Serious question

[miguel de cervantes]

How can Melbourne tank for draft picks, the AFL reprimand them for "not tanking" and then a little while later award them a special draft pick anyway and bankroll a new coach for them because they are so crap?

My head is spinning. :crazy:

 

[Twizzle]

When were they reprimanded for not tanking ?

 

[andrew057]

When were they reprimanded for not tanking ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...-not-for-tanking/story-fnca0u4y-1226581459794

 

[Twizzle]

oh, the Vlad PR machine at its best

when the association is run by a dictator they can make their own rules

simples

 

[RL The greatest game]

How can Melbourne tank for draft picks, the AFL reprimand them for "not tanking" and then a little while later award them a special draft pick anyway and bankroll a new coach for them because they are so crap?

My head is spinning. :crazy:

A joke of a sport with no following outside three states, run by 5 chins, a man who if you shook hands with him you would have to check your fingers and thumb afterwards to make sure they were still there.

 

[Munro_Mick]

They were never going to be able to make a legal definition of 'tanking' stick if challenged in court.
The concept then of effectively a negotiated outcome such as with Essendon is again an example of the legal minefield being avoided at all costs (rarely any winners other than the lawyers unless there's a serious legal precedent desperately required to be established.)
Much of what gets labelled 'tanking' is at any other time simply list management. Melbourne had a reason to lose and that was actually an AFL 'construct'. However - Melbourne also had every right with the season gone - to experiment with players in a variety of positions and to see how young kids went with more game time than normal.
Many other 'dead rubber' games near seasons end will become 'bruise free' with little close tagging of opposition key players.
For me - the focus on Melbourne really should've been something the AFL wanted to avoid as it just reflected poorly on the priority draft pick situation.

If you stick a big enough carrot out there - then don't be surprised that some reaches for it.

 

[RL The greatest game]

They were never going to be able to make a legal definition of 'tanking' stick if challenged in court.
The concept then of effectively a negotiated outcome such as with Essendon is again an example of the legal minefield being avoided at all costs (rarely any winners other than the lawyers unless there's a serious legal precedent desperately required to be established.)
Much of what gets labelled 'tanking' is at any other time simply list management. Melbourne had a reason to lose and that was actually an AFL 'construct'. However - Melbourne also had every right with the season gone - to experiment with players in a variety of positions and to see how young kids went with more game time than normal.
Many other 'dead rubber' games near seasons end will become 'bruise free' with little close tagging of opposition key players.
For me - the focus on Melbourne really should've been something the AFL wanted to avoid as it just reflected poorly on the priority draft pick situation.

If you stick a big enough carrot out there - then don't be surprised that some reaches for it.

Do you agree with me that the draft rewards moderately and is a farce and should be binned?