Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion

[bzparkes]

Hysterical Reaction -
View attachment 1761729
Found guilty and pre-empting a massive penalty even before there is a discussion.

You still don't get it. Its about the reaction not what happened. You're not reading my post.

And you are doing the same thing presumed guilty before an inquiry.

They are guilty of sending him back out there without a concussion test. Second time in 2 years Port has done this.

I don't even know why you're bothering to try defending this.

And yes, Port should be utterly embarrassed and receive a big penalty.

With all the concussion stuff in the sporting world these days, the fact that Port would send a player back out there without even undergoing a proper test is unfathomable.

 

[longdonkey]

They are guilty of sending him back out there without a concussion test. Second time in 2 years Port has done this.

I don't even know why you're bothering to try defending this.

And yes, Port should be utterly embarrassed and receive a big penalty.

With all the concussion stuff in the sporting world these days, the fact that Port would send a player back out there without even undergoing a proper test is unfathomable.

You have given Port no right of reply wait until the investigation nobody knows what happened in the box that night. And I'm not defending it I'm saying stop the pile on and hysteria and let there be a proper investigation so the person who is responsible is the person who is punished. No pre-empting what should happen before the facts are out. How about some DUE PROCESS.

And your post says all the things that is wrong with the AFL presumption of guilt, pre-empting penalties not dealing with the facts just hysterical pile ons.

 

[bzparkes]

You have given Port no right of reply wait until the investigation nobody knows what happened in the box that night. And I'm not defending it I'm saying stop the pile on and hysteria and let there be a proper investigation so the person who is responsible is the person who is punished. No pre-empting what should happen before the facts are out. How about some DUE PROCESS.

And your post says all the things that is wrong with the AFL presumption of guilt, pre-empting penalties not dealing with the facts just hysterical pile ons.

Where was your club doctor's due process?

They've admitted they should've done a SCAT5 test on Aliir and didn't and now he's in concussion protocols.

How any club doctor could look at that and confidently say no assessment required, after Aliir clearly rag-dolled and was out after the head knock, is beyond me.

It's not even a question of your club doctor doing the wrong thing or not, they admitted they did the wrong thing by not assessing him properly.

 

[longdonkey]

Where was your club doctor's due process?

They've admitted they should've done a SCAT5 test on Aliir and didn't and now he's in concussion protocols.

How any club doctor could look at that and confidently say no assessment required, after Aliir clearly rag-dolled and was out after the head knock, is beyond me.

It's not even a question of your club doctor doing the wrong thing or not, they admitted they did the wrong thing by not assessing him properly.

well you have ignored the fact that demi-God Ken Hinkley the man who is at the top of his game saying that Aliir seemed fine and was speaking to him coherently. Now I'm still not saying that they shouldn't have done the concussion test but all the facts need to be ascertained during the investigation. The doctor has said in hindsight the should have been done and he's right.

 

[bzparkes]

well you have ignored the fact that demi-God Ken Hinkley the man who is at the top of his game saying that Aliir seemed fine and was speaking to him coherently. Now I'm still not saying that they shouldn't have done the concussion test but all the facts need to be ascertained during the investigation. The doctor has said in hindsight the should have been done and he's right.

Hinkley isn't the doctor.

The doctor should've immediately sent him for a SCAT5.

This is the same doctor who thinks 2x head clashes in 2 years is fine but thinks a NN tackle concusses Amon, despite him receiving a head knock in the same game.

Is he a ****ing kook?

 

[GWT6]

The investigation isn't VicBias but the commentators reaction to it on the night is. How many other players go down and get hit and get back and there is no hysterical reaction from the commentators. And make no mistake there is only an investigation because of the commentators that night. Same with Rioli bitch slapping Flopperboy. Gets 2 games due to commentators reaction nothing more. They consistently bring out the pitchforks and go after non-Vic players.

This is really one of the worst posts I've seen on Bigfooty. You should be more concerned with the actions of your club endangering the health of a player than sprouting some vic bias crap.

You need to have a good hard look at yourself before posting again.

 

[p4p1]

And do what for 3 years? It would kill AFL - teens will go into soccer instead.

Play state league, go to uni etc.
It would make the draft less of a guess as well, probably even out the physical maturity differences at 18 etc.

 

[bzparkes]

Play state league, go to uni etc.
It would make the draft less of a guess as well, probably even out the physical maturity differences at 18 etc.

Bring in a league like the college football league and align them with an AFL team. Clubs draft players to their junior team, each team gets to pre-select 1 player before the draft. Then everyone goes into the open pool.

Under 21s AFL, or something.

During this time they're all on a livable wage and clubs can pay for study inside a cap.

Once they get drafted to seniors, they play on as it currently is.

To combat the 'loss' of income, raise the cap floor and give players bonuses who get drafted from this pool.

Players can still be drafted from anywhere.

 

[My_Username]

You have given Port no right of reply wait until the investigation nobody knows what happened in the box that night. And I'm not defending it I'm saying stop the pile on and hysteria and let there be a proper investigation so the person who is responsible is the person who is punished. No pre-empting what should happen before the facts are out. How about some DUE PROCESS.

And your post says all the things that is wrong with the AFL presumption of guilt, pre-empting penalties not dealing with the facts just hysterical pile ons.

Due process.

Should a test have been done? Yes (Port have acknowledged this)
Was a test done? No (again, Port acknowledges this)


What further due process do you need?

Port have acknowledged that they should have done a test and didn't. CASE CLOSED. The rest is just filling in the details.

 

[p4p1]

The biggest, most obvious and most problematic issue of Vic bias is that every GF ever has to be played at the MCG. Winning away from home is only an issue that is talked about for interstate teams. Plenty of Victorian teams have and have had terrible away records when they have had to leave Victoria, but it doesn't matter because they don't have to to win the GF. It makes an already unbalanced competition even more unbalanced when one of the GF teams is playing at their home ground and the other is not.

 

[The 747]

To see the Port incident being quoted as #VICBIAS just shows how small minded some posters are. If it was a Victorian club who had done this they would be slaughtered by the media here. Journos would be doorstopping past players, rerunning old scandals to go with the new scandal - Port are lucky they are in a regional city with a tame media.

 

[jakson68]

To see the Port incident being quoted as #VICBIAS just shows how small minded some posters are. If it was a Victorian club who had done this they would be slaughtered by the media here. Journos would be doorstopping past players, rerunning old scandals to go with the new scandal - Port are lucky they are in a regional city with a tame media.

As I live in Adelaide, I can say from experience that we are years behind in most things.
But you would seriously have to be many years behind, if you think it was ok in any way to let those lads back on the ground.

If that was Collingwood, it would take up the first 10 pages of the HUN and a 60 minutes special.

 

[bjwilliams]

I think Richmond were an anomaly though because the way they play they were always going to give away a lot of free kicks. Chances are the differential should have been larger. Players were much more likely to get a serious injury against Richmond than other clubs,

Look at this MCG/Vic conspiracy!!!! Play style has no reason to be discussed.

Unless it doesn’t track, then it’s play style!!!

 

[My_Username]

I think Richmond were an anomaly though because the way they play they were always going to give away a lot of free kicks. Chances are the differential should have been larger. Players were much more likely to get a serious injury against Richmond than other clubs,

OK, that may be true, but explain how the free kicks they receive were lower than everyone else (by a fair margin).

Did all other clubs suddenly play fairer when playing against Richmond?

 

[Daka]

The biggest, most obvious and most problematic issue of Vic bias is that every GF ever has to be played at the MCG. Winning away from home is only an issue that is talked about for interstate teams. Plenty of Victorian teams have and have had terrible away records when they have had to leave Victoria, but it doesn't matter because they don't have to to win the GF. It makes an already unbalanced competition even more unbalanced when one of the GF teams is playing at their home ground and the other is not.

Yo we won a flag in Brisbane, if you are good enough you win anywhere, take for example we used to beat the Lions all the time at the Gabba when we were the better team but now we aren't.
The Lions are a better team but the difference between the two teams is Richmond's performance gap is smaller when traveling compared to the Lions the only people that say it shouldn't be played at the MCG every year always by clubs that struggle to play there.

So many traditions are out already going out of the game why change it? It's always been the MCG.

 

[The 747]

The biggest, most obvious and most problematic issue of Vic bias is that every GF ever has to be played at the MCG. Winning away from home is only an issue that is talked about for interstate teams. Plenty of Victorian teams have and have had terrible away records when they have had to leave Victoria, but it doesn't matter because they don't have to to win the GF. It makes an already unbalanced competition even more unbalanced when one of the GF teams is playing at their home ground and the other is not.

Yes, but that has been done to death in this thread. Most Victorian based supporters don't love it either, but there is not much that can really be done about the deal now.

 

[Checksider]

The biggest, most obvious and most problematic issue of Vic bias is that every GF ever has to be played at the MCG. Winning away from home is only an issue that is talked about for interstate teams. Plenty of Victorian teams have and have had terrible away records when they have had to leave Victoria, but it doesn't matter because they don't have to to win the GF. It makes an already unbalanced competition even more unbalanced when one of the GF teams is playing at their home ground and the other is not.

Yep. Completely compromises the integrity of the league. Why bother playing 23 games in the minor season? Devalues minor round games completely to the point of being almost meaningless.

 

[Checksider]

Yo we won a flag in Brisbane, if you are good enough you win anywhere, take for example we used to beat the Lions all the time at the Gabba when we were the better team but now we aren't.
The Lions are a better team but the difference between the two teams is Richmond's performance gap is smaller when traveling compared to the Lions the only people that say it shouldn't be played at the MCG every year always by clubs that struggle to play there.

So many traditions are out already going out of the game why change it? It's always been the MCG.

"If you're good enough you'll win anywhere".

Sure, but in a Vic vs non-Vic Grand Final, only one team has to be good enough to win anywhere. The other does not. That's pretty stupid in a supposedly national competition.

Look at the Grand Final history over the last ten years, it's no coincidence.

 

[Rich01]

"If you're good enough you'll win anywhere".

Sure, but in a Vic vs non-Vic Grand Final, only one team has to be good enough to win anywhere. The other does not. That's pretty stupid in a supposedly national competition.

Look at the Grand Final history over the last ten years, it's no coincidence.

Look at it over the last 33 years.

 

[Checksider]

Look at it over the last 33 years.

If you’re so convinced it doesn’t contribute to who wins the flag, why are you so against it moving to another venue or a rotating venue?

 

[Rich01]

If you’re so convinced it doesn’t contribute to who wins the flag, why are you so against it moving to another venue or a rotating venue?

I’m not. My view has been really consistent in this thread about the MCG GF if you’d bothered to read it.

I’m just asking you not to cherry pick years to suit your argument and actually do your homework.

 

[Papa G]

Look at it over the last 33 years.

Pre/Post Royal Commission Operation Heartland.

 

[btdg]

The biggest, most obvious and most problematic issue of Vic bias is that every GF ever has to be played at the MCG. Winning away from home is only an issue that is talked about for interstate teams. Plenty of Victorian teams have and have had terrible away records when they have had to leave Victoria, but it doesn't matter because they don't have to to win the GF. It makes an already unbalanced competition even more unbalanced when one of the GF teams is playing at their home ground and the other is not.

If this is the biggest, most obvious and most problematic issue then the league is in pretty good hands.

It is one game, played at the biggest neutral venue in the biggest football state. No team trains on the ground, half the spectators are neutral and competing teams members get equal numbers of seats.

It is a problem that only affects max one team, once per year, but in practice it has only actually affected 17 matches since 1987 (35 years). In those 17 matches the team with an advantage is 9-8 historically. If we start from the position that the teams are even, that reflects a 6% advantage to Victorian teams IF they happen the make a grand final a 1/9 chance) AND be playing a non-victorian opponent (8/17).

Combine those numbers (probability of making GF x probability of playing a non-vic team x increased win probability) and it appears the advantage each Victorian team gets each year is a roughly 0.2% increased chance of winning the GF. Combined, that makes it roughly 2% more likely that a Vic team wins - or to put it another way, each Victorian team can expect to win one bonus premiership every five hundred years as a result of this advantage.

However, not all grand final teams are equal. Some teams are simply greater than others and on grand final day would be expected to win more frequently. So lets define 'great teams' as having played 3 grand finals in 4 years and exclude their results unless they played another 'great team'. When you do this the results are 6-4 in favour of the travelling team. With a lower sample size this is much more likely to be the result of chance, but does suggest the true bonus to Victorian teams isn't likely to be much higher than the 6% benefit estimated above.

I would suggest there are far bugger advantages than this. Is Sydney's academy or COLA worth one premiership in 500 years? Is Geelong (and maybe GC) playing regular home games on their training ground? Almost certainly. I even think the dmfact that it appears harder to travel West-East than the alternative provides a bigger boost to West Coast than 1 premiership in 500 years...

Honestly, if this is the biggest problem, we in a pretty good position.

 

[Gavin Excell]

If this is the biggest, most obvious and most problematic issue then the league is in pretty good hands.

It is one game, played at the biggest neutral venue in the biggest football state. No team trains on the ground, half the spectators are neutral and competing teams members get equal numbers of seats.

It is a problem that only affects max one team, once per year, but in practice it has only actually affected 17 matches since 1987 (35 years). In those 17 matches the team with an advantage is 9-8 historically. If we start from the position that the teams are even, that reflects a 6% advantage to Victorian teams IF they happen the make a grand final a 1/9 chance) AND be playing a non-victorian opponent (8/17).

Combine those numbers (probability of making GF x probability of playing a non-vic team x increased win probability) and it appears the advantage each Victorian team gets each year is a roughly 0.2% increased chance of winning the GF. Combined, that makes it roughly 2% more likely that a Vic team wins - or to put it another way, each Victorian team can expect to win one bonus premiership every five hundred years as a result of this advantage.

However, not all grand final teams are equal. Some teams are simply greater than others and on grand final day would be expected to win more frequently. So lets define 'great teams' as having played 3 grand finals in 4 years and exclude their results unless they played another 'great team'. When you do this the results are 6-4 in favour of the travelling team. With a lower sample size this is much more likely to be the result of chance, but does suggest the true bonus to Victorian teams isn't likely to be much higher than the 6% benefit estimated above.

I would suggest there are far bugger advantages than this. Is Sydney's academy or COLA worth one premiership in 500 years? Is Geelong (and maybe GC) playing regular home games on their training ground? Almost certainly. I even think the dmfact that it appears harder to travel West-East than the alternative provides a bigger boost to West Coast than 1 premiership in 500 years...

Honestly, if this is the biggest problem, we in a pretty good position.

No

Vic bias

 

[btdg]

Just to add to the above, the GF advantage is something Carlton have never experienced in my lifetime. Melbourne and the Bulldogs have also never had that advantage. Essendon and St Kilda have held the GF advantage once and lost. Collingwood have held it 3 times and lost all three.

Richmond managed 2-0 in their games and Hawthorn are 4-2 but those teams were all 'great'. It is hard to argue they deserved to lose any of the grand finals they won, venue aside.

On the other side, if you are an Adelaide supporter, it has disadvantaged your team three times since joining the league. Your team is 2-1 in those matches. West Coast = 3-2. Poor Freo and Port are both 0-1, while Sydney have gone 1-3.

But add that up against Sydney getting access to Heeney, Blakey, Mills, Gulden and Campbell via their academy. Sheesh - if you offered to trade those 5 to Carlton in exchange for having to play grand finals in Sydney for the next 50 years i would take it in a second...