Talking Footy

Striker wrote:

Get fucked. The end.

Run out of BS?

No, you won't listen.

Striker wrote:

No, you won't listen.

I hear you, its just BS as usual.

You just proved me right.

Striker wrote:

You just proved me right.

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Xman wrote:

I'll give you a hand


tank definition

in.
and tank up. to drink too much beer; to drink to excess. : Let's go out this Friday and tank a while.
n.
a drunkard. (Usually tank-up.) : You're turning into a real tank, Harry.
n.
a jail cell for holding drunks. : One night in the tank was enough to make John take the pledge.
tv. & in.
to lose a game deliberately. : The manager got wind of a plan to tank Friday's game.
in.
for something to fail. : The entire stock market tanked on Friday.

Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition.
Copyright 2007. Published by McGraw Hill.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tank

American dictionary of slang Xman? Really?

Try this one folks.

Tanking

There was annual speculation that poor performing teams manipulated their results after they were eliminated from finals contention, in order to ensure they remain below the eligibility criterion and receive a priority pick under the pre-2012 format; this was referred to as "tanking."[2]

There are a wide variety of behaviours which could be considered to be tanking. These include:

1 Instructing the players to deliberately lose matches
2 Employing unusual tactics in matches, including using players in positions where they do not usually play[2]
3 Resting star players with minor injuries, who would likely not be rested if the team were contesting finals[3]
4 Playing younger players who do not yet have much experience at AFL level[4]

While all of these behaviours can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid winning matches, all but the first point can also be justified as a sensible player management and development strategy for a team with no chance of playing finals, which complicates the debate about tanking. In addition, tanking has the significant issue that fans of these clubs sometimes openly support against their teams on game day;[3] however, this could also be justified as a sign of fan dissatisfaction at the club's poor performance and/or its administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_d ... ck#Tanking

Melbourne Demons deliberately did all three at the end of the season to get draft picks. Clear as day folks, clear as day. Thank god the AFL changed their rules around the draft picks although there's still loopholes imo, and slapped melbourne with a whopper of a fine, though still a puny punishment considering. And for AFL fans , let us join, come together with me and thank god that dimwit demetriou is not as dumb as our own lord of the dimwits, Xman [-o<

You're attempting to discredit a slang dictionary with wiki?

A new low for you!

Tanking is losing on purpose. Melbourne didnt do that because their players were playing to win. The fact their coach experimented to accelerate their teams development is totally reasonable, especially given they couldn't make the finals. Behaviour like this is seen in every sport.

You're attempting to define tanking in the AFL with an American slang dictionary? Unfortunately this is not a new low for you, you've tried much dumber things, this idiotic act is about your mid range.

So let us dissect your argument further. "Tanking is losing on purpose". There's very clear evidence the playing rosters were changed so the Demons would lose. There is clear evidence that this was done "on purpose" in the contex of obtaining high draft pickies. "The fact their coach ...blah blah is totally reasonable" ahhh??? Xman did you catch the title of this thread? The demons got smacked with a half a mil fine you stoopid twit And I never heard one squeak comin from Demons land saying they dont deserve the fine because what they did was "totally reasonable" :_<> You think the AFL thought it was "totally reasonable" Xman?

So ah tell me Xman, apart from your "totally reasonable" self, who's fukked up here? Melbourne Demons by tanking? Or your beloved AFL for giving a half a mil fine for something which was "totally reasonable". Clearly by your own assessment its your beloved AFL! Oh dear

Priceless

I gave an independant definition of tanking. You gave a wiki definition which was someone's wiki page on the AFL. That's hardly independant.

Of course tanking is in a slang dictionary. Its a slang term.

Melbourne didnt tank because the players were still playing to win the game. That is unless the players were deliberately missing goals, passing to the opposition, etc. clearly this wasnt the case! so therefore they cannot and should not have been found guilty of tanking.

However, evidence arose in the AFLs investigation showing that Connelly and bailey attempted to compromise the draft by experimenting with the list such as playing new players, playing players in unusual positions etc...this was to make it more likely the team would lose so they would finish lower on the ladder and potentially secure an extra draft.

Therefore it was Connelly and bailey were punished severely and the demons were fined because they employ those two.

But the final assessment and punishment were spot on. Punish those who attempted to do the wrong thing. But as the evidence showed this was not the entire club because the players are the ones playing the game, kick the goals etc and they were still trying to win.

Independent Seriously Xman, read some of your work on here. It's hilarious! You scrounged up some definition written by some more than likely poor uneducated chump on the other side of the world who's desperate to make a buck so decided to write a freakin slang dictionary. The relevance of your citation is jack diddly squat. Clutching at straws doesnt even come close to how desperate you are. It's amusing watching you squirm please continue like noone can see it

Xman wrote:

However, evidence arose in the AFLs investigation showing that Connelly and bailey attempted to compromise the draft by experimenting with the list such as playing new players, playing players in unusual positions etc...this was to make it more likely the team would lose so they would finish lower on the ladder and potentially secure an extra draft.

Oh so the AFL did the right thing, thanks now we know what page you're on. I think I see the problem. You dont think tanking is the appropriate term but you'd prefer to say that melbourne cheated, lied, deceived and corrupted the team/players, the club, their fans, and the entire code. And this was done on purpose by trying to lose games in order to get high draft pickies by senior management who were able to pull the strings of the club more than the players.

Thanks Xman, apart from the size of the punishment, I think we finally agree! Melbourne cheated, lied, decieved, corrupted the team/players, their fans and the entire code. Or in other less harsh words, melbourne tanked like there was no tmw! :D And got busted for it

Melbourne tanked. The players didnt try to loose but the head coach did what needed to be done to make sure that they lost. In the end the AFL and Melbourne came to an agreement (IMO), Melbourne would cop a large fine, but no draft picks would be lost and in exchange they wouldn't take the AFL to court over a case the AFL couldnt win. That way the AFL didnt look to bad and Melbourne looked like they were punished.

That's right pies me boy! A dodgy compromise has been achieved. It's as clear as day. But I still cant believe Xman thought he was on a winner by referring to an American slang term definition

Priceless Xman Priceless!

King-Eliagh wrote:

That's right pies me boy! A dodgy compromise has been achieved. It's as clear as day. But I still cant believe Xman thought he was on a winner by referring to an American slang term definition

Priceless Xman Priceless!

Yeah he is quite desperate these days.

When is the AFL community going to realize that demetriou has to go, the AFL has lurched from 1 disaster to the next for about 2 years now and the way the commission has handled the issues has been pathetic.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Independent Seriously Xman, read some of your work on here. It's hilarious! You scrounged up some definition written by some more than likely poor uneducated chump on the other side of the world who's desperate to make a buck so decided to write a freakin slang dictionary. The relevance of your citation is jack diddly squat. Clutching at straws doesnt even come close to how desperate you are. It's amusing watching you squirm please continue like noone can see it

Xman wrote:

However, evidence arose in the AFLs investigation showing that Connelly and bailey attempted to compromise the draft by experimenting with the list such as playing new players, playing players in unusual positions etc...this was to make it more likely the team would lose so they would finish lower on the ladder and potentially secure an extra draft.

Oh so the AFL did the right thing, thanks now we know what page you're on. I think I see the problem. You dont think tanking is the appropriate term but you'd prefer to say that melbourne cheated, lied, deceived and corrupted the team/players, the club, their fans, and the entire code. And this was done on purpose by trying to lose games in order to get high draft pickies by senior management who were able to pull the strings of the club more than the players.

Thanks Xman, apart from the size of the punishment, I think we finally agree! Melbourne cheated, lied, decieved, corrupted the team/players, their fans and the entire code. Or in other less harsh words, melbourne tanked like there was no tmw! :D And got busted for it

Well find another definition of tanking then.... So far all you came up with was Wiki

Yep, the AFL did the right thing. The Demon's current administration and the playing list didnt try to cheat to gain draft picks. The AFL punished those who tried to cheat, which was the previous coach and Connelly.

Attempting to compromise the draft by playing experimenting with player selection and positioning isnt tanking because the players didnt try to lose. In fact swapping defensive players to the attack and visa-versa is a well recognised tactic to develop the teams skills and unsettle the opposition. If the entire club including players and board were attempting to deliberately lose then that would be tanking and would have warranted a massive penalty.

Find another definition? Ah what I came up with was a comprehensive and adequate definition. What you sourced was a minimal and inadequate definition from a land far far far away. Yep fantasy land Xman, that's where you're livin right now.

Xman you're clearly all over the shop with this one. Help yourself and take a leap out of pies book and swallow that bitter pill they call the truth. I mean in the space of two posts you're making statements like:

Xman wrote:

evidence arose in the AFLs investigation showing that Connelly and bailey attempted to compromise the draft by experimenting with the list such as playing new players, playing players in unusual positions etc...this was to make it more likely the team would lose so they would finish lower on the ladder and potentially secure an extra draft.

and then

Xman wrote:

In fact swapping defensive players to the attack and visa-versa is a well recognised tactic to develop the teams skills and unsettle the opposition.

Yesss Xman we all agree it is a well recognised tactic in many sports. But ahhh Melbourne weren't trying to "develop the teams skills and unsettle the opposition" now were they? They were quite simply, trying to lose, as you said in your prior post

Or in other words they TANKED to HIGH HELL. They Tankeddy tanked tanked for many moons didnt they. And, as pies, and my fellow Leaugies have enlightened us, the AFL came up with some dodgy compromise to make it all look sorta ok. Which Xman has apparently fallen hook line and sinker for!

Or he's just tryin to squirm outta a no win situation... squirm squirm!

Find another definition? Ah what I came up with was a comprehensive and adequate definition. What you sourced was a minimal and inadequate definition from a land far far far away. Yep fantasy land Xman, that's where you're livin right now.

Its your definition! at least I found another Independant source My source was simple yes, but so is the definition of tanking.

Yesss Xman we all agree it is a well recognised tactic in many sports. But ahhh Melbourne weren't trying to "develop the teams skills and unsettle the opposition" now were they? They were quite simply, trying to lose, as you said in your prior post

It wasnt Melbourne. It was Connelly and Bailey. They were trying to increase the chances of losing. They cant make the team lose because they dont take the field.

Or in other words they TANKED to HIGH HELL. They Tankeddy tanked tanked for many moons didnt they. And, as pies, and my fellow Leaugies have enlightened us, the AFL came up with some dodgy compromise to make it all look sorta ok. Which Xman has apparently fallen hook line and sinker for

Ah no they didnt. Tanking is losing on purpose. Pretty hard to do when the players who actually represent the club are trying to win.

Xman wrote:

Find another definition? Ah what I came up with was a comprehensive and adequate definition. What you sourced was a minimal and inadequate definition from a land far far far away. Yep fantasy land Xman, that's where you're livin right now.

Its your definition! at least I found another Independant source My source was simple yes, but so is the definition of tanking.

Yesss Xman we all agree it is a well recognised tactic in many sports. But ahhh Melbourne weren't trying to "develop the teams skills and unsettle the opposition" now were they? They were quite simply, trying to lose, as you said in your prior post

It wasnt Melbourne. It was Connelly and Bailey. They were trying to increase the chances of losing. They cant make the team lose because they dont take the field.

Or in other words they TANKED to HIGH HELL. They Tankeddy tanked tanked for many moons didnt they. And, as pies, and my fellow Leaugies have enlightened us, the AFL came up with some dodgy compromise to make it all look sorta ok. Which Xman has apparently fallen hook line and sinker for

Ah no they didnt. Tanking is losing on purpose. Pretty hard to do when the players who actually represent the club are trying to win.

It's my definition? Ah sorry Xman I didnt come up with it. I sourced it off the net, like you did with yours. Difference being mine was from a source directly related to the AFL's tanking episodes. Yours? To an American Slang dictionary

It wasnt melboure it was connolly and bailey? They cant make the team lose? Ummmm I think that's terribly consistent with your normal lamo take on things. Connolly and Bailey were head honchos at Melbourne. They pulled the strings so to speak. They basically ran the Melbourne squad... yes the players were their puppets. Have you seen how many games melb won that season? I think it was 3 or four. Looks like it wasnt "pretty hard to do" for good ol Connelly and Bailey to me

Quite simply Melbourne tanked. Or as Xman would prefer they cheated, lied, deceived and corrupted the team/players, the club, their fans, and the entire code