Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[Dogflogger]

Unless your club has been sent to NZ or China i don't think you really have anything to complain about.

 

[sr36]

I'm only focussing on Collingwood because its you. It goes equally for the others Carlton, Essendon etc.

We have a really good record at Marvel because we go there a fair bit. We have a pretty ordinary record at MCG because we don't play there very often so for me the more games we get there the better it is for us. Hence why going to Ballarat, Tasmania once we played St Kilda in Cairns is not good for us even if we win that game.

My point applies just as much if it's Carlton. The AFL lets teams choose to play some games in different cities - both Vic and non-Vic. It's good for the game as it means games and extra interest in cities that don't usually see footy.

Do they have to play them against teams who they'd draw a big crowd in their local city, or should they get a say in which away games they are?

I do get the mcg angle though and think there should be something done there.

 

[Dogflogger]

My point applies just as much if it's Carlton. The AFL lets teams choose to play some games in different cities - both Vic and non-Vic. It's good for the game as it means games and extra interest in cities that don't usually see footy.

Do they have to play them against teams who they'd draw a big crowd in their local city, or should they get a say in which away games they are?

Did AFL let St Kilda choose to play in NZ or China or was it forced on us by us being in debt?

 

[JackOutback]

I understand it, but look at the other half of it - should teams have a say in where they play teams - No one is going to choose to play Collingwood at their smaller venue in Darwin, Canberra, Tassie - Cats a possible exception - not sure.

Attempts to "even" this stuff up by focussing on Collingwood and ensuring they play some away games in a regional small population is giving a penalty to who they play.

Personally, I couldn't care less where our away games are. And I hope we get the AFL to agree to us selling one of our Marvel "home" games to play on the Gold Coast.

No, clubs shouldn’t get a say in where they play beyond established home grounds. Who’s running the show, the AFL or the clubs? The fixture shouldn’t be compromised further because certain clubs want to cash in.

I mean, West Coast is a big club, North would benefit financially from playing a home game at Optus just as Geelong does against the Pies but that’s different, apparently.

 

[sr36]

Did AFL let St Kilda choose to play in NZ or China or was it forced on us by us being in debt?

No idea.

 

[Eshay187]

Playing one single game in China once

vs

Getting a 2 year trading ban for following the rules

vs

10 hours of flights every second week.


Apparently the first is worse according to Victorians.


Says it all really.

 

[sr36]

No, clubs shouldn’t get a say in where they play beyond established home grounds.

You'd think a WA supporter would get that expansion of the game is a key driver of the AFL ... hence they're all for games in Alice, Cairns, Darwin, Tassie, Canberra . To punish teams for doing so by forcing them to play them against rivals who would draw a big crowd in their home city would be ridiculous.

 

[Rich01]

Der-Wayne calling port games and Roo any games involving an SA team.

The cheerleading and backslapping is Eddie like.

 

[VicBased]

You'd think a WA supporter would get that expansion of the game is a key driver of the AFL ... hence they're all for games in Alice, Cairns, Darwin, Tassie, Canberra . To punish teams for doing so by forcing them to play them against rivals who would draw a big crowd in their home city would be ridiculous.

Do you even realise that you always post from a lounge chair of comfort.
Your team is a protected species that enjoys AFL backing.
Even when Collingwood aren't winning they still live under the AFL umbrella

 

[oak79]

You'd think a WA supporter would get that expansion of the game is a key driver of the AFL ... hence they're all for games in Alice, Cairns, Darwin, Tassie, Canberra . To punish teams for doing so by forcing them to play them against rivals who would draw a big crowd in their home city would be ridiculous.

Agreed. Teams can now play where they want.

So the only solution is to move the grand final so that teams aren't disadvantaged by not playing there.

So all problem solved - grand final at highest placed teams home or rotated going forward.

 

[sr36]

Do you even realise that you always post from a lounge chair of comfort.
Your team is a protected species that enjoys AFL backing.
Even when Collingwood aren't winning they still live under the AFL umbrella

Yes I do.

It's pretty clear that most WCE supporters don't realise they do too. Wealthiest and equal second most successful team since joining the comp. A huge market following just gifted for immediate success. It's all just been handed to wce, so your entitlement is huge and view yourselves as some sort of victim.

Our comfort was earned through 140 years of hard work and growth. Yours was bought. It came with your licence

 

[sr36]

Agreed. Teams can now play where they want.

So the only solution is to move the grand final so that teams aren't disadvantaged by not playing there.

So all problem solved - grand final at highest placed teams home or rotated going forward.

Done deal. Should I email Dill or you?

Now, let's even up these academies.

 

[Dogflogger]

Playing one single game in China once

vs

Getting a 2 year trading ban for following the rules

vs

10 hours of flights every second week.


Apparently the first is worse according to Victorians.


Says it all really.

also two games in NZ

 

[Papa G]

Time to put all your cash on Carlton for the flag. The fairytale is ripe and they are really the only Vic side making the top 4 and seemingly capable outside of a Bulldogs 16 type fix. Geelong have an easy draw and will make top 4 based on that but they really are a shadow of what they used to be. 3 losses at Kardinia plus scraping over the line against the Saints there tells you that. Probably a few more weeks before Jacinta Allan, Bracks and Dill rubber stamp it, but that looks like the way it's heading.

 

[Underarm]

Time to put all your cash on Carlton for the flag. The fairytale is ripe and they are really the only Vic side making the top 4 and seemingly capable outside of a Bulldogs 16 type fix. Geelong have an easy draw and will make top 4 based on that but they really are a shadow of what they used to be. 3 losses at Kardinia plus scraping over the line against the Saints there tells you that. Probably a few more weeks before Jacinta Allan, Bracks and Dill rubber stamp it, but that looks like the way it's heading.

Making excuses again for when Port choke another home Prelim final?

 

[Papa G]

Making excuses again for when Port choke another home Prelim final?

Port won't even make the finals

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Fully expecting a royal commission into the state of Victorian football. Only 3 vic teams in top 8…. Can’t have that.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Don’t even have to look hard to see the bias here.

Brisbane fined 40k for their concussion treatment of Andrews.

Carlton nothing.

Both have the exact same reasoning as to why they didn’t immediately take off their players as their Drs were attending to other players.

Response from the AFL to the lions

“Brisbane’s submissions described the circumstances in which the message from the ARC was missed as Brisbane’s doctors were occupied in attending to players, including Andrews, over the 3Q time break, and in the period that followed. Whilst the AFL acknowledges the demands on Club doctors in sometimes dealing with multiple concurrent injuries and other issues during a match, the Concussion Guidelines require strict adherence to protect the health and safety of our players. “The AFL requires strict compliance of Clubs to the Concussion Guidelines to best protect the health and safety of our players”, AFL General Counsel Stephen Meade said.

AFL response to Carlton:

“Due to those other commitments, both of Carlton's doctors did not observe the incident involving McKay live and were delayed in reviewing the ARC Message and the vision. Please note that the ARC Medical Spotters did issue a mandatory off-field assessment (including SCAT6) notification to Carlton in relation to the 3a quarter incident involving McKay. Once the ARC Message was reviewed by Carlton's doctors, there was a further short delay (in the review of vision of the incident) before Carlton's doctors promptly instructed other staff to remove McKay from the field which was effected a short time later. Whilst the Club was in breach of protocols on account of the short delays in removing McKay from the field, the AFL acknowledges the Club's explanation predominantly on
account of Carlton's doctors dealing with multiple pre-existing and concurrent injuries.”

 

[Underarm]

Don’t even have to look hard to see the bias here.

Brisbane fined 40k for their concussion treatment of Andrews.

Carlton nothing.

Both have the exact same reasoning as to why they didn’t immediately take off their players as their Drs were attending to other players.

Response from the AFL to the lions

“Brisbane’s submissions described the circumstances in which the message from the ARC was missed as Brisbane’s doctors were occupied in attending to players, including Andrews, over the 3Q time break, and in the period that followed. Whilst the AFL acknowledges the demands on Club doctors in sometimes dealing with multiple concurrent injuries and other issues during a match, the Concussion Guidelines require strict adherence to protect the health and safety of our players. “The AFL requires strict compliance of Clubs to the Concussion Guidelines to best protect the health and safety of our players”, AFL General Counsel Stephen Meade said.

AFL response to Carlton:

“Due to those other commitments, both of Carlton's doctors did not observe the incident involving McKay live and were delayed in reviewing the ARC Message and the vision. Please note that the ARC Medical Spotters did issue a mandatory off-field assessment (including SCAT6) notification to Carlton in relation to the 3a quarter incident involving McKay. Once the ARC Message was reviewed by Carlton's doctors, there was a further short delay (in the review of vision of the incident) before Carlton's doctors promptly instructed other staff to remove McKay from the field which was effected a short time later. Whilst the Club was in breach of protocols on account of the short delays in removing McKay from the field, the AFL acknowledges the Club's explanation predominantly on
account of Carlton's doctors dealing with multiple pre-existing and concurrent injuries.”

Lions cop big fine over Andrews management

After a delay in taking action following a knock suffered by Harris Andrews in round 19, the Lions have been fined

www.afl.com.au

- This was a 2nd breach for Brisbane, as they had a suspended fine from the AFLW GF.
- Carlton's drs were in the rooms dealing with other issues durng a qtr. Brisbane had their Drs assessing players over the 3qtr time break and missed it.

They're similar, but not quite the same.

 

[btdg]

Don’t even have to look hard to see the bias here.

Brisbane fined 40k for their concussion treatment of Andrews.

Carlton nothing.

Both have the exact same reasoning as to why they didn’t immediately take off their players as their Drs were attending to other players.

Response from the AFL to the lions

“Brisbane’s submissions described the circumstances in which the message from the ARC was missed as Brisbane’s doctors were occupied in attending to players, including Andrews, over the 3Q time break, and in the period that followed. Whilst the AFL acknowledges the demands on Club doctors in sometimes dealing with multiple concurrent injuries and other issues during a match, the Concussion Guidelines require strict adherence to protect the health and safety of our players. “The AFL requires strict compliance of Clubs to the Concussion Guidelines to best protect the health and safety of our players”, AFL General Counsel Stephen Meade said.

AFL response to Carlton:

“Due to those other commitments, both of Carlton's doctors did not observe the incident involving McKay live and were delayed in reviewing the ARC Message and the vision. Please note that the ARC Medical Spotters did issue a mandatory off-field assessment (including SCAT6) notification to Carlton in relation to the 3a quarter incident involving McKay. Once the ARC Message was reviewed by Carlton's doctors, there was a further short delay (in the review of vision of the incident) before Carlton's doctors promptly instructed other staff to remove McKay from the field which was effected a short time later. Whilst the Club was in breach of protocols on account of the short delays in removing McKay from the field, the AFL acknowledges the Club's explanation predominantly on
account of Carlton's doctors dealing with multiple pre-existing and concurrent injuries.”

So the circumstances were quite different then?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Lions cop big fine over Andrews management

After a delay in taking action following a knock suffered by Harris Andrews in round 19, the Lions have been fined

www.afl.com.au

- This was a 2nd breach for Brisbane, as they had a suspended fine from the AFLW GF.
- Carlton's drs were in the rooms dealing with other issues durng a qtr. Brisbane had their Drs assessing players over the 3qtr time break and missed it.

They're similar, but not quite the same.

The fact in their response to the Lions they stated they require “strict compliance” should be a requirement of both.

Not saying Carlton should have copped the 40k as well because yes it’s the Lions second caution but should have been at least a suspended sentence as the Lions first one was for wrong doing.

Instead they get nothing while also acknowledging they didn’t “strictly comply” with the rules.

 

[Cubs2Lions]

So the circumstances were quite different then?

Think the main issue was Brisbane got fined previously in the AFLW GF for something similar.

Had that not happened, reckon the end result would have been the same as the Carlton situation.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

So the circumstances were quite different then?

Both club doctors attending to players - tick

Both clubs receive warning from the arc to remove them to undertake a scat6 - tick

Both clubs delayed in doing so - tick

both clubs claim they didn’t see the arc notification - tick

Quite similar.

 

[sr36]

Don’t even have to look hard to see the bias here.

Brisbane fined 40k for their concussion treatment of Andrews.

Carlton nothing.

Both have the exact same reasoning as to why they didn’t immediately take off their players as their Drs were attending to other players.

Response from the AFL to the lions

“Brisbane’s submissions described the circumstances in which the message from the ARC was missed as Brisbane’s doctors were occupied in attending to players, including Andrews, over the 3Q time break, and in the period that followed. Whilst the AFL acknowledges the demands on Club doctors in sometimes dealing with multiple concurrent injuries and other issues during a match, the Concussion Guidelines require strict adherence to protect the health and safety of our players. “The AFL requires strict compliance of Clubs to the Concussion Guidelines to best protect the health and safety of our players”, AFL General Counsel Stephen Meade said.

AFL response to Carlton:

“Due to those other commitments, both of Carlton's doctors did not observe the incident involving McKay live and were delayed in reviewing the ARC Message and the vision. Please note that the ARC Medical Spotters did issue a mandatory off-field assessment (including SCAT6) notification to Carlton in relation to the 3a quarter incident involving McKay. Once the ARC Message was reviewed by Carlton's doctors, there was a further short delay (in the review of vision of the incident) before Carlton's doctors promptly instructed other staff to remove McKay from the field which was effected a short time later. Whilst the Club was in breach of protocols on account of the short delays in removing McKay from the field, the AFL acknowledges the Club's explanation predominantly on
account of Carlton's doctors dealing with multiple pre-existing and concurrent injuries.”

You're missing the difference in the two examples.

Brisbane were told at 3 quarter time to asses him - they put him back on the ground for the start of the 4th quarter before assessing him.

 

[SC_Power]

Der-Wayne calling port games and Roo any games involving an SA team.

The cheerleading and backslapping is Eddie like.

Roo hates Port Adelaide.
It’s a disgrace that he is on Port Adelaide games, his words drip with bias, any praise through gritted teeth.
You would get 100% support from the club and its supporters to get rid of him.