Autopsy AFL 2023 Round 17 - Tigers v Swans Thurs July 6th 7:20pm AEST (MCG)

[Mattttty]

Am just a little cynical, more than conspiracy minded.

We still have to see if Nank receives a suspension.

Call it cynicism if you like but saying that it's "Open season on concussing Swans players" is 100% conspiracy thinking. It suggests there's some group or individuals who are conspiring in a consistent and/or coordinated way to ensure your players don't get a fair run when iy comes to tribunal decisions. It's not based in reality as proven by this result and predicted by everyone on here but you. Again, no harm done but when they see evidence that doesn't match their theory, a wise person changes their theory.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Call it cynicism if you like but saying that it's "Open season on concussing Swans players" is 100% conspiracy thinking. It suggests there's some group or individuals who are conspiring in a consistent and/or coordinated way to ensure your players don't get a fair run when iy comes to tribunal decisions. It's not based in reality as proven by this result and predicted by everyone on here but you. Again, no harm done but when they see evidence that doesn't match their theory, a wise person changes their theory.

Waiting on the result.

 

[SC_Power]

Call it cynicism if you like but saying that it's "Open season on concussing Swans players" is 100% conspiracy thinking. It suggests there's some group or individuals who are conspiring in a consistent and/or coordinated way to ensure your players don't get a fair run when iy comes to tribunal decisions. It's not based in reality as proven by this result and predicted by everyone on here but you. Again, no harm done but when they see evidence that doesn't match their theory, a wise person changes their theory.

I’d actually be interested in a tribunal decision fairness index.

Because for a stats rich AFL where I can find out whether there’s more goals kicked with single loop shoe lace ties or double loop, I can’t find any consolidated history on tribunal decisions at all.

 

[dean33]

Based on the precedent of degooey getting 3 it can’t be anymore than that.
2 of those games being eagles and hawthorn not to bad however missing him against Melbourne and Grundy and Gawn is a big blow.

 

[Mattttty]

I’d actually be interested in a tribunal decision fairness index.

Because for a stats rich AFL where I can find out whether there’s more goals kicked with single loop shoe lace ties or double loop, I can’t find any consolidated history on tribunal decisions at all.

Sure, that'd be interesting. It might help clear up conversations like this one. Meanwhile, in the absence of those stats, I'm looking at the fact that fans from every. single. club. think that their team is unfairly treated by the umpires and the tribunal. Go over to the Richmond board, they think they're targeted. Head to Collingwood, a bunch of them reckon they're hard done by. And on and on through all teams. Same with fans of my team. Same with this Swans guy here. You know what that tells me: it's probably bullsh*t. Of course sometimes poor decisions get made. AFL may well be the hardest game in the world to umpire (so many discretionary calls in such a dynamic and fast-paced game). And no doubt sometimes tribunal outcomes don't feel 100% consistent. Again, that's to be expected. It's a pretty subtle and challenging task they've got. But the idea that there's some kind of inherent bias towards players of a certain team is much more likely the fabrication of biased and fanatical supporters who see the game through their own lens and for whom every piece of contrary evidence is ignored and every comfirming piece is proof they are right.

 

[captain blood 17]

Am just a little cynical, more than conspiracy minded.

We still have to see if Nank receives a suspension.

Dude, bookmark it. 4 weeks and he deserves it for such a dumb act.

 

[captain blood 17]

Good grief, i am convinced Richmond supporters may be dumber than Collingwood fans!

Spend 10 minutes on the Geelong board and you'll soon realise there's a supporter base far, far more stupider than those two clubs supporter groups.

GO CATTERS

 

[_tigdog_]

Sure, that'd be interesting. It might help clear up conversations like this one. Meanwhile, in the absence of those stats, I'm looking at the fact that fans from every. single. club. think that their team is unfairly treated by the umpires and the tribunal. Go over to the Richmond board, they think they're targeted. Head to Collingwood, a bunch of them reckon they're hard done by. And on and on through all teams. Same with fans of my team. Same with this Swans guy here. You know what that tells me: it's probably bullsh*t. Of course sometimes poor decisions get made. AFL may well be the hardest game in the world to umpire (so many discretionary calls in such a dynamic and fast-paced game). And no doubt sometimes tribunal outcomes don't feel 100% consistent. Again, that's to be expected. It's a pretty subtle and challenging task they've got. But the idea that there's some kind of inherent bias towards players of a certain team is much more likely the fabrication of biased and fanatical supporters who see the game through their own lens and for whom every piece of contrary evidence is ignored and every comfirming piece is proof they are right.

Agree with your sentiments re supporter bias on umps/tribunal etc. Deep down we all know emotion blurs reality.

I'm interested in your thoughts on Danks time at Geelong having such grounded morals and beliefs. The evidence he was supplying peptides to players doesn't apply to Geelong I suppose?

 

[Mattttty]

Agree with your sentiments re supporter bias on umps/tribunal etc. Deep down we all know emotion blurs reality.

I'm interested in your thoughts on Danks time at Geelong having such grounded morals and beliefs. The evidence he was supplying peptides to players doesn't apply to Geelong I suppose?

Sorry you might have to fill me in on the story. Who is Dank?

 

[Mattttty]

Sorry you might have to fill me in on the story. Who is Dank?

Just looked it up. I'm obviously not a good person to ask about that one, since I didn't even know his name

 

[SC_Power]

Sure, that'd be interesting. It might help clear up conversations like this one. Meanwhile, in the absence of those stats, I'm looking at the fact that fans from every. single. club. think that their team is unfairly treated by the umpires and the tribunal. Go over to the Richmond board, they think they're targeted. Head to Collingwood, a bunch of them reckon they're hard done by. And on and on through all teams. Same with fans of my team. Same with this Swans guy here. You know what that tells me: it's probably bullsh*t. Of course sometimes poor decisions get made. AFL may well be the hardest game in the world to umpire (so many discretionary calls in such a dynamic and fast-paced game). And no doubt sometimes tribunal outcomes don't feel 100% consistent. Again, that's to be expected. It's a pretty subtle and challenging task they've got. But the idea that there's some kind of inherent bias towards players of a certain team is much more likely the fabrication of biased and fanatical supporters who see the game through their own lens and for whom every piece of contrary evidence is ignored and every comfirming piece is proof they are right.

I agree with everything you’ve said, only that stating a fact comprising of everyone’s opinions doesn’t mean a lot to me, and hence dismissing opinions as bulls**t because everyone has opinions isn’t a great outcome.

 

[Mattttty]

I agree with everything you’ve said, only that stating a fact comprising of everyone’s opinions doesn’t mean a lot to me, and hence dismissing opinions as bulls**t because everyone has opinions isn’t a great outcome.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your sentence. I'm really just saying that everyone thinks their own team is biased against. And that that can't possibly be true. People are allowed to have opinions. But when they all contradict each other, they can't all be right.

 

[SC_Power]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your sentence. I'm really just saying that everyone thinks their own team is biased against. And that that can't possibly be true. People are allowed to have opinions. But when they all contradict each other, they can't all be right.

correct, so having some facts to be able to sort through the bullsh*t opinions is needed.
And the AFL won’t supply them.

Other sports have done so. Can prove that in the NBA, star player get the benefit of 50 50 calls. Can show that in the MLB, the strike zone widens or narrows based on the strike count in the same at bat, and that pitchers/ batters prefer different umpires based on that.
Would love to be able to show items like that for the AFL.
In the absence of facts, we have… opinions. Which as we know are like a-holes, we all have them, and they're usually full of sh*t.

 

[Mattttty]

correct, so having some facts to be able to sort through the bullsh*t opinions is needed.
And the AFL won’t supply them.

Other sports have done so. Can prove that in the NBA, star player get the benefit of 50 50 calls. Can show that in the MLB, the strike zone widens or narrows based on the strike count in the same at bat, and that pitchers/ batters prefer different umpires based on that.
Would love to be able to show items like that for the AFL.
In the absence of facts, we have… opinions. Which as we know are like a-holes, we all have them, and they're usually full of sh*t.

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, that makes sense. It'd certainly be interesting to have those stats. Sounds like they could help to ensure as much consistency and fairness as possible, which is always a good thing - and might silence some of those opinions, too.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Based on the precedent of degooey getting 3 it can’t be anymore than that.
2 of those games being eagles and hawthorn not to bad however missing him against Melbourne and Grundy and Gawn is a big blow.

Yeah, unfortunately for Nank it's almost identical if you watch them against each other.

I think he'll probably get three weeks like DeGoey.

 

[nut]

Bolton missing

Most overrated player in the game by a mile

Lmao Bolton

Bolton with one of the most pathetic decisions and execution of the season.

Bolton pulled one of the biggest scams going.

Played like a top 5 player in the league during a contract year. Got a big contract from the tigers and is now a spud.

Credit to him.

LMAO … these comments aged well.

Coaches' votes, R17: Brilliant Bolton best

Shai Bolton earned maximum votes in the AFL Coaches Association’s Champion Player of the Year Award voting for Round 17.

www.richmondfc.com.au

 

[CrowToon]

LMAO … these comments aged well.

Coaches' votes, R17: Brilliant Bolton best

Shai Bolton earned maximum votes in the AFL Coaches Association’s Champion Player of the Year Award voting for Round 17.

www.richmondfc.com.au

What? I referred to a single instance within a game. Getting coaches votes doesn't mean you can't make errors. Bolton had a good game. I think you need to think things through before firing.

 

[nut]

What? I referred to a single instance within a game. Getting coaches votes doesn't mean you can't make errors. Bolton had a good game. I think you need to think things through before firing.

All good ..

Maybe take your own advice before firing …

 

[TheUnicorn]

LMAO … these comments aged well.

Coaches' votes, R17: Brilliant Bolton best

Shai Bolton earned maximum votes in the AFL Coaches Association’s Champion Player of the Year Award voting for Round 17.

www.richmondfc.com.au

u need a hobby

 

[CrowToon]

All good ..

Maybe take your own advice before firing …

If someone makes a crap play and I call it crap what's the problem? I don't need to stop before firing off on that. If I said he had a shocker of a game and he didn't that's different.

 

[Mattttty]

Waiting on the result.

Will you look at that. Three weeks. Hopefully with this result (which was entirely predictable based on an unbiased read of the situation) you get to see that your Swans aren't as systematically mistreated by the tribunal as you had thought. It's a common human error to blame malice or conspiracy for something that is actually caused by other explainable factors. So a few tribunal cases didn't fall your team's way. It doesn't mean the system is against you. Nankervis suspended for three weeks by Tribunal

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Will you look at that. Three weeks. Hopefully with this result (which was entirely predictable based on an unbiased read of the situation) you get to see that your Swans aren't as systematically mistreated by the tribunal as you had thought. It's a common human error to blame malice or conspiracy for something that is actually caused by other explainable factors. So a few tribunal cases didn't fall your team's way. It doesn't mean the system is against you. Nankervis suspended for three weeks by Tribunal

Wow!

I was wrong in this case.