News AFL Investigates Adelaide Crows' alleged training breach in Barossa

[Rich01]

Richard Goyder says they are still investigating other clubs:

So a bit early to suggest anything either way at this stage.

Couldn’t agree with you more.

To suggest the AFL has acknowledged other breaches though is quite the overstatement.
And hardly the vicbias conspiracy cover up some are claiming.

 

[BACCS]

Here’s the actual audio from Goyder for anyone interested:

 

[BACCS]

Couldn’t agree with you more.

To suggest the AFL has acknowledged other breaches though is quite the overstatement.
And hardly the vicbias conspiracy cover up some are claiming.

Why is it an overstatement? Being able to actually prove any of the other breaches would be almost impossible without photo or video evidence, especially if they were training in private facilities.

At the end of the day though, can you see why Crows supporters are pissed off? This got massively overblown in the media and the penalties that were suggested are still a disgrace, especially since we now know the AFL were investigating other clubs and this was not mentioned once until the last couple of days.

I used to love AFL 360, but I won’t ever watch again after what people like Whately had to say, he’s gone from one of the sensible journos to another clickbait journo.

 

[Senor M]

Here’s the actual audio from Goyder for anyone interested:

So based off that Audio— the Crows incident DID have an impact on the SA government decision??

I thought Crows supporters were claiming that it didn’t??

 

[Pear1870]

Just to set it straight :

The isolation breach was first reported to SAPOL
The Age first reported the story , but it was after SAPOL were notified.
The witness was concerned with state requirements being breached, not AFL guidelines being ignored.

 

[BACCS]

Just to set it straight :

The isolation breach was first reported to SAPOL
The Age first reported the story , but it was after SAPOL were notified.
The witness was concerned with state requirements being breached, not AFL guidelines being ignored.

Where did you hear this? Genuine question, seems to be a lot of stories going around.

 

[Rich01]

Why is it an overstatement? Being able to actually prove any of the other breaches would be almost impossible without photo or video evidence, especially if they were training in private facilities.

At the end of the day though, can you see why Crows supporters are pissed off? This got massively overblown in the media and the penalties that were suggested are still a disgrace, especially since we now know the AFL were investigating other clubs and this was not mentioned once until the last couple of days.

I used to love AFL 360, but I won’t ever watch again after what people like Whately had to say, he’s gone from one of the sensible journos to another clickbait journo.

The poster I responded to claimed the AFL acknowledged other breaches. This is simply not the case.

Im not sure why Crows supporters are pissed to be honest. They got caught breaching AFL rules and as a result got hit over the head with a wet lettuce leaf. What’s to bitch and moan about?

If other clubs have done it as well they will be exposed. But unfortunately the AFL have made a rod for their own back with the weak penalty applied to the Crows and any guilty team should expect the same treatment.

If anything Crows Fans should be pleased the media aren’t all over Nigel Smarts social media.

 

[BACCS]

So based off that Audio— the Crows incident DID have an impact on the SA government decision??

I thought Crows supporters were claiming that it didn’t??

In the AFL’s opinion, but I didn’t realise they had people working inside the SA Government to tell them this? Once again, our CMO could not have been more clearer about why they made their decision re FIFO.

 

[BACCS]

The poster I responded to claimed the AFL acknowledged other breaches. This is simply not the case.

Im not sure why Crows supporters are pissed to be honest. They got caught breaching AFL rules and as a result got hit over the head with a wet lettuce leaf. What’s to bitch and moan about?

If other clubs have done it as well they will be exposed. But unfortunately the AFL have made a rod for their own back with the weak penalty applied to the Crows and any guilty team should expect the same treatment.

Weak penalty? Seriously get a grip mate.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So based off that Audio— the Crows incident DID have an impact on the SA government decision??

I thought Crows supporters were claiming that it didn’t??

Professor Nicola Spurrier is on record that it absolutely had no impact... but keep peddling your usual BS...

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Weak penalty? Seriously get a grip mate.

Weak penalty is what Cotchin got for his 2017 preliminary final hit...

 

[Rich01]

Weak penalty? Seriously get a grip mate.

Players don’t miss any games and an assistant coach misses two games max. It’s a nothing penalty mate.

 

[Rich01]

Weak penalty is what Cotchin got for his 2017 preliminary final hit...

Agree. The two penalties are remarkably similar.

 

[1990crow]

Players don’t miss any games and an assistant coach misses two games max. It’s a nothing penalty mate.

For a nothing breach. Have a cry.

 

[Senor M]

So let's listen to the first half of Richard Goyder's interview on Channel 7 SA where he describes that there's other clubs who were "investigated" for training breaches...

But when in the same interview Richard Goyder suggests that the Crows actions played a part in the South Australian government's decision not to allow teams to fly in/fly out we get these responses:

In the AFL’s opinion, but I didn’t realise they had people working inside the SA Government to tell them this? Once again, our CMO could not have been more clearer about why they made their decision re FIFO.

Professor Nicola Spurrier is on record that it absolutely had no impact... but keep peddling your usual BS...

So do we listen to the Goyder interview or not??

 

[BACCS]

Players don’t miss any games and an assistant coach misses two games max. It’s a nothing penalty mate.

Exactly, as it should be for an extremely minor infringement.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So let's listen to the first half of Richard Goyder's interview on Channel 7 SA where he describes that there's other clubs who were "investigated" for training breaches...

But when in the same interview Richard Goyder suggests that the Crows actions played a part in the South Australian government's decision not to allow teams to fly in/fly out we get these responses:




So do we listen to the Goyder interview or not??

Haven't listened to Richard Goyder but I have to Nicola Spurrier. If they provided conflicting information, I know which I believe.

 

[BACCS]

So let's listen to the first half of Richard Goyder's interview on Channel 7 SA where he describes that there's other clubs who were "investigated" for training breaches...

But when in the same interview Richard Goyder suggests that the Crows actions played a part in the South Australian government's decision not to allow teams to fly in/fly out we get these responses:




So do we listen to the Goyder interview or not??

Goyder can speak to what they do in house (such as investigating other breaches), but he can’t speak to how the SA Government go about their decision making when it comes to FIFO. Sure he can have an opinion, but unless they were explicitly told that by Marshall, then it’s false, because the only official line on public record says it didn’t impact their decision.

 

[Rich01]

For a nothing breach. Have a cry.

I’m not upset about the penalty at all mate. I said it was a nothing penalty, which it is. Not sure why you are outraged about the whole incident and
reporting of it.

Exactly, as it should be for an extremely minor infringement.

It’s a weak penalty. We are both agreeing to the above sentiment.

 

[Senor M]

Haven't listened to Richard Goyder but I have to Nicola Spurrier. If they provided conflicting information, I know which I believe.

So you re-joined the conversation without any context & just started ranting again, eh?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So you re-joined the conversation without any context & just started ranting again, eh?

You posted clear lies.

Now crying fowl of being caught out... again.

Troll me a river...

 

[sworc36]

So let's listen to the first half of Richard Goyder's interview on Channel 7 SA where he describes that there's other clubs who were "investigated" for training breaches...

But when in the same interview Richard Goyder suggests that the Crows actions played a part in the South Australian government's decision not to allow teams to fly in/fly out we get these responses:




So do we listen to the Goyder interview or not??

So our CMO, the one who made the decision that there was to be no fly in fly out games, states categorically that the Crows breach had nothing to do with the decision means nothing. Yet we are to believe Richard Goyers version? I know who I’m believing.

 

[Senor M]

You posted clear lies.

Now crying fowl of being caught out... again.

Troll me a river...

My post was that Richard Goyder claimed that the Crows incident impacted the SA Government decision--- which is true (as you'd see below if you actually read what was being discussed rather than just randomly ranting again without context).

Here’s the actual audio from Goyder for anyone interested:

This is the SAME interview that Crows supporters are currently using to claim that other clubs broke training restrictions. They are literally picking & choosing what to believe out of a 50 second interview.

Maybe actually understand what is being discussed rather than just ranting the same dot points repeatedly

 

[Senor M]

So our CMO, the one who made the decision that there was to be no fly in fly out games, states categorically that the Crows breach had nothing to do with the decision means nothing. Yet we are to believe Richard Goyers version? I know who I’m believing.

I wasn't the one trying to use the SAME Richard Goyder interview to try & prove that "other teams had been caught breaching training restrictions"

 

[BACCS]

I wasn't the one trying to use the SAME Richard Goyder interview to try & prove that "other teams had been caught breaching training restrictions"

How clear does this need to be spelled out for you?!

Goyder can speak to anything the AFL can control, such as investigating breaches of their training protocols.

Goyder can provide his opinion on why SA didn’t provide a FIFO exemption for players, but he can’t speak to knowing exactly why they made their decision.

Spurrier could not have been clearer in 3 different interviews last week about this issue, it did not factor into their decision, the reason an exemption wasn’t approved is because of Victoria’s current outbreak.