Has an AFL decision/policy ever cost your club a potential flag?

[Papa G]

Matt Stevic

 

[terrybull]

Probably not a potential flag... but an Elimination Final.

Fitzroy had a good record at VFL Park in finals but disastrous at the MCG.

For some reason in 1984 the VFL switched the QF and EF venues and Fitzroy met Collingwood at the MCG instead of VFL Park.

 

[telsor]

trade ban hurt us more.

win the flag in 2012, get tippett, make prelim in 13, get buddy - trade ban.

richmond - get prestia in 16, win the flag in 17, make prelim in 18, get lynch - good recruiting.

at least we robbed players off teams in finals and winning flags - richmond took players off a club on its knees

im not salty at richmond, anyone would have taken those players, just dont like how clubs are treated differently

That's ignoring why the trade ban was brought in though.

The AFL gave you flexibility with regards to reducing your extra salary cap, and you broke the 'gentleman's agreement' that was in place on how that would happen.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

West Coast and Collingwood drawing in the 1990 qualifying final possibly cost us the flag.

That cost US the flag too

 

[Demonic Ascent]

How about this for a sliding doors.....

2003.

The AFL allowed Melbourne to sell a home game to Brisbane, so the Lions got to play them in Brisbane instead of Melbourne. Clearly they were a much better team at the Gabba, so they won easily. Had they have played that game at the MCG and had Brisbane lost....

The Lions would have finished 5th, and had to win 4 straight games to win the flag from there. Collingwood says thanks.
Freo, playing in it's first ever finals series, would have finished 4th and instead of playing the very experienced Essendon team first up in an elimination final, would have got Port Adelaide in a qualifying final at a time when all the pressure would have been on Port (Port ended up losing their first home final to Sydney in a huge upset).

Obviously Freo were no shot at a flag as such that year, but gee a big difference between an elimination final against Essendon and a qualifying final against Port. And arguably because the AFL allowed Melbourne to sell a home game to the Lions.

I don't think we would've beat the Lions in 2003 wherever the game was played

It was one of our "down" years under Daniher. We beat them at the Gabba the year before though

 

[telsor]

That cost US the flag too

I'm Brian!
and so is my wife...

 

[74561347]

That's ignoring why the trade ban was brought in though.

The AFL gave you flexibility with regards to reducing your extra salary cap, and you broke the 'gentleman's agreement' that was in place on how that would happen.

im not getting into an argument about cola, its been done to death and everyone has an opinion on it

the fact remains we got a ban on trading in players despite the fact we broke no rules

 

[captain blood 17]

2000 GF, Long knocks out Snake Simmonds in the first quarter. Changed the course of the game early.

 

[telsor]

im not getting into an argument about cola, its been done to death and everyone has an opinion on it

the fact remains we got a ban on trading in players despite the fact we broke no rules

Semantics.

You broke no 'rules' because the rules were replaced with a gentleman's agreement to allow you flexibility...You broke that.

 

[Grrr]

Paul Vander Haar broke his leg in 1986

After 3 grand finals in a row and a back to back flag victory, I blame the lost opportunity of a three peat and that devastating blow squarely on the VFL.

It’s a disgrace i tells ya.

It's a good thing really. You might have had to involve yourself in the 'who's the best team in the last X years thread', Rich/WC/Bris/Haw/Geel etc. Think yourself lucky.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

As a couple of others have said, the AFL stepping in with a sizeable Ambassador payment to convince Tony Lockett to go to Sydney instead of honouring his agreement to switch to Richmond back in 1994. This was unheard of back then and the AFL didn’t acknowledge the deal publicly for many years afterwards as they knew it had a smell about it.

The most egregious act mentioned in this thread by some distance.

AFL/Sydney got together again in Rd 9, 1995, positioning the SCG boundary line too close to the fence and taking Richo out.

Plugger/Richo forward duo would otherwise have been unstoppable in '95-'97

AFL/Sydney wouldn't stop there though, post '95 stripping future captain Stuart Maxfield from Richmond's list with another made-up concession.

 

[74561347]

Semantics.

You broke no 'rules' because the rules were replaced with a gentleman's agreement to allow you flexibility...You broke that.

are you referring to the gentlemens agreement kurt tippett had with adelaide or some other gentlemens agreement?

 

[O_Grinners17]

compromised drafts in the early 2010s probably cost us 2013-2016 but we won em all back.

 

[Atomboy]

2000 GF, Long knocks out Snake Simmonds in the first quarter. Changed the course of the game early.

What was the AFL policy/decision that would have stopped Melbourne losing by 60 points ?

 

[captain blood 17]

What was the AFL policy/decision that would have stopped Melbourne losing by 60 points ?

All of their decisions.

 

[Kwality]

So you just wanted another whinge by adding something into your comment which had no relevance to my statement. Ok.

So were you referring to Eddie?

 

[telsor]

are you referring to the gentlemens agreement kurt tippett had with adelaide or some other gentlemens agreement?

The one the AFL had with the swans for them to wind back COLA gradually over a couple of years without forcing specific milestones so the Swans didn't need to have a fire sale to handle existing contracts.

For some reason the AFL didn't consider using 100% of COLA every year on new contracts to be 'winding back gradually'.

 

[74561347]

The one the AFL had with the swans for them to wind back COLA gradually over a couple of years without forcing specific milestones so the Swans didn't need to have a fire sale to handle existing contracts.

For some reason the AFL didn't consider using 100% of COLA every year on new contracts to be 'winding back gradually'.

the afl had a plan for both sydney and gws to phase out cola with both to be treated equally. 12 days later only the swans got a trade ban. gws went and got ryan griffen a few months later. This was halfway through 2014 after we had recruited buddy

The explanation for the trade ban was that the commission 'did not want to be embarrassed by the Swans, with another high-profile player signing following the signing in consecutive years of Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin.

we could have brought players in, but then the afl would have immediately stripped sydney of cola

thats not a gentlemens agreement, its blackmail.

 

[Kwality]

the afl had a plan for both sydney and gws to phase out cola with both to be treated equally. 12 days later only the swans got a trade ban. gws went and got ryan griffen a few months later. This was halfway through 2014 after we had recruited buddy

The explanation for the trade ban was that the commission 'did not want to be embarrassed by the Swans, with another high-profile player signing following the signing in consecutive years of Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin.

we could have brought players in, but then the afl would have immediately stripped sydney of cola

thats not a gentlemens agreement, its blackmail.

Should the AFL administration have the power to put in place a 'gentlemans agreement' with individual clubs? There should be one set of rules with transparency. By all means give assistance where needed but be up front about it.

 

[owen87]

The Port Adelaide and West Coast elimination final for sure. And if it had been just Geelong having wild form fluctuations from week to week this is one thing, but GWS, Adelaide, Sydney and West Coast as well? You could just put 2017 down as a strange finals series if not for:

2016 - Bulldogs win GF from 7th, neither of the QF final winners make GF, experienced Hawthorn crash out of finals in straight sets.
2018 - Richmond are dominant minor premiers, 3 games clear on top of the ladder and comfortably win QF but Collingwood (unimpressive against GWS the week before) easily beat the Tigers in the PF to enter GF.
2019 - GWS enter finals in poor form, Bulldogs enter in top form. GWS thrash Bulldogs in EF, and progress all the way through to GF where they are slaughtered by Richmond, with neither of the Top 2 making the GF.
2020 - For second successive season, neither of the Top 2 make the GF, this time after both win their Qualifying Finals.

Not since 2016 (Sydney) has the minor premier made the GF. and even then the Swans lost the QF and ultimately the GF.

2016 could certainly be attributable to the extra week off, arguably the Dogs wouldn't have got through the first week without the break.

The rest I don't think have been impacted by the week off. Teams just aren't that far apart in performance that a good team can afford a down week against a lesser side, so when the Top-4 are relatively close (1 win separating 1st & 5th in 2019 for example) or 2020 where you had a few other factors going on. 2018 Richmond just s**t the bed against Collingwood who had Cox play the game of his life.

I'd say it's mostly reflective of equalisation keeping the gaps between teams relatively small than it is the week off causing it.

 

[boncer34]

2000 GF, Long knocks out Snake Simmonds in the first quarter. Changed the course of the game early.

It was the 2nd and we were 40 points up already

 

[Obeanie1]

1993. Reigning premiers the Eagles finished higher and won their final and Essendon lost theirs.

Eagles earned a home final but the AFL and the MCG contract forced them to travel interstate and play at Essendon's home ground the MCG.

Eagles came back the following year and won in 1994.

 

[footyfan1978]

Probably not a potential flag... but an Elimination Final.

Fitzroy had a good record at VFL Park in finals but disastrous at the MCG.

For some reason in 1984 the VFL switched the QF and EF venues and Fitzroy met Collingwood at the MCG instead of VFL Park.

I suspect the reason for the switch was this was first time, the league were allowed to play a Sunday final. Previously the finals were played on same day at same time at those different venues. There must have been a restriction by local councils to play a Sunday final at VFL Park so could only play at MCG on Sunday at the time.

 

[footyfan1978]

1993. Reigning premiers the Eagles finished higher and won their final and Essendon lost theirs.

Wrong. Essendon were higher than Eagles on ladder. Eagles were only 6th on ladder and lucky to make finals. Geelong should have made it as a better team but Eagles made in on percentage. That 1993 finals series was weird because top two teams meet in week one and the winner got a double chance to make the grand final but so did the 4th team for only beating 5th after the 3rd team on ladder, North, lost to 6th placed Eagles.
This was last finals series that sides could get a double chance to make the grand final. The 4th side getting a double chance by beating 5th made no sense.
Essendon, 2nd on ladder, lost to 1st in a thriller. By any logic they still should be ranked 2nd after that game but for some reason, 4th beating 5th leapfrogs them to 2nd ranking. The whole thing was messed up to any logic. It was the last final six model, which were all duds used from 1991 to 1993. From 1994 they switched to the first version of the final eight and we had two preliminary finals ever since.

 

[radiojake]

The ‘Non Mark’ of Leigh Colbert & AFL decision to play the Crows at Footy Park cost us a legitimate chance at the 1997 flag....Finish second ( and above the aforementioned team ) yet you play them at home just because you lost your first final, the rules back then were a joke.....We had beaten the Saints that year too from memory so it was a chance for sure.

Love this
No mention of playing Nth Melb (7th) at the MCG when North were kings of that ground
No mention of the Modra mark that wasn't paid
No mention of the Geelong goal that came flush off Bickley's shin

...and to top it off there was no guarantee that Colbert would have scored the goal , he was still 40m out