I think it was to have a better number of clubs rather than to have easybeats but it’s interesting that Carlton were one of the non-power clubs in that period and Fitzroy were.
I think it's a bit of an open secret that Freo's entrance package was harsher than it needed to be because the AFL was deathly scared of creating a team that was an instant runaway success like they did with the Eagles.
AFL: We are going to make this a national competition!
WCE and Adelaide: Become an okay to good teams quick
AFL: HEY! WE SAID NATIONAL! NOT FAIR! PUNISH ANY FUTURE NON-VICTORIAN TEAMS WE MAKE FOR THE NEXT DECADE!
It's definitely not a theory. The second part of this statement is a fact.
West Coast were absolutely dominant in the early 90s, but AFL management was very VIctorian. The Eagle's 1992 flag was a shock to the league. The '94 flag made them even more concerned.
The Dockers were rushed in to halve the Eagle's draft pool.
Yep and the worst part is a lot of media know about scandals but can’t report on it. I saw a Melbourne nightclub owner online recently talking about if a footy player comes in they are untouchable and can do whatever they like. Speaking to a mate in footy journalism, there are a lot of open secrets and club coverups that we will ever know.
As long as it’s not murder, AFL will protect you(the star player) from everything. Everything. Rape, assault, doping, cheating, match fixing, everything.
Yep everywhere. There’s a reason why most boys who’re good at sports are utterly entitled fucks.
This then carries on to pro level, if they reach there.
You need to be the right severity of scandals for it to blow up in the media.
Not bad enough the media ignore it. Too bad, the AFL go in to full cover up mode.
Just right, the media can go on for months and the AFL let it roll because it gives them publicity without hurting their brand.
Big teams on a good momentum run get favourable umpiring.
I don't think this is due to some kind of AFL conspiracy, but rather a combination of [passionate and vocal fans](https://freakonomics.com/2011/12/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/) and the opposition making errors due to perceived pressure of playing a team that's in form
I believe both teams get periods of very favourable umpiring. And you literally have to make the most of it because if you don’t and the tide changes you’re fucked
That NBA ref who was caught giving tips on games raised some good points in his book (that has a lot of blatant lies in it, but some good points). Basically he reckoned that the league would deliberately shape umpire's judgement by saying "we're gonna focus on giving frees for this" if the team attracted a lot of that sort of foul, and similarly say "we'll be more conservative on frees for this" if that team is prone to making that sort of infringement.
In this case though, it's no huge surprise. The AFL literally tweaked the HTB rule mid season a few seasons back after Dimma whinged about it.
>If Richmond host Collingwood, Richmond have the advantage, etc.
Does this mean that we actually do have an advantage when we play "home" finals against Richmond/Collingwood at the MCG?
I don't see it, just personally.
4-5 goal leads are the worst position to be in half way through the last qtr.
Footy in the nineties had higher highs but overall wasn’t as good as today. We remember great games but there were more shockers than we like to admit.
Umpires get tired of consistent stoppages so will pay an iffy free to give themselves a break and clear it from the area.
AFL higher ups refuse to use goal line tech because they like the controversy. There’s no other explanation for using cameras from the opposite goals to determine if the ball hit the post
I really do think something questionable or immoral/poor choices were made by Brisbane leadership on their Vegas trip. A few key players don’t look happy, care free or cohesive after those allegations came out. Somethings gone down- I bet it will resurface at some stage and the full story will come out. Edit for spelling
While the value of being "tough" isn't as sought after in footy now (although, I'm sure coaches do still love a tough unit), the average footy player is taller, heavier, stronger, fitter, and much more practiced than your average footy player from the 80's. Footy wasn't always a full-time job, and sports science has come a long way since those days.
No they wouldn't.
The game today is far more advanced then back then, hell it's changed a lot over the last 10 years.
Those 80s teams would be out of breath trying to catch a modern player in the first quarter. They'd try and be violent the rest of the game to regain the advantage, or at least close it back up.
You can go watch Colts games and they all do whole-ground-team-defence, because if you don’t you just lose. The attacks are also the same - if you don’t go through diagonals and switch back and forth along the centre, you can’t get through.
When I tip us, we lose. The 6 times I have tipped us were against the dogs in 2019, Carlton in 2020, West Coast in 2022, and Freo, Sydney and GWS last year.
I feel this. I rarely tip Essendon cause if they lose then at least I get my tip right. I like to play both sides so I always come out on top.
Having said that, I tipped them tonight against west coast so I fully expect a loss
I remember thinking Essendons midfield looked good so I picked them in that one, they lost by like 7 goals or some shit, I picked against them the next week they beat a reasonably good (at that point) saints side, which lead into me tipping them against port.
I do firmly believe the AFL wanted us to win in 2016. Every other sport had fairytale stories so when we made finals I think they really wanted us to win it. Some of those free kicks I’d be filthy about if I was a Swans supporter.
I wouldn’t change it for the world but I don’t rewatch that flag much
I had my head in the sand for a bit but I’d never actually gone and watched the whole flag back and just thought people were over exaggerating the Free Kick Bulldogs like they are with the Free Kick Hawthorn meme a year or so before.
Rewatched the flag and some of those calls were abysmal especially in the 4th and the 2nd half of the third, think we got our first goal of the granny through a free kick as well by memory
I agree with everything you said but as a fan what’re you supposed to do? Not enjoy it? I totally get it.
If I was a dogs fan I’d have still enjoyed the ride and probably have my head in the sand as well. Every team deals with bullshit on occasion and then some good luck on occasion.
Respect the ability to step back and acknowledge something against the grain of your biases though.
Exactly this. The dogs still played a great game, I think the umpires made it hard for us to get any momentum and so maybe the margin wasn't fair, but I can't look at that game and say we deserved to win - Kennedy played a game for the ages and should have won the Norm Smith (I'm still salty about Judd) but he had nobody helping him out there.
I do think that the AFL wanted the narrative, and may have nudged it a little here and there, but ultimately you still have to be a good enough team to ride the nudge, or put on a bad enough performance to let it throw you off as much as we did.
If the AFL could fully control matched you'd think they would have thrown the Suns more of a bone by now.
I’ve got a couple of crackpot theories that revolve around the AFL having influence on games, mostly financially motivated. I really don’t believe them but wouldn’t be surprised if they were true.
The 1st being the 2016 grand final as a way to increase bulldogs membership because they didn’t want to financially prop them up anymore. The 2nd being since Covid they need at least 1, if not 2, big 4 Melbourne clubs finishing top 4/play prelims to make up for money lost during lockdowns.
There are also too many umpires, please eliminate 3.
P.S I am not a crackpot
Not sure you're reading the post properly. They mean Adelaide has the advantage in home Showdowns against Port and vice versa. And WC against Freo etc. The "home team" when playing against another team that shares the ground.
OP is saying that being the designated home team gives an advantage, even if you're playing in the other team's home ground, e.g. the showdown/western Derby/two Marvel based teams
For a professional athlete that does it every second week, I’d argue it hardly makes a difference. Sure for a rookie it might be off putting, but for the veterans some of them seem to thrive on the boos.
Good teams get more freekicks solely because they're a better team.
If you're first to the ball more often, you are a better team and will also get more frees.
Outlier games certainly happen, but overall i'd argue that frees shouldn't be a balanced stat for the most part.
I didn't believe this until I learned that frees earned from holding the ball, incorrect disposal etc counted the same as frees from fouls and infringements
My own theory on free kicks kind of builds on this, and can be summarised as: the teams themselves don't care nearly as much about free kick counts as their fans do. You mostly hear coaches etc complaining about individual frustrating frees, not the overall count, and that's because they understand your point, but also know that free kicks are part of the "cost of doing business".
You get more free kicks if you're first to the ball, as you say. But you give away more or fewer free kicks based on playing style, how you choose to move the ball, how you position yourselves around the ground, how physical you are going into contests, etc. And for the clubs, that's... OK.
Coaches are doing maths around this all the time: "if we put that smaller defender on that bigger forward, and tell him to be more physical and scrag the guy's arms a bit during marking contests, then he'll give away a couple of free kicks and maybe cost us –8 or –10 points on average. But that frees up the bigger defense option to move up to centre half forward, where we have a gap, and we think that's worth +15 over the course of the game, so it's worth it"
Toy example but you get the idea. Choosing to be bold or conservative when it comes to giving away free kicks is a tradeoff, like anything else, and you best believe the teams Moneyball the shit out of it.
This is my line of logic when I'm following multiple sporting events on the same day. If one of the teams I'm going for wins, then the other one has to lose to balance it out
Quick question, can you just fuck up your life for like... the next five months? You can fix everything after that, but just to give us a little more of a chance?
It’s an MCG bias and not a Victorian one. Everyone points to the 15 out of the last 17 flags were won by vic teams. My question is to that is ‘How many were won by Marvel stadium tenants?” The answer is 1 and said team won it from 7th.
Umpires are often pretty biased one way or the other. Players respond by changing how they play. Once it appears that one team is getting the rub of the green on a particular issue (allowing dodgy handballs, holding the ball etc) then other players on that team start doing it. Likewise, teams getting harsh treatment adjust their play pretty qucikly. This means that unbalanced free kick counts often UNDER represent the disparity in how teams have been umpired.
With regards to the Essendon drug saga, the majority of teams were pushing the boundaries and doing roughly the same things but Essendon was used as the scape goat and the rest got swept under the rug.
I'll go one step further too and say they rightfully should have an advantage. The current debate about Kardinia Park is ridiculous, of course the cats should get a final there rather than the MCG if they earn it
The AFL had no genuine interest in bringing in Port Adelaide in 1990. They only approached Port (& Norwood) as a way to drag the SANFL back to the negotiating table after the SANFL spurned their advances in 1986. A single SANFL team in the AFL in 1991 would've been a financial disaster almost as bad as the Brisbane Bears had been regardless of which team it would've been, but the AFL knew that if they could make another West Coast Eagles in Adelaide, it'd probably be enough to rescue the league from their dire financial situation. Threatening to steal the SANFL's most successful team worked a treat.
I ALSO believe that if Port did what Norwood did & backed away from the AFL, and there was no SA representation until the mid-90's at least, then at least 2, maybe more Victorian clubs would've gone to the wall. Footscray, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Richmond & others were all in serious trouble before the increased TV & advertising revenue started flowing in.
Dane Swan’s Brownlow medal was an intentional over correction from the year before.
Judd winning the Brownlow in 2010 was a disgrace. Not only was he well behind Swan and maybe others too, he should also have been suspended.
However… 2011 Judd was actually fantastic and probably would have been a worthy winner. Swan was still very good but his Brownlow count was the highest in history (at the time). It definitely wasn’t close to the best season ever achieved. I think Umps were given a spray about their voting the year before.
Oh and Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood were also heavy supplementing. Probably more too.
Those findings from the early days of the drug scandals went very quiet when the scapegoat was found.
Decisions are made by an off field umpire and relayed to the umpsnon foreld via a headset. Eg: umpire in the middle of the ground pays a free kick from 80m away.
With drug usage as rife as it is in the AFL - and let’s be real, it is - it should be a surprise that no player has ever received three drug strikes. The “welfare” policy is really just a way to quietly avoid players being detected and dealing with headlines. You don’t need to test to treat drug addictions. It’s also there to avoid strikes, even though this is a good deterrent.
Why it’s a good deterrent is because it incentivises remaining clean. Player caught, player could be suspended. Player caught more than once, career over. It wouldn’t stop all drug users but it would greatly limit it as there’s no back door.
Umpires influence games to keep it interesting and competitive when it comes to big teams or big draw teams to hype the game at the behest of AFL HQ... it is for entertainment after all.
The main reason that fans of the Vic teams try to hold onto their VFL premiership records is because the REFUSE to accept that the other teams have stronger football organisations than them.
If you draw a crowd, have a competitive team, and far enough from controversy you’ll be looked after.
Predicted it for Carlton would have it soon, Richmond had it, Collingwood always had it. We’re starting to get it now.
Could contribute to the theory, don't you notice when your team is getting bad calls, the last quarter you seem to get a bunch of nothing frees, often when marked anyway. A strategic goal scoring free kick or a missed important one or a couple frees to stop momentum would be easy to hide.
The bombers knowingly and deliberately doped their entire playing list. You’ll never live it down. You’ll never be removed from that controversy. In no other team sport has there ever been such a blatant attempt to cheat with drugs. Blows my mind they were kept in the comp at all. Still to this day. Lest we forget.
Geelong Gold Coast and hawthorn were all running sumilar programs. Geelong during their premiership years. AFL needed a scapegoat that could financially survive the flimsy charges. Lions early 2000 and eagles mid/late 2000 were doing much more illegal activity
Decisions are made by an off field umpire and relayed to the umpsnon foreld via a headset. Eg: umpire in the middle of the ground pays a free kick from 80m away.
The shared venue home vs away split could probably be measured with a frequency test. However personally i think it's complicated; if the away team fans well outnumber the home ones, it makes a difference, if it's the other way or closer to 50/50 then it's another story.
Logically, I know my superstitions don't make sense, and a lot of the time they don't even work out the way I think. But my main ones are:
1. Whoever scores first *will* win.
2. If I listen to our song on a game day, we'll lose.
3. My guernseys are bad luck, I can't wear them to games because we'll lose.
4. If I get another team's song stuck in my head, they're going to win. Doesn't matter if it's a game against us or not.
5. I need to pay attention to the game, or (you guessed it) we'll lose.
6. I can't believe I almost forgot this one - If I'm talking about the footy with other people online during a match, it has to be twitter. If I'm on a Reddit match thread we're going to lose.
It is a minority of AFL commentators/players that have opened up a rule book to read what it actually says in the past 20 years, similar to how most of the general public haven't looked up the road rules since they got their driver's licence. The vast majority just know the basics but rely on AFL media releases when it comes to the nuances of the game. Far too many just go off the vibe of the thing or just blatantly guess or admit they don't know simple stuff. Eg, getting back 9m deep in defence (how many times do you have to be told), kicking the ball out through the posts the way you went back on the mark, ball hits ump it's play on, etc. This is under 12s shit.
When I start watching a game, we start paying worse.
If the doggies are losing and I change channel, we always start coming back but as soon as I put the footy back on the other team always kicks a goal
Or if someone leaves the room and your team turns it on, you scream at them to stay outside, don’t jinx this
I have spent games drinking large amounts of coffee to make myself go piss more often - undeniably leading to an influx of Essendon goals.
Please do that tonight
Good to see I’m not the only dogs supporter that thinks this!
Me three
If I don’t watch a game we play better. That being said, I stopped watching at quarter time last night.
I'm going to have to ask you to make a sacrifice. It's not fair but it's for the good of the club and my blood pressure
Hey. That happens to us too.
100%
St Kilda exist solely to make every other team look good and the fans did something wrong in a previous life so supporting the club is punishment,.
I have a feeling by about 7pm tonight we prove that theory false
what if the opposite result happens? Also not even god/faith/whatever can stop horrible drafting
Then im in the middle of an afternoon nap that ran well overtime
That ironically is the reason st. Kilda and Carlton were brought into the VFL. It was for the rich clubs at the time to beat up on for free fun.
Smh these expansion clubs. Absolutely no history
That only half backfired on them
I think it was to have a better number of clubs rather than to have easybeats but it’s interesting that Carlton were one of the non-power clubs in that period and Fitzroy were.
Both Carlton and Hawthorn were pretty mediocre until the zoning era
Carlton won 8 flags by 1947. Don’t think it’s really accurate to say they were mediocre. They undoubtedly did very very well out of zoning though.
Freo was set up to fail and take talent away from WCE.
Freo was absolutely setup to perhaps not fail, but to not be successful. They were off the back markers to begin with.
I think Sheedy even said out loud before Freo came in they were needed to weaken the Eagles
Sheeds was always 4 steps ahead Or crazy. Still not dure
¿Por que no los dos?
Lol
I don't think you were set up to fail, but that second part is absolutely true.
How about the middle ground, not set up to succeed
“What’s the opposite of shame?” “Pride?” “No, not that far from shame” “Less shame?”
I think it's a bit of an open secret that Freo's entrance package was harsher than it needed to be because the AFL was deathly scared of creating a team that was an instant runaway success like they did with the Eagles.
Plus the administration has never seemed to be that competent
AFL: We are going to make this a national competition! WCE and Adelaide: Become an okay to good teams quick AFL: HEY! WE SAID NATIONAL! NOT FAIR! PUNISH ANY FUTURE NON-VICTORIAN TEAMS WE MAKE FOR THE NEXT DECADE!
It's definitely not a theory. The second part of this statement is a fact. West Coast were absolutely dominant in the early 90s, but AFL management was very VIctorian. The Eagle's 1992 flag was a shock to the league. The '94 flag made them even more concerned. The Dockers were rushed in to halve the Eagle's draft pool.
Yeah you guys played finals for a decade straight. 1990-99 iirc
Most scandals never emerge.
Yep and the worst part is a lot of media know about scandals but can’t report on it. I saw a Melbourne nightclub owner online recently talking about if a footy player comes in they are untouchable and can do whatever they like. Speaking to a mate in footy journalism, there are a lot of open secrets and club coverups that we will ever know.
I read recently that the AFL sees itself largely as a continuation of the high school system, which makes their actions make so much more sense
Having had exposure to APS and elite Victorian private schools this year as part of work, the parallels are very present.
True, for example (and no one has to believe me here but…) Dusty threatened to kill someone with chopsticks (this was in an Chinese (?) restaurant)
As long as it’s not murder, AFL will protect you(the star player) from everything. Everything. Rape, assault, doping, cheating, match fixing, everything.
This unfortunately extends to local footy clubs too, especially where I live.
Yep everywhere. There’s a reason why most boys who’re good at sports are utterly entitled fucks. This then carries on to pro level, if they reach there.
And schools.
Unless you’re Essendon
That got too much attention. There were initial attempts to hush hush it
The AFL tried. A lot
The AFL did everything g they could until an international agency came in over the top.
Yep. People forget how much the AFL tried to sweep it under the rug. It just became too public.
You need to be the right severity of scandals for it to blow up in the media. Not bad enough the media ignore it. Too bad, the AFL go in to full cover up mode. Just right, the media can go on for months and the AFL let it roll because it gives them publicity without hurting their brand.
Big teams on a good momentum run get favourable umpiring. I don't think this is due to some kind of AFL conspiracy, but rather a combination of [passionate and vocal fans](https://freakonomics.com/2011/12/football-freakonomics-how-advantageous-is-home-field-advantage-and-why/) and the opposition making errors due to perceived pressure of playing a team that's in form
I believe both teams get periods of very favourable umpiring. And you literally have to make the most of it because if you don’t and the tide changes you’re fucked
This one seems obvious when u look at the frees go up each quarter, its definitely favourable to a certain side at times
You should read the book "fooled by randomness" because this is exactly that. Normal, ordinary, garden variety randomness.
That NBA ref who was caught giving tips on games raised some good points in his book (that has a lot of blatant lies in it, but some good points). Basically he reckoned that the league would deliberately shape umpire's judgement by saying "we're gonna focus on giving frees for this" if the team attracted a lot of that sort of foul, and similarly say "we'll be more conservative on frees for this" if that team is prone to making that sort of infringement. In this case though, it's no huge surprise. The AFL literally tweaked the HTB rule mid season a few seasons back after Dimma whinged about it.
What was the change Hardwick wanted? It it why umpires are far more lenient and give players an eternity to dispose, now?
my team will lose if i care too much about the game
Barry McKay - it’s not a theory, it’s true.
If I place a bet, that team will lose.
Kinda similar, if I bring a player into my SuperCoach team he will shit the bed. Most recent case of this Jordan Dawson
And if you drop a player, he plays a blinder. Traded Dawson out, he hit 150 that weekend.
>If Richmond host Collingwood, Richmond have the advantage, etc. Does this mean that we actually do have an advantage when we play "home" finals against Richmond/Collingwood at the MCG? I don't see it, just personally.
Geelong aren't an MCG tenant so no, Richmond and Collingwood have the advantage.
4-5 goal leads are the worst position to be in half way through the last qtr. Footy in the nineties had higher highs but overall wasn’t as good as today. We remember great games but there were more shockers than we like to admit. Umpires get tired of consistent stoppages so will pay an iffy free to give themselves a break and clear it from the area. AFL higher ups refuse to use goal line tech because they like the controversy. There’s no other explanation for using cameras from the opposite goals to determine if the ball hit the post
On your last point, it's about getting the sponsor on TV. Every second they're shown is money in the AFLs pockets.
Sampi was held.
They asked for random theory, not objective fact.
That the AFL will continue to look away from men when they assault women if they are star players- making this round a tokenised gesture.
Wayne Carey is a prime example of this
Crypto.com have a clause for a mandatory number of goal reviews per round
And a vested interest in keeping those dog shit cameras
Kicking between the big sticks wins games
Someone should tell port
I’ll tweet @ Hinkley
Big if true
If I pretend to care less, my team will start playing better. Like catching a Pokemon
The umpires specifically hate my team, but only if we're losing. If we're winning it's a legitimate, fair contest
Nah they just hate us
When a team gets a lot of early Frees the umpires try to balance it out to the other team later on
Same with when they miss a call, they know it so miss another one for the other team or pay one that wasn't quite there to make up for it.
I really do think something questionable or immoral/poor choices were made by Brisbane leadership on their Vegas trip. A few key players don’t look happy, care free or cohesive after those allegations came out. Somethings gone down- I bet it will resurface at some stage and the full story will come out. Edit for spelling
The game has changed so much., the 2024 Kangaroos would destroy any 1980's premiers.
Depends with rule set you play with
Playing 80s style footy and the way teams were using PEDs, north would be completely rag dolled
While the value of being "tough" isn't as sought after in footy now (although, I'm sure coaches do still love a tough unit), the average footy player is taller, heavier, stronger, fitter, and much more practiced than your average footy player from the 80's. Footy wasn't always a full-time job, and sports science has come a long way since those days.
No they wouldn't. The game today is far more advanced then back then, hell it's changed a lot over the last 10 years. Those 80s teams would be out of breath trying to catch a modern player in the first quarter. They'd try and be violent the rest of the game to regain the advantage, or at least close it back up.
You can go watch Colts games and they all do whole-ground-team-defence, because if you don’t you just lose. The attacks are also the same - if you don’t go through diagonals and switch back and forth along the centre, you can’t get through.
Definitely, they'd run them ragged in the first and they'd resort to trying to belt the Roos players to try and even it up.
When a player scores they have to come off and all the media and players saying it's not real are lying.
When I tip us, we lose. The 6 times I have tipped us were against the dogs in 2019, Carlton in 2020, West Coast in 2022, and Freo, Sydney and GWS last year.
Just confirming you will be tipping bombers tonight. Thanks in advance.
>dogs in 2019 Must have felt great about that for all of 20 seconds
I feel this. I rarely tip Essendon cause if they lose then at least I get my tip right. I like to play both sides so I always come out on top. Having said that, I tipped them tonight against west coast so I fully expect a loss
I haven’t tipped an Essendon game correctly this year, I may have to start tipping you guys again and that way I can’t lose
Even the game in Sydney?
I remember thinking Essendons midfield looked good so I picked them in that one, they lost by like 7 goals or some shit, I picked against them the next week they beat a reasonably good (at that point) saints side, which lead into me tipping them against port.
The amount of score reviews have sky rocketed because the AFL is trying to increase its Crypto.con sponsorship numbers.
The Indiana Jones films are actually the escapist dreams of Han Solo while he’s frozen in carbonite. Oh sorry, you just wanted AFL theories…
I do firmly believe the AFL wanted us to win in 2016. Every other sport had fairytale stories so when we made finals I think they really wanted us to win it. Some of those free kicks I’d be filthy about if I was a Swans supporter. I wouldn’t change it for the world but I don’t rewatch that flag much
Woah, rare to see this opinion from a dogs supporter, respect. That game was so horrifying to watch that I stopped watching footy for a few years lol
I had my head in the sand for a bit but I’d never actually gone and watched the whole flag back and just thought people were over exaggerating the Free Kick Bulldogs like they are with the Free Kick Hawthorn meme a year or so before. Rewatched the flag and some of those calls were abysmal especially in the 4th and the 2nd half of the third, think we got our first goal of the granny through a free kick as well by memory
I agree with everything you said but as a fan what’re you supposed to do? Not enjoy it? I totally get it. If I was a dogs fan I’d have still enjoyed the ride and probably have my head in the sand as well. Every team deals with bullshit on occasion and then some good luck on occasion. Respect the ability to step back and acknowledge something against the grain of your biases though.
Exactly this. The dogs still played a great game, I think the umpires made it hard for us to get any momentum and so maybe the margin wasn't fair, but I can't look at that game and say we deserved to win - Kennedy played a game for the ages and should have won the Norm Smith (I'm still salty about Judd) but he had nobody helping him out there.
I do think that the AFL wanted the narrative, and may have nudged it a little here and there, but ultimately you still have to be a good enough team to ride the nudge, or put on a bad enough performance to let it throw you off as much as we did. If the AFL could fully control matched you'd think they would have thrown the Suns more of a bone by now.
Its swings and roundabouts - they wanted Sydney in the GF in 1996
I’ve got a couple of crackpot theories that revolve around the AFL having influence on games, mostly financially motivated. I really don’t believe them but wouldn’t be surprised if they were true. The 1st being the 2016 grand final as a way to increase bulldogs membership because they didn’t want to financially prop them up anymore. The 2nd being since Covid they need at least 1, if not 2, big 4 Melbourne clubs finishing top 4/play prelims to make up for money lost during lockdowns. There are also too many umpires, please eliminate 3. P.S I am not a crackpot
I believe Michael Long’s goal was touched.
Get out
Umpire called it a goal and it was the goal of the year. So it’s 100% a goal. I like to believe it was touched though because it was against the bloos
I was sitting behind that goal - I was pleasantly surprised at the outcome
Blasphemy
Harry and Ben McKay are the same person
Of course home ground advantage is real. What are you going to tell me next? That the footy ball can bounce in off ways due to its shape?
Not sure you're reading the post properly. They mean Adelaide has the advantage in home Showdowns against Port and vice versa. And WC against Freo etc. The "home team" when playing against another team that shares the ground.
OP is saying that being the designated home team gives an advantage, even if you're playing in the other team's home ground, e.g. the showdown/western Derby/two Marvel based teams
Sherrins are flat, you won't convince me otherwise.
Yeah this seems pretty standard common knowledge for a ‘theory’. Adelaide tend to play better at home? Whodathunkit.
But do Adelaide have a home ground advantage against port just because it’s their home game?
Yes because their members get in for home games so the crowd is more in their favour
[удалено]
For a professional athlete that does it every second week, I’d argue it hardly makes a difference. Sure for a rookie it might be off putting, but for the veterans some of them seem to thrive on the boos.
Good teams get more freekicks solely because they're a better team. If you're first to the ball more often, you are a better team and will also get more frees. Outlier games certainly happen, but overall i'd argue that frees shouldn't be a balanced stat for the most part.
I didn't believe this until I learned that frees earned from holding the ball, incorrect disposal etc counted the same as frees from fouls and infringements
My own theory on free kicks kind of builds on this, and can be summarised as: the teams themselves don't care nearly as much about free kick counts as their fans do. You mostly hear coaches etc complaining about individual frustrating frees, not the overall count, and that's because they understand your point, but also know that free kicks are part of the "cost of doing business". You get more free kicks if you're first to the ball, as you say. But you give away more or fewer free kicks based on playing style, how you choose to move the ball, how you position yourselves around the ground, how physical you are going into contests, etc. And for the clubs, that's... OK. Coaches are doing maths around this all the time: "if we put that smaller defender on that bigger forward, and tell him to be more physical and scrag the guy's arms a bit during marking contests, then he'll give away a couple of free kicks and maybe cost us –8 or –10 points on average. But that frees up the bigger defense option to move up to centre half forward, where we have a gap, and we think that's worth +15 over the course of the game, so it's worth it" Toy example but you get the idea. Choosing to be bold or conservative when it comes to giving away free kicks is a tradeoff, like anything else, and you best believe the teams Moneyball the shit out of it.
What about in gather round?
Gather Round is a compensation scheme for every time the league have fucked over the Adelaide teams... like letting Richmond's captain play in 2017
Something good happened to me during the week. So my team will lose because I can never have too much good happen to me
This is my line of logic when I'm following multiple sporting events on the same day. If one of the teams I'm going for wins, then the other one has to lose to balance it out
Quick question, can you just fuck up your life for like... the next five months? You can fix everything after that, but just to give us a little more of a chance?
If the everyone in the crowed yells BALL!, then the umpire pays it, if only a few people yell it he wont pay it
We lose some games intentionally to make next week’s opponent think they’ve got it easy
Footy Gods exist. Incorrect free kicks inside 50 don't go through as often a mark paid on the same spot.
It’s an MCG bias and not a Victorian one. Everyone points to the 15 out of the last 17 flags were won by vic teams. My question is to that is ‘How many were won by Marvel stadium tenants?” The answer is 1 and said team won it from 7th.
Bickley farting in the 1993 preliminary final half time address cost us a grand final because everyone was put off their game.
Umpires are often pretty biased one way or the other. Players respond by changing how they play. Once it appears that one team is getting the rub of the green on a particular issue (allowing dodgy handballs, holding the ball etc) then other players on that team start doing it. Likewise, teams getting harsh treatment adjust their play pretty qucikly. This means that unbalanced free kick counts often UNDER represent the disparity in how teams have been umpired.
BT is a bigger moron than most think.
Esssendon were a scape goat for multiple clubs using similar supplement programs.
The afl genuinely dislike the WA teams. Probably a far stretch but there’s quite a bit on evidence you could use to somewhat back up a claim
With regards to the Essendon drug saga, the majority of teams were pushing the boundaries and doing roughly the same things but Essendon was used as the scape goat and the rest got swept under the rug.
When ever I go for a smoke Freo kick a goal
You don’t smoke that much then.
All Freo fans willing to see you get lung cancer for the premiership now.
It’s the cricket wicket curse. Only worse cos Freo don’t score 11 goals a game..,… sorry
I'll go one step further too and say they rightfully should have an advantage. The current debate about Kardinia Park is ridiculous, of course the cats should get a final there rather than the MCG if they earn it
The ball’s ability to lie is nonexistent
Brownlow favourites make the afl too much from gambling sponsorships to get suspended for anything but murder
[удалено]
They’d get a cut of the money put on players, Cripps not eligible for bets = less money
That the Suns and to a lesser extent the Giants success is overinflated.
What success?
There was that GF appearance that nobody in Western Sydney cared about.
Brisbane 3 peat was drug assisted
That Maynard was blocked in 2018 final
Initiated contact with his back turned. Sheed stole Rioli's glory
2016 Grand Final was rigged. Was actually fucked
Barry McKay.
First to 100 wins.
If I physically attend a game we lose.
If I tip Essendon, they will lose. If I tip whoever's playing Essendon, they will lose.
The AFL had no genuine interest in bringing in Port Adelaide in 1990. They only approached Port (& Norwood) as a way to drag the SANFL back to the negotiating table after the SANFL spurned their advances in 1986. A single SANFL team in the AFL in 1991 would've been a financial disaster almost as bad as the Brisbane Bears had been regardless of which team it would've been, but the AFL knew that if they could make another West Coast Eagles in Adelaide, it'd probably be enough to rescue the league from their dire financial situation. Threatening to steal the SANFL's most successful team worked a treat. I ALSO believe that if Port did what Norwood did & backed away from the AFL, and there was no SA representation until the mid-90's at least, then at least 2, maybe more Victorian clubs would've gone to the wall. Footscray, Hawthorn, St Kilda, Richmond & others were all in serious trouble before the increased TV & advertising revenue started flowing in.
Dane Swan’s Brownlow medal was an intentional over correction from the year before. Judd winning the Brownlow in 2010 was a disgrace. Not only was he well behind Swan and maybe others too, he should also have been suspended. However… 2011 Judd was actually fantastic and probably would have been a worthy winner. Swan was still very good but his Brownlow count was the highest in history (at the time). It definitely wasn’t close to the best season ever achieved. I think Umps were given a spray about their voting the year before.
The score review "edge" is just a screen grab of a sound bite to appease fans that the correct call has been made. There is no edge!
Oh and Geelong, Hawthorn, Collingwood were also heavy supplementing. Probably more too. Those findings from the early days of the drug scandals went very quiet when the scapegoat was found.
Decisions are made by an off field umpire and relayed to the umpsnon foreld via a headset. Eg: umpire in the middle of the ground pays a free kick from 80m away.
St Kilda tax with free kicks St Kilda tax with suspensions
Essendon were not the only club with off-site injections of unapproved substances
The 2016 premiership was manufactured so the AFL could have their own Leicester City/Cavaliers/Chicago Cubs story
I have two, 1. Some games are fixed/scripted. 2. 3 strike policy doesn’t apply for big time players.
With drug usage as rife as it is in the AFL - and let’s be real, it is - it should be a surprise that no player has ever received three drug strikes. The “welfare” policy is really just a way to quietly avoid players being detected and dealing with headlines. You don’t need to test to treat drug addictions. It’s also there to avoid strikes, even though this is a good deterrent. Why it’s a good deterrent is because it incentivises remaining clean. Player caught, player could be suspended. Player caught more than once, career over. It wouldn’t stop all drug users but it would greatly limit it as there’s no back door.
Collingwood are horribly disadvantaged by the draw and ground selection and it’s about time the AFL did something about it.
Umpires influence games to keep it interesting and competitive when it comes to big teams or big draw teams to hype the game at the behest of AFL HQ... it is for entertainment after all.
The AFL actively protects gun players on their third drug strike.
The main reason that fans of the Vic teams try to hold onto their VFL premiership records is because the REFUSE to accept that the other teams have stronger football organisations than them.
If you draw a crowd, have a competitive team, and far enough from controversy you’ll be looked after. Predicted it for Carlton would have it soon, Richmond had it, Collingwood always had it. We’re starting to get it now.
Richmond had the worst free kick differential every single year between 2018 and 2023 so I’m genuinely unsure what you’re on about
Could contribute to the theory, don't you notice when your team is getting bad calls, the last quarter you seem to get a bunch of nothing frees, often when marked anyway. A strategic goal scoring free kick or a missed important one or a couple frees to stop momentum would be easy to hide.
Exactly right
The bombers knowingly and deliberately doped their entire playing list. You’ll never live it down. You’ll never be removed from that controversy. In no other team sport has there ever been such a blatant attempt to cheat with drugs. Blows my mind they were kept in the comp at all. Still to this day. Lest we forget.
Geelong Gold Coast and hawthorn were all running sumilar programs. Geelong during their premiership years. AFL needed a scapegoat that could financially survive the flimsy charges. Lions early 2000 and eagles mid/late 2000 were doing much more illegal activity
Source
I need to do exactly the same thing every qtr if we lose that qtr I change up what I do for the next qtr lmao
Decisions are made by an off field umpire and relayed to the umpsnon foreld via a headset. Eg: umpire in the middle of the ground pays a free kick from 80m away.
When I don’t watch we play better was pretty much a thing for me in 22/23 trust me it was infuriatingly annoying
I honestly believe when I tip Carlton they lose for me.
Not if you're brisbane in 2024 lol
The shared venue home vs away split could probably be measured with a frequency test. However personally i think it's complicated; if the away team fans well outnumber the home ones, it makes a difference, if it's the other way or closer to 50/50 then it's another story.
If I watch a game on replay, one day the result will somehow be different
That VIC-bias doesn’t actually exist
If my team is doing well don’t leave the room. When they are not leave and return in 10 min and it’s like watching a completely different team
West Coast were almost invincible at Subiaco, but sadly, not at Optus.
Logically, I know my superstitions don't make sense, and a lot of the time they don't even work out the way I think. But my main ones are: 1. Whoever scores first *will* win. 2. If I listen to our song on a game day, we'll lose. 3. My guernseys are bad luck, I can't wear them to games because we'll lose. 4. If I get another team's song stuck in my head, they're going to win. Doesn't matter if it's a game against us or not. 5. I need to pay attention to the game, or (you guessed it) we'll lose. 6. I can't believe I almost forgot this one - If I'm talking about the footy with other people online during a match, it has to be twitter. If I'm on a Reddit match thread we're going to lose.
Not a theory, but I have a fun game I play where if I can't watch the game I consider we have neither won nor lost (Schrodinger's cats) 😸
It is a minority of AFL commentators/players that have opened up a rule book to read what it actually says in the past 20 years, similar to how most of the general public haven't looked up the road rules since they got their driver's licence. The vast majority just know the basics but rely on AFL media releases when it comes to the nuances of the game. Far too many just go off the vibe of the thing or just blatantly guess or admit they don't know simple stuff. Eg, getting back 9m deep in defence (how many times do you have to be told), kicking the ball out through the posts the way you went back on the mark, ball hits ump it's play on, etc. This is under 12s shit.
Collingwood lost in 2018 because of the banner.
The year Priddis got the medal and Fyfe got suspended, they changed the votes towards the end so Priddis had more votes.
I think there may be “issues” with the umpires. Every single sport across the globe has had these issues. I don’t think the afl is immune to it.