AFL Round 10 weekly discussion thread

[KTigers]

The crowd on Sunday against Carlton was pretty poor (about 9,500) but most GWS home games get in the 12,000 to 14,000
range. Which is basically about half their membership number, so it's probably not bad. If they make a grand final they won't
have as many supporters at it as we would have as they don't have the big supporter base in Melbourne that we have, and
have less members in general anyway. The AFL will just allot more tickets to the other competing club and to the other clubs.
The MCG will always be full on GF day, regardless of who is playing. It's the Grand Final. The common number that get's bandied
about is that there are around 1,500 to 2,000 Swans members who also have GWS memberships. They are people (like me and
my family) that want to support AFL in Sydney generally, and for whom eleven home games a year at the SCG is just not enough
footy. Sitting around at a game on Saturday afternoon eating pies and drinking beer. It's a tough life I tell you.

[Bloods05]

Membership numbers for similar periods in their history (ie prior to a grand final)

Swans membership by year.
1990 13th 9,178
1991 12th 11,521
1992 15th 9,881
1993 15th 9,423
1994 15th 9,813
1995 12th 15,949
1996 2nd 24,996
1997 7th 36,612
1998 5th 31,549
1999 8th 30,586

Swans went from around 10,000 prior to GF, to 25k in grand final year, settling on 30,000 afterwards. ( Essentially finals being a 2x boost, GF a 3x boost)

Giants membership by year.
2012 18th 10,241
2013 18th 12,681
2014 16th 13,047
2015 11th 13,115
2016 4th 15,311
2017 4th 20,944
2018 7th 25,243

Finals have delivered a 2x boost (12k to 25k) so far.

Remarkably similar, although swans rate of rise to GF was off the charts. Spoon to 2nd in 2 years!

The two periods are not comparable. Membership numbers generally are vastly higher now than they were then.

[barry]

The two periods are not comparable. Membership numbers generally are vastly higher now than they were then.

A very melbourne-centric view.

[Mr Magoo]

Is it just me or does it seem weird that the AFL would fine Rampe $10k for saying an umpire sounds like a girl and no one calls it out for the minor quip that it was but when daisy calls an umpire a $#$# cheat he gets a lesser fine and there is much discussion about the size of the fine and in some quarters calls of unfairness to him?

[barry]

Is it just me or does it seem weird that the AFL would fine Rampe $10k for saying an umpire sounds like a girl and no one calls it out for the minor quip that it was but when daisy calls an umpire a $#$# cheat he gets a lesser fine and there is much discussion about the size of the fine and in some quarters calls of unfairness to him?

Swans should appeal. Daisy is a "post precedent" if there is such a thing.

[liz]

Is it just me or does it seem weird that the AFL would fine Rampe $10k for saying an umpire sounds like a girl and no one calls it out for the minor quip that it was but when daisy calls an umpire a $#$# cheat he gets a lesser fine and there is much discussion about the size of the fine and in some quarters calls of unfairness to him?

There was some grumbling about the size of Rampe's fine from the AFLPA - Dangerfield had his say, as president. But I agree with you - if Rampe's fine set the new benchmark (which I don't have a problem with), Thomas got off very lightly indeed with his combination of profanities and use of the word 'cheat'.

[chalbilto]

Is it just me or does it seem weird that the AFL would fine Rampe $10k for saying an umpire sounds like a girl and no one calls it out for the minor quip that it was but when daisy calls an umpire a $#$# cheat he gets a lesser fine and there is much discussion about the size of the fine and in some quarters calls of unfairness to him?

The conclusions one can draw is that AFL heiararchy was embarrassed by the pole climbing incident, where it copped heat from the media and others, so Rampe had his fine increased to $10,000 with $5,000 suspended for the length of his playing tenure. Once again has the club been victamised with separate conditions applied to them viz; Buddy's contract.
The only other conclusion is that is far worse saying that an umpire sounds like a girl, than to call an umpire a $#$# cheat. I accept that we live in a politically correct environment, but honestly which is worse. If one of the players was being officiated by Eleni Glouftsis, and said to her "that she sounds like a girl" or that "she is a $#$# cheat" which would be worse and attract the larger fine?

[Meg]

..... If one of the players was being officiated by Eleni Glouftsis, and said to her "that she sounds like a girl" .....

Funnily enough, Eleni has one of the clearest, easiest to hear voices out on the field. I hope the umpire involved when Rampe had his little say has thought about the substantive point that Rampe didn’t/couldn’t hear him. And tried to adjust.

(The ump did say he called play on three times, as you can hear on the video. The third time was virtually simultaneous with Rampe being tackled.)

[Mr Magoo]

I agree that the only conclusion is that some of the fine was attributed to the ridiculous outcry from the melbourne media on the Rampe "pole shaking" issue and whilst they had to back their umpires decision that this was a back door way of punishing Rampe. Its the only explanation.

Personally I think its simply not on for Daisy to say this and he should have been suspended. I think it was Gerard Whately who pointed out that if the same occurred in most country leagues that it would be an automatic suspension. I fail to see how the AFL does not hold its players to a higher standard. While I dont mind if there is a little bit of banter with an umpire, the moment it becomes disrespectful and questioning their honesty then its a no go and Daisys words go way beyond that.

[liz]

(The ump did say he called play on three times, as you can hear on the video. The third time was virtually simultaneous with Rampe being tackled.)

I don’t think that’s the case. I reckon the second play on call came as Stringer started the tackle, and the third at the time he completed it.

[Meg]

I agree that the only conclusion is that some of the fine was attributed to the ridiculous outcry from the melbourne media on the Rampe "pole shaking" issue and whilst they had to back their umpires decision that this was a back door way of punishing Rampe. Its the only explanation.

Personally I think its simply not on for Daisy to say this and he should have been suspended. I think it was Gerard Whately who pointed out that if the same occurred in most country leagues that it would be an automatic suspension. I fail to see how the AFL does not hold its players to a higher standard. While I dont mind if there is a little bit of banter with an umpire, the moment it becomes disrespectful and questioning their honesty then its a no go and Daisys words go way beyond that.

I agree with both your points.

When the AFL sent Daisy straight to the Tribunal I was expecting the AFL Counsel would argue for a suspension. Instead he argued for $7,500, saying he would have argued for $10,000 had Daisy not pleaded guilty. No mention of a suspension.

Should have been a week (at least).

[Meg]

AFL Round 10 weekly discussion thread

I don’t think that’s the case. I reckon the second play on call came as Stringer started the tackle, and the third at the time he completed it.

Might be the case, haven’t re-looked at it. Rampe was unlucky in that Stringer was running close behind him but I think legally so because Stringer was following his man.

[Mel_C]

I read today in the Herald Sun that the AFL is introducing a Rampe Rule and including the words "climbing the post" in the current shaking the post rule. This is what we suspected would happen.

I also read on Big Footy that Ray Chamberlain was asked in an interview about the Rampe incident and he said it wasn't a free kick because he didn't deliberately shake the post and that the umpire made the right call. I still laugh at the way the media reacted like the world was ending!

Edit: Just saw that someone posted details of the Chamberlain interview in the Round 8 thread.

[liz]

Makes you wonder why he copped a fine if he didn't break any rule.

[Markwebbos]

Makes you wonder why he copped a fine if he didn't break any rule.

Same reason we copped a trading ban