VFL fines Demons 500K for ... ah .... not tanking !!

[Xman]

Its simple logic Xman. Everyone bar you on this forum admits and acknowledges melb tanked. Therefore they agree with my definition. On other forums there's a plenty also who follow this def. I actually got the def off an AFL forum .Then we've got the press and AFL personell who've stated the demons tanked. They also would agree with my def. It's prob in the hundreds of thousands actually. :D

People are entitled to their opinion. You believe not trying to win is tanking. I believe deliberately losing is tanking. You have other sports fans in your corner. I have sports writers in mine.

Melbourne didnt deliberately lose, thats all I care about. Whether they didnt their hardest to win is a common practice in sport, especially in dead rubbers, in the name of development. If Connelly and Bailey used additional motives as a reason then they deserve punishment which is what they got.

WHere's the problem?

Sports writers More sports writers adhere to my definition I'll bet. And well, given the AFL's mammoth fine on the melbourne club, I'd say the organisation you preach about also adhere's to my definition. though its bad pr and they'd much prefer a dodgy compromise on the details of what melbourne did, the fine and melbournes unflinching acceptance of the fine tells the whole story. That is it tells the story for folk who have the ability to read between the lines. Unfortunately Xman, you're not wise enough to do that yet. But one day sonny. One day you'll see the light

And again with the common practice in sport baloney When oh when will you see that everytime you say that you are completely utterly and publicly trumped by the fact melbourne were NOT doing this for the same reasons. They were doing it to get high draft pickies. Therefore tanking can clearly be used to define what they did, and rightly so. :D Trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrumped I tells ya!

Bailey and Connelly were doing it for another reason, which was inappropriate, and they copped the penalty. But the players were playing to win, thats what matters. I see no difference to a dead rubber in the Davis cup where a teenager is played in the final game for experience. Sure, tennis Australia dont get a draft pick in return for losing but the selection policy is the same and is perfectly accepted by sports fans. So it essentially comes down to why Melbourne did what they did, and they were punished for that.

But in the end, thats not tanking

[King-Eliagh]

the melbourne club tried not to win. They lost on purpose to gain draft picks. Bailey and connelly made sure that the football club did this. Again by your argument the melbourne storm are innocent. Now where's that post Xman! Trrrrrruuuuummmped! Again!

[Xman]

the melbourne club tried not to win. They lost on purpose to gain draft picks. Bailey and connelly made sure that the football club did this. Again by your argument the melbourne storm are innocent. Now where's that post Xman! Trrrrrruuuuummmped! Again!

ah no. The playerss are part of the club, as are the trainers, doctors etc. They tried to win...

[King-Eliagh]

Players tried to win, club tried to, and did lose so they could get draft pickied. Trrrruuuumped again my friend! Unless that is you be consistent and tell us all the storm didnt cheat

Too easy

[Xman]

Players tried to win, club tried to, and did lose so they could get draft pickied. Trrrruuuumped again my friend! Unless that is you be consistent and tell us all the storm didnt cheat

Too easy

the Demons didnt deliberately lose because the people responsible for playing the game, the players, were playing to win. Having said that they were a very poor team and would probably have lost all those games anyway. Who did they affect by getting an extra pick? No one really.

The storm cheated because they won the GF with a team of players that were assembled through cheating. Would they have won the GF with a legal side? I doubt it. Yet they robbed every other team of a chance to win the greatest prize

[King-Eliagh]

Players tried to win, club tried to, and did lose so they could get draft pickied. Trrrruuuumped again my friend! Unless that is you be consistent and tell us all the storm didnt cheat

Too easy

the Demons didnt deliberately lose because the people responsible for playing the game, the players, were playing to win.

Soooo ahh you're saying the coach cant effect his team/club and deliberately lose? The coach has more power in making a team lose than any player on their own or the collective team as a group. They pull the strings Xman you silly clown. Again you show no understanding of how a football club works

But please continue with your desperate attempts to prove the impossible. It's quite the show =D> =D>

On a side note the demons have lowered the credibility of the entire code and irreparably damaged not only one or two seasons like the storm, but atleast 10 as they go on season in season out with draft picks they do not rightfully deserve. Credibility ruined but if we look at it as glass half full at least the AFL had their eyes pried open by this external investigation and so they finally changed some rules around draft pickies. Time for you to open your eyes Xman me boy.

[Xman]

Soooo ahh you're saying the coach cant effect his team/club and deliberately lose? The coach has more power in making a team lose than any player on their own or the collective team as a group. They pull the strings Xman you silly clown. Again you show no understanding of how a football club works

Ever notice how teams still lose even when the coach makes tactical moves designed to help them win? The coach isnt the deciding factor. They dont take the marks, kick the goals. They cant make players follow team structures or rules. No matter how hard Bailey may have tried to help Melbourne lose if the players play well they could very well win.

On a side note the demons have lowered the credibility of the entire code and irreparably damaged not only one or two seasons like the storm, but atleast 10 as they go on season in season out with draft picks they do not rightfully deserve. Credibility ruined but if we look at it as glass half full at least the AFL had their eyes pried open by this external investigation and so they finally changed some rules around draft pickies. Time for you to open your eyes Xman me boy.

Now youre claiming the Demons have deliberately lost for 10 seasons. Their plight is a classic example of why finishing bottom and gaining draft picks does not ensure success. AFL teams know this and this is the very reason why tanking doesnt exist in the AFL.

[King-Eliagh]

Xman, please, you're just pretending to be dumb now arent you?

A coach has less power to make a team lose than the players because the players do tha kickin and tha passin? That's freakin hilarious.

Ahh lemme enlighten you.

Pre game
Coach takes his 3 star players out of the game due to 'injuries/scratched knees to 'let them rest up'
During game
Attacking Player 1 kicks 3 goals in first quarter.
Coach benches him for the rest of the game putting on a slow unskilled rookie in his place.
Defending Player 2 is giving his opposition star forward a bath in the first quarter. Coach puts player 2 in the ruck, a position he's unsuited to and has never played before.

And so on and so on and so on. You think the players have more potential to lose a game than the coach?

And no im claiming the demons cheated the draft and said draft player is set to play atleast a 10 year career, probably in the wrong colours due to cheating, due to tanking.

[Xman]

Xman, please, you're just pretending to be dumb now arent you?

A coach has less power to make a team lose than the players because the players do tha kickin and tha passin? That's freakin hilarious.

Ahh lemme enlighten you.

Pre game
Coach takes his 3 star players out of the game due to 'injuries/scratched knees to 'let them rest up'
During game
Attacking Player 1 kicks 3 goals in first quarter.
Coach benches him for the rest of the game putting on a slow unskilled rookie in his place.
Defending Player 2 is giving his opposition star forward a bath in the first quarter. Coach puts player 2 in the ruck, a position he's unsuited to and has never played before.

And so on and so on and so on. You think the players have more potential to lose a game than the coach?

And no im claiming the demons cheated the draft and said draft player is set to play atleast a 10 year career, probably in the wrong colours due to cheating, due to tanking.

the coach can do every single thing right tactically speaking and the team still lose. Why is that? None of your scenarios above will guarantee a loss anyway. Thats the point. A coach making a loss more likely isnt tanking. If anything all it does it provide players with a chance to learn. These are valuable lessons and well and truly worth implementing in a dead rubber.

And the demons have already lost some of their prized recruits Getting high draft picks doesnt guarantee success.

[King-Eliagh]

the coach can do every single thing right tactically speaking and the team still lose. Why is that?

We're not talking about a coach who's trying to win you dirty flip flop! We're talking about what actually occurred here. A terrible try there Xman, just terrible. A coach has supreme power to make a team lose and can do so with ease, and this is exactly what the demons coach did, it's been proven. As has the fact the demons were not orchestrated, like the lamo example you keep fallling back on, to play a dead rubber and test out their players. Nope, facts state they were setup to lose specifically so they'd recieve draft pickies. That is what happened and that my son is tanking. Clear as day :D

[Xman]

the coach can do every single thing right tactically speaking and the team still lose. Why is that?

We're not talking about a coach who's trying to win you dirty flip flop! We're talking about what actually occurred here. A terrible try there Xman, just terrible. A coach has supreme power to make a team lose and can do so with ease, and this is exactly what the demons coach did, it's been proven. As has the fact the demons were not orchestrated, like the lamo example you keep fallling back on, to play a dead rubber and test out their players. Nope, facts state they were setup to lose specifically so they'd recieve draft pickies. That is what happened and that my son is tanking. Clear as day :D

No, what was proven was that Bailey and Connelly discussed deliberately selecting a team that would make it more likely they would lose, and playing players in positions that were foreign to them. Neither of those things guarantee a loss and neither mean the sides aim was to lose.

That equates to no tanking which was the finding of the investigation.