AFL gets 'please explain' over tanking

[LostDoggy]

Hey Andrew, how long is your nose going to get before all of this is over?

---

AFL gets 'please explain' over tanking
Jason Dowling | October 1, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews...989953866.html

VICTORIA'S gambling regulator is not satisfied with the AFL's response to queries about whether sides are ''tanking'' - deliberately setting out to lose - so they can gain higher draft picks.

The Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation had asked the AFL for assurances that tanking was not occurring. The AFL formally responded but the commission said it would go back to the AFL over several matters raised in the response.

''We want to get some clarification about some issues,'' said executive commissioner Peter Cohen. AFL head Andrew Demetriou has repeatedly denied that clubs deliberately underperform to gain better draft picks, putting him at odds with nearly every commentator on the game.

The commission has the power to set gambling conditions, such as banning betting on teams at the bottom of the ladder, which have the greatest incentive to tank.

It also has the power to revoke the AFL's status as a sports-controlling body, stripping it of its power to demand money for betting on games.

Former Melbourne player Russell Robertson last week told a function in Hobart that the tanking issue had disgruntled several Demons players at the end of the 2009 season.

''I'm not saying we tanked, I'm just saying players were played out of position,'' he said. ''We've got a centre-half forward playing in the ruck, we've got our backline playing in our forward line, we've got our forward line playing in the backline. It is not hard to figure it out.

''You can't blame the coach [Dean Bailey]. It is more just the way the AFL is at the moment …''

[Sockeye Salmon]

What? Andrew's standard response of "because I said so" not good enough?

It also has the power to revoke the AFL's status as a sports-controlling body, stripping it of its power to demand money for betting on games.

This is the only way I can see the tanking issue being addressed. If it's going to cost the AFL cash it will be fixed in an instant.

[LostDoggy]

Now watch Demetriou, Anderson and the rest of the Politburo crucify Robertson as the scapegoat. The AFL is never wrong. To suggest otherwise is a one way excursion to Ljubljanka.

[The Coon Dog]

This is the only way I can see the tanking issue being addressed. If it's going to cost the AFL cash it will be fixed in an instant.

Abolishing priority picks will too.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Abolishing priority picks will too.

Will what? Cost the AFL cash? How so?

[Topdog]

Will what? Cost the AFL cash? How so?

I think he means get rid of tanking. I disagree with him, it will decrease it not get rid of it.

[boydogs]

Abolishing priority picks will too.

That may be how they fix the problem, but I think SS was referring more to the AFL being motivated to do so

[BulldogBelle]

Best way to address tanking is to not have any priority picks

American professional sports have a lottery where the worst performing teams go into the lottery for the #1 pick at the end of the season

There could be a system here where the teams that finish in the bottom six go into the lottery, and possibly the team that finishes last (on the least wins) may have a higher chance in the lottery to get the #1 pick, but with nothing 100% guaranteed

My other issue is that the father/son rule should be changed to 50 games if the AFL expects teams to forefit their first draft pick via the bidding system....

[The Coon Dog]

My other issue is that the father/son rule should be changed to 50 games if the AFL expects teams to forefit their first draft pick via the bidding system....

That's a fallacy. Under the new bidding system only 4 players have been drafted & only one has been taken with a first round selection:

Jaxson Barham - Collingwood - 4th round pick (61)
Adam Donohue - Geelong - 4th round pick (60)
Darcy Daniher - Essendon - 3rd round pick (39)
Ayce Cordy - Bulldogs - 1st round pick (14)

Don't disagree with the 100 down to 50 games change, but nothing to do with what was alluded to.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Best way to address tanking is to not have any priority picks

American professional sports have a lottery where the worst performing teams go into the lottery for the #1 pick at the end of the season

There could be a system here where the teams that finish in the bottom six go into the lottery, and possibly the team that finishes last (on the least wins) may have a higher chance in the lottery to get the #1 pick, but with nothing 100% guaranteed

My other issue is that the father/son rule should be changed to 50 games if the AFL expects teams to forefit their first draft pick via the bidding system....

The lottery isn't needed. Scrap the priority picks and the problem goes away.