is limited to the pages of Bigfooty ?
Click to expand...

It's common sense. Think about it. They changed the rules because the AFL knew it was an unfair advantage. That is a fact. They would have also known that Ugle-Hagan was going to be a top pick at least one year out from the draft based on recruiters/scouting reports/common knowledge. That is a fact. But they decided to wait until after the selection was made to change the rules. Fact. These are all facts that can't be argued.
 
O Grobbecker said:
Do you have anything that tips the Ugle-Hagan situation from being a stroke of good fortune of being at the right place at the right time to being a cynical, unfair favouritism to the extent of corruption ? Why is it that your allegation is limited to the pages of Bigfooty ?
Click to expand...
He really doesn’t
 
Dansters melts are legendary over a kid who's played 5 games. Looking forward to them when Jamarra hits his prime along side Naughton and Father/Son recruit Darcy in an unstoppable forward line.
 
danster168 said:
It's common sense. Think about it. They changed the rules because the AFL knew it was an unfair advantage. That is a fact. They would have also known that Ugle-Hagan was going to be a top pick at least one year out from the draft based on recruiters/scouting reports/common knowledge. That is a fact. But they decided to wait until after the selection was made to change the rules. Fact. These are all facts that can't be argued.
Click to expand...
Thankyou, danster168. I see your logic but remain uncertain what to make of silence from an organisation that ordinarily leaks like a sieve.
 
brmi said:
Dansters melts are legendary over a kid who's played 5 games. Looking forward to them when Jamarra hits his prime along side Naughton and Father/Son recruit Darcy in an unstoppable forward line.
Click to expand...

it's extraordinary, isn't it, for decades we'd have mortgaged the Town Hall for a tall forward, now we end up with potentially 3 with 2 GF finals appearances and a Flag since 2016.
 
brmi said:
Dansters melts are legendary over a kid who's played 5 games. Looking forward to them when Jamarra hits his prime along side Naughton and Father/Son recruit Darcy in an unstoppable forward line.
Click to expand...
huh? And horne-Francis has played 0. what's your point? Doesn't mean they aren't a hot commodity. Horne Francis is worth 3 first rounders (That's what clubs were offering North).

Yeah, and you'll have a massive asterisk next to your results. A forward line made up of father sons and nga products. Great drafting. And you'll probably have Hunter and Mitch Wallis crumbing at their feet too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Obeanie1
Umpiring Whats with umpires not knowing or forgetting the rules of the game?
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
Hoops
Hoops
G
Umpire Integrity and Game Outcomes.
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
RedV3x
RedV3x
Mr Meeseeks
Umpiring Easter Monday 2024 Cats v Hawks Umpire Chat
2
Replies
25
Views
773
Footy_Fan2007
Footy_Fan2007
MYOB
Grand Final Umpires
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
5K
Chronz
Chronz
PieLebo87
Can umpires force specific defenders to go on the mark?
Replies
1
Views
429
Simche
S
Cleric
Time to change the tackling rules
Replies
12
Views
1K
RedV3x
RedV3x
G
Umpiring
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Mitchell Madness
Mitchell Madness

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top