That's it. I'm giving up Australian Football.

[Jewels]

First rule that is taught to most kids is that the umpires decision is final on the sporting field. Or have we forgotten this?
To have undertaken the action you wanted to occur would have been petulant and our club would have been derided for it for decades to come. It's weak to hide or walk away it takes much more courage to face up to the result and come back stronger for it.

Agree with this.
I was shattered at the game and so infuriated I walked out when Picken I think it was, kicked the goal after a clear hold on Rampe was called play on, and that's a decision I now regret as it was being petulant and unsporting and the dogs fans and players deserved better, after all it wasn't their fault the umpires decided to only officiate one team.
I think the club probably will question the strange umpiring, the thing is we will never know as it will be done the correct way, through the correct channels as is our teams way of doing things.

[crackedactor]

Still a supporter of the theory.. if it walks and talks like a duck. its probably a duck. It happens far too often for it not to be some form of rigging or corruption.

[barry]

I think the club probably will question the strange umpiring, the thing is we will never know as it will be done the correct way, through the correct channels as is our teams way of doing things.

If they do go through the correct channels, which i doubt, then that has proven to be useless.

[cartman48]

Admittedly a few decision went against the Swans in the big dance but the conspiracy's about being the least looked after side in the comp are far from the mark. Swans are 5th in free kicks for all year (Bulldogs first).
On the day the Swans had too many passengers and a few key injuries that did not help. Some refreshing posts after the emotion went out of it.

[aardvark]

The main thing that cost us the premiership was the trade ban. One or two more experienced players in the line up and we would have got there.

[ScottH]

The main thing that cost us the premiership was the trade ban. One or two more experienced players in the line up and we would have got there.

Trade ban AND Trade Restriction!!
But at least we still have COLA, or is that COKE? I'll have to ask Talia.

[jono2707]

The main thing that cost us the premiership was the trade ban. One or two more experienced players in the line up and we would have got there.

Could we have afforded them anyway with the salary cap? We've gone down the path of supplementing our top end and expensive talent with a lot of youngsters and a couple of journeymen. That approach got us to the last match of the year and almost over the line.

[aardvark]

Could we have afforded them anyway with the salary cap?

We'll never know but as i recall we'd been reported to have shown interest in a couple, Patfull?, before the Ban hit.

[snajik]

Though the conspiracy theory that might hold some weight is the one around why there was a bye before the finals. The AFL would tell you that the reason was that no longer would clubs have an excuse to rest players. Could it be that the undue influence of betting agencies didn?t want to see fixtures with obvious outcomes? They stood to lose money on these games as the opposition became certainties to win when the finals combatant decided to rest a dozen players in the last week of the home and away series.

Indirectly, Footscray benefited from this anomaly. They would not have had so many players back for the first week of the finals if it was the same schedule as last year. Chances are The Dogs may well have lost in Perth and the finals series would have looked very different.

[mcs]

Though the conspiracy theory that might hold some weight is the one around why there was a bye before the finals. The AFL would tell you that the reason was that no longer would clubs have an excuse to rest players. Could it be that the undue influence of betting agencies didn?t want to see fixtures with obvious outcomes? They stood to lose money on these games as the opposition became certainties to win when the finals combatant decided to rest a dozen players in the last week of the home and away series.

Indirectly, Footscray benefited from this anomaly. They would not have had so many players back for the first week of the finals if it was the same schedule as last year. Chances are The Dogs may well have lost in Perth and the finals series would have looked very different.

I'd argue the Dogs would have got beaten in the first week of the finals without the bye. They got several players back from injury for that game, plus had a week to recover from the trip to perth in rd 23. They then got an additional days rest over Hawthorn for week 2 of the finals as well.

Make no doubts, while the Dogs did amazingly well tocome from 7th for their fairytale they also got a fair bit of inside running to help them on the way. All credit for being good enough to take advantage of it, but I have no doubt that the post rd 23 bye had a significant impact on the overall outcomes of the season.

If the AFLPA wants 2 byes, surely it would be better to have a general bye after say rd 8 and then another after say rd 16 or somewhere around there - so that all teams can benefit from it equally (i.e. what use is a bye for teams already done after rd 23), and it isn't going to impact upon the finals series. To me, that impact is of far greater consequence than the impact of teams resting players in rd 23, if they have nothing to play for in terms of where they may finish in finals.

[KTigers]

Based on a sample size of one (this year) the bye after round 23 threw up a number of things that had never occurred before.
A team finishing seventh won the flag. Previously only one team in the last twenty years outside the top four had ever won a premiership.
Both Qualifying finals winners (Geelong & GWS) lost their Prelims and consequently missed the GF. That had never happened
before. In previous years it was very rare for one of the two QF winners to not win the premiership.
If the bye after round 23 stays and what occurred this year is repeated, it could be argued that finishing in the top four actually
disadvantages teams in the finals series especially the winners of the QF as playing one game in four weeks makes a team
very rusty by the time they have to play a prelim (which Geelong and GWS were this year). If the AFL were concerned about
the occasional team resting players in last H & A game under the previous system, the new system could make resting players
(aka not trying very hard to win) in the latter rounds of the H & A season an epidemic.

[barry]

The pre finals bye is good.
Some say geelong were short changed by the rests but i think the results reflected where geelong are at.
I don't think the bye did GWS any harm .

[goswannies]

Based on a sample size of one (this year) the bye after round 23 threw up a number of things that had never occurred before.
A team finishing seventh won the flag. Previously only one team in the last twenty years outside the top four had ever won a premiership.

I think it only once in the history of the AFL/VFL (Adelaide) ... although to be fair, for a long time it was only a top 4, so winning from outside the top 4 would have been somewhat challenging

[AnnieH]

Trade ban AND Trade Restriction!!
But at least we still have COLA, or is that COKE? I'll have to ask Talia.

I'll never give up on the swans; but any respect I ever had (if any) for the AFL has shot right out the window.
I can't wait to see what surprise they have in store for us on the eve of trading.

[Nico]

I also think AFL in Sydney needs new Journos. OneS at SMH and Daily Telegraph are too meek and mild. It is obvious whatvtgey are thinking on twitter , nonwvwilling to sau "umpiring bias decides grand final"

That's because they are AFL accredited and are too scared to lose their ticket. Remember the Channel 7 reporter who broke the story about medical records of Hawthorn players being found in the street. Never seen or heard of since, the poor bugger, and he thought he had a scoop and he did, but paid the price.