Game day information leaked by Dogs player to Adelaide before Elimination Final

[_M_16_]

Hopefully a storm in a tea cup. the dogs are sooks. They should have handled this internally not drag the AFL into it and now the crows.

Pretty sure they will be bound by rules to reveal any breaches of integrity to the AFl. If the AFL found out later, you'd be sitting on your keyboard bagging us for hiding it in house instead and the club may be in crap as well. Seriously, get over this made up crap about us being sooks. Has nothing to do with it, we never once complained about the result

Geez some of your mob have shown your true "im a prick" sides on this thread

 

[ManOfClay]

Hopefully a storm in a tea cup. the dogs are sooks. They should have handled this internally not drag the AFL into it and now the crows.

What should we have done? Banned the out of contract player who is on the way out?

You and a host of other crows supporters have missed the point completely

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Christ on a bike.

Do people seriously think the nature of the information or the result of the game are the key issues here?

A player leaked information to an opposition club immediately before a game - the intent is the issue, not the unquantifiable consequences.

Yes. That is the issue and that's why it should be reported and investigated. When they know more about what was shared and where that information went - and, with respect, media releases don't cut it - they can take appropriate action. But the club and AFL have to call it out and take it further - you can't have players or anyone else thinking this is ok.

And btw I didn't read Murphy's comments as whinging at all. In fact I can't remember anything he ever said or did that wasn't total class.

 

[_M_16_]

Christ on a bike.

Do people seriously think the nature of the information or the result of the game are the key issues here?

A player leaked information to an opposition club immediately before a game - the intent is the issue, not the unquantifiable consequences.

Someone from the Crows board should paste this in their thread. Read and absorb people, its not that hard

Pretty much said it spot on Honey, some people are just to ignorant to see sense

 

[Jumbo]

If it's deliberately leaked info designed to hurt the Dogs then both brothers should be either fined or cop a short suspension.

Whilst the Crows did nothing wrong in not reporting the info, it's not a good look for them especially after they got on their high horse over the Essendon/Worsfold situation.

Don't complain, don't explain.

You may be right but the AFL probably has a rule in place where clubs would have to disclose having received 'under the table info'.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Out of contract. He won't be a Bulldog next year.

Oh well. Another vengeance scheme thwarted. Damn those pesky kids.

 

[Danger Zone]

Some of the Crows fans are probably a bit touchy because it's been an awful few years for us. It does feel like this is another situation like the Malthouse "Eddie was stitched up" saga where it just happened to be directed our club.

Presumably the major party at fault in this is M Talia unless I am mistaken?

 

[Zgope1]

Clumsy from Adelaide throughout it seems.

1. Allegations are made and heard two days after the game at Whitten Oval, here starts the investigation.

2. Scott Camporeale outright lies on radio that the crows had received information.

3. Kyle Cheney tells Stratton, who is alarmed and calls Beveridge. Think AFC fans, what level of seriousness would it need to have to make Stratton note this and then call Beveridge.

4. The new AFC stance "we know the info that's being referred to but we didn't use it". This is incongruent with the Camporeale lie of course.

 

[Niximus]

Not that I think that any information was discussed by our coaches, but a hypothetical:

We study the dogs in the lead-up to the game and we think they'll do X and Y and we base our planning around that.
We then without seeking it are told by a representative of the dogs that they will in fact do X and Y.

Should we be required to throw away the advantage that we earned by letting them know that we now know even though we were planning for the same thing before we knew?

 

[Zgope1]

Not that I think that any information was discussed by our coaches, but a hypothetical:

We study the dogs in the lead-up to the game and we think they'll do X and Y and we base our planning around that.
We then without seeking it are told by a representative of the dogs that they will in fact do X and Y.

Should we be required to throw away the advantage that we earned by letting them know that we now know even though we were planning for the same thing before we knew?

If i studied for a test and was real confident in my answer but then on the morning of the test i saw the answers and they were similar to mine, would i feel better about having similar answers to the real ones? yes. Would it still be cheating? yes

 

[Niximus]

2. Scott Camporeale outright lies on radio that the crows had received information.


4. The new AFC stance "we know the info that's being referred to but we didn't use it". This is incongruent with the Camporeale lie of course.

Or...Scott Camporeale was being completely honest because he actually didn't receive any information because we didn't use it.

You won just about every statistic, what was the leak we used, that you can't hit a handpass on the run through the centre?

 

[Niximus]

If i studied for a test and was real confident in my answer but then on the morning of the test i saw the answers and they were similar to mine, would i feel better about having similar answers to the real ones? yes. Would it still be cheating? yes

So you should speak up and get all new questions that you haven't studied for and fail?

 

[TheHoneyBadger]

So you should speak up and get all new questions that you haven't studied for and fail?

This discussion is entirely predicated on your own hypothesis that the information was no different to Adelaide's planning.

That's just not relevant. The club was implicated in what it would have known to be a breach of integrity, and chose to sit on it's hands.

 

[Niximus]

This discussion is entirely predicated on your own hypothesis that the information was no different to Adelaide's planning.

That's just not relevant. The club was implicated in what it would have known to be a breach of integrity, and chose to sit on it's hands.

As I said, that was a hypothetical scenario based on this supposed need to disclose and how that would work if the received information only confirmed what you were planning for.

I don't believe there is anything at all in this real life situation. As Fages said, banter between brothers, there was nothing to disclose.

 

[Dazb86]

Clearly we had the grand final in the bag had Adelaide not received this information.

 

[Dogsman16]

As I said, that was a hypothetical scenario based on this supposed need to disclose.

I don't believe there is anything at all in this real life situation. As Fages said, banter between brothers, there was nothing to disclose.

Banter between brothers that Kyle Cheney felt the need to gloat about to Ben Stratton. Information that Stratton felt he needed to tell the WB coach.

Sure just friendly banter

 

[Zgope1]

Or...Scott Camporeale was being completely honest because he actually didn't receive any information because we didn't use it.

You won just about every statistic, what was the leak we used, that you can't hit a handpass on the run through the centre?

But the club did receive information, it just didn't use it. This has later been confirmed.

This second part just shows your minds in the wrong spot. It's not about the game, it's about the leak. Integrity. I know we blew it

 

[Niximus]

Banter between brothers that Kyle Cheney felt the need to gloat about to Ben Stratton. Information that Stratton felt he needed to tell the WB coach.

Sure just friendly banter

Ever played Chinese Whispers?

 

[Danger Zone]

This discussion is entirely predicated on your own hypothesis that the information was no different to Adelaide's planning.

That's just not relevant. The club was implicated in what it would have known to be a breach of integrity, and chose to sit on it's hands.

To be fair, basically this entire thread is hypothetical as we really don't have many facts.

 

[mickelboy182]

Don't really think Adelaide have an issue, they'd be in trouble if they solicited the info but that doesn't seem to be the case.
The only culprit in this is the Bulldogs' player.

 

[grouse mate]

I find it hard to believe that a player that was on the outer and outside of the main squad looking for selection to an Elim Final is part of tactical meetings or whatever during the week which would give him info that would cause this kind of reaction. Bulldogs have an internal issue here that is being overlooked if this is the case or they are making a mountain out of molehill, something doesn't add up.

 

[Niximus]

But the club did receive information, it just didn't use it. This has later been confirmed.

"The club" is not a single being. It is made up of many individuals and they don't all share a communal brain. Surprising I know, but someone at the club can have been aware of it and done nothing with it while Campo had no idea that it even existed.

This second part just shows your minds in the wrong spot. It's not about the game, it's about the leak. Integrity. I know we blew it

Agreed, it is a WB problem.

 

[spinynorman]

I sincerely hope that should my club be accused of something potentially dubious I don't have a default response of dismissing the questionable ethics of the club out of hand.

 

[Engimal]

Pretty sure they will be bound by rules to reveal any breaches of integrity to the AFl. If the AFL found out later, you'd be sitting on your keyboard bagging us for hiding it in house instead and the club may be in crap as well. Seriously, get over this made up crap about us being sooks. Has nothing to do with it, we never once complained about the result

Geez some of your mob have shown your true "im a prick" sides on this thread

What an embarrassing post to have posted.

 

[doggies ftw]

I find it hard to believe that a player that was on the outer and outside of the main squad looking for selection to an Elim Final is part of tactical meetings or whatever during the week which would give him info that would cause this kind of reaction. Bulldogs have an internal issue here that is being overlooked if this is the case or they are making a mountain out of molehill, something doesn't add up.

You mean the only defender in the emergency list shouldnt have a clue whats going on? Yeah fill him in 3 minutes before the game if someone gets injured...