AFL Round 10 weekly discussion thread

[Meg]

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

I don’t have a problem with the fine. I assume somewhere in the back of his mind Rampe had the mad idea that if he got some height assistance (by jumping up the post) if the kick for goal came in high he might be able to leap off the pole and touch it.

Quite mad (as Rampe effectively acknowledged when he said he doesn’t know what he was trying to do). And not in the spirit of the rules (for example, can’t use a rugby lift to try to achieve extra height).

So no rule was broken = no free kick. But not in spirit of game = fine = warning to all players ‘don’t do this’.

[liz]

Not entirely convinced by the "spirit of the game" argument. Either it was allowed or it wasn't per the rules of the game. My understanding (though without bothering to go and actually read the rules) is that lifting a player up, rugby style, is expressly disallowed. If so, that wouldn't be a good analogy.

I don't have a problem with them now deciding that it's not something the game wants to see and legislating against it, just in case anyone is mad enough to try it again. I'm just not sure players can be expected to know what is and isn't in the spirit of the game if it's not in the rules.

(If you now tell me that there isn't a written rule against the rugby-style lift, I retract the above comment in full )

[KSAS]

With Joe Daniher set to miss rest of the season again, I'm starting to think if we'd dodged a bullet with him nominating Essendon as F/S? He seems to be injury proned as Sam Reid & both are inaccurate kicks for goal, however both are very imposing players when they're on song. Would've been interesting having both in the same team but it would've been a rarity with their injury record. We most likely wouldn't have chased Tippett if Joe had nominated us as F/S. No win situation even with the benefit of hindsight!

[Meg]

Not entirely convinced by the "spirit of the game" argument. Either it was allowed or it wasn't per the rules of the game. My understanding (though without bothering to go and actually read the rules) is that lifting a player up, rugby style, is expressly disallowed. If so, that wouldn't be a good analogy.

I don't have a problem with them now deciding that it's not something the game wants to see and legislating against it, just in case anyone is mad enough to try it again. I'm just not sure players can be expected to know what is and isn't in the spirit of the game if it's not in the rules.

(If you now tell me that there isn't a written rule against the rugby-style lift, I retract the above comment in full )

Yes, there is a rule against rugby-style lift. That was why I made the comparison.

Firstly, the introduction to the AFL Laws says:

‘It is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall be awarded to:
ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner and spirit of true sportsmanship’.

Law 7.12 (f) says:
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
(f) intentionally lifts a Player from the same Team to contest the football.

I think it is reasonable to assume that 7.12 is there because it is considered that getting external assistance to gain height to contest the ball is not playing the game ‘in a fair manner’.

(Let’s put aside for the moment that players can jump in the back or kneel on the shoulders of an opposition player to take a speccy. A feature of our game that breaks several other rules.)

The rules can’t possibly set out every instance of external assistance that might be considered unfair. But I think the unfair lifting rule has established the intent.

For example, if Dane Rampe had run to the fence, taken a step ladder from a spectator (let’s assume security had allowed this to be smuggled in), erected it on the goal line and stood at the top, would you think that because there is no rule against it:

1. No free kick should be paid against Rampe; and
2. Rampe should not be subsequently penalised in some form by the AFL (e.g. by a $1,000 fine)?

[Bloods05]

A very melbourne-centric view.

How so?

[liz]

Yes, there is a rule against rugby-style lift. That was why I made the comparison.

Firstly, the introduction to the AFL Laws says:

‘It is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall be awarded to:
ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner and spirit of true sportsmanship’.

Law 7.12 (f) says:
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who:
(f) intentionally lifts a Player from the same Team to contest the football.

I think it is reasonable to assume that 7.12 is there because it is considered that getting external assistance to gain height to contest the ball is not playing the game ‘in a fair manner’.

(Let’s put aside for the moment that players can jump in the back or kneel on the shoulders of an opposition player to take a speccy. A feature of our game that breaks several other rules.)

The rules can’t possibly set out every instance of external assistance that might be considered unfair. But I think the unfair lifting rule has established the intent.

For example, if Dane Rampe had run to the fence, taken a step ladder from a spectator (let’s assume security had allowed this to be smuggled in), erected it on the goal line and stood at the top, would you think that because there is no rule against it:

1. No free kick should be paid against Rampe; and
2. Rampe should not be subsequently penalised in some form by the AFL (e.g. by a $1,000 fine)?

Your line of reasoning implies, though, that it should have been a free kick against Rampe. The AFL have said it wasn't (ie the umpires didn't make a mistake). It's in that context that I'm struggling to understand why he was subsequently fined.

[barry]

How so?

Melbounre hasnt had a start-up team from scratch since, like, forever.

I always laugh at the melbourne journo's who have criticised gold coast, GWS, Freo and even swans and lions in the early days about how the club has stuffed something up (like medical department). These clubs have had to fill every role of a foot club from scratch. When you are hiring that many people in a short period, there is always going to be a few dud hires, or processes not setup correctly. Over time you refine and correct these. Established clubs have been doing this for years. It will take a long time for new clubs to get to that level.

You see this in business all the time.

Take Tesla motors. Startup. New Market. Great product. But up against the encumbants and their years of refinement is finding out how hard it is to be profitable without refinement at every level.
Similar to Giants. Startup. New Market. Great List. ....

The Melbourne media cant see past their own market, to even try to understand another environment

[KTigers]

Barry is right, Bloods05. If anyone is ever in any doubt about how much GWS, and the Swans are up against it, take a look
at the two main papers here, the SMH & the Daily Telegraph. Every day the AFL stories are buried seven or eight pages back
from the back cover, and combined they'll take up about 3/4 of a page max. It's a miracle both teams are supported as much
as they are.

[bloodspirit]

barry, I think you, and many others, are generous to call the media stupid where I perceive cynicism. I think it's not that they don't know better, it's that they don't care. They only care about what sells and attracts views. They operate in an industry devoid of morality.

[Bloods05]

Barry is right, Bloods05. If anyone is ever in any doubt about how much GWS, and the Swans are up against it, take a look
at the two main papers here, the SMH & the Daily Telegraph. Every day the AFL stories are buried seven or eight pages back
from the back cover, and combined they'll take up about 3/4 of a page max. It's a miracle both teams are supported as much
as they are.

I am well aware that the Sydney (and Queensland) teams are up against it. My point was that comparing membership figures from decades ago with contemporary ones is invalid, because AFL club membership numbers are vastly higher across the board than they were back then. Back in the early 90s, when the Swans' membership was hovering around 9000-10,000, the average membership for Melbourne clubs was around twice that. The current level of GWS membership is about 20% of the average. They have a very long way to go. They are in a tough market, sure, but their biggest problem is and will always be that they have not grown out of any groundswell of local support, as all of the Melbourne clubs did, without exception. Identity may be a nebulous thing, but we know two things about it: (1) it matters to people; and (2) it can't be imposed from above.

[Bloods05]

Melbounre hasnt had a start-up team from scratch since, like, forever.

I always laugh at the melbourne journo's who have criticised gold coast, GWS, Freo and even swans and lions in the early days about how the club has stuffed something up (like medical department). These clubs have had to fill every role of a foot club from scratch. When you are hiring that many people in a short period, there is always going to be a few dud hires, or processes not setup correctly. Over time you refine and correct these. Established clubs have been doing this for years. It will take a long time for new clubs to get to that level.

You see this in business all the time.

Take Tesla motors. Startup. New Market. Great product. But up against the encumbants and their years of refinement is finding out how hard it is to be profitable without refinement at every level.
Similar to Giants. Startup. New Market. Great List. ....

The Melbourne media cant see past their own market, to even try to understand another environment

Generalisations of this kind about "the Melbourne media" are pointless. There is good media and bad media everywhere.

Comparing footy clubs with businesses annoys the hell out of me. There are deep and significant differences which make comparisons of this kind inconsequential.

[barry]

I am well aware that the Sydney (and Queensland) teams are up against it. My point was that comparing membership figures from decades ago with contemporary ones is invalid, because AFL club membership numbers are vastly higher across the board than they were back then.

You fail to equate the point I made above to membership.

Membership is just another aspect of a footy club.

It may be that in the early days of a new club, Membership is de-prioritised against all the other setup challenges.
It is also a fact that its a lot easier to go from 25,000 members to 50,000 members than it is to go from 0 to 50,000 members. They are an organic growth thing. At 25,000 members you have 25,000 people out there selling the membership experience by word of mouth. At 0 you have zero.
Finally, the fact that all start-up teams have grown at roughly the same rate of membership through all era's means its a general trend in the industry.

[KTigers]

I am well aware that the Sydney (and Queensland) teams are up against it. My point was that comparing membership figures from decades ago with contemporary ones is invalid, because AFL club membership numbers are vastly higher across the board than they were back then. Back in the early 90s, when the Swans' membership was hovering around 9000-10,000, the average membership for Melbourne clubs was around twice that. The current level of GWS membership is about 20% of the average. They have a very long way to go. They are in a tough market, sure, but their biggest problem is and will always be that they have not grown out of any groundswell of local support, as all of the Melbourne clubs did, without exception. Identity may be a nebulous thing, but we know two things about it: (1) it matters to people; and (2) it can't be imposed from above.

If the average club membership is in the 60-70K range, and GWS are at 25K, then that's probably closer to 40% of the other teams
average membership. I go to their games, and I think they bust their ass trying to get the local community "out there" involved.
Every game there, there is some sort of community AFL activation (to use marketing jargon). Some of it is a bit hokey, but they
do try. They do have a women's team. We don't. Anyway, I imagine it's almighty slog for them trying to get local people involved.
I agree with your point re membership numbers for clubs being a lot higher than they used to be. Back in the day to be a member
you had to pay for eleven home games. These days you've only got to go to a few games or buy a scarf to be counted
as a member. As for footy clubs being businesses ; in some respects they are, but in a lot of respects they are not. Not sure there
would be many footy clubs left if they had to exist in the environment most businesses do. The home-and-away season would
likely consist of one game a week with Collingwood playing West Coast every weekend, and both teams would be owned by
overseas hedge funds. So it's good that the clubs are not in a regular business environment, it is meant to be a game after all.

[barry]

Generalisations of this kind about "the Melbourne media" are pointless. There is good media and bad media everywhere.

I only make that point because your opinions seems to be influenced by the melbourne AFL media, and you are from melbourne so you have a melbourne-centric view.

[chammond]

Back in the early 90s, when the Swans' membership was hovering around 9000-10,000, the average membership for Melbourne clubs was around twice that. The current level of GWS membership is about 20% of the average. They have a very long way to go. They are in a tough market, sure, but their biggest problem is and will always be that they have not grown out of any groundswell of local support, as all of the Melbourne clubs did, without exception.

I don't live in Sydney, but from outside GWS seem to be doing very well in their market, certainly on a far more positive curve than the Swans had in the early days. GWS have made the finals 3 out of their first 7 years, and wooden spoon twice. Sydney made the finals twice in their first 13 years, and wooden spoon 3 times. GWS average around 16,000 members pa to date; Sydney averaged around 3,000 members for the first 13 years of its existence. In those days, Sydney's home crowds averaged around 13,000, or 50% of the league average. GWS averages around 12,000, but a smaller 33% of the league average.

At various times, Port Adelaide and Fremantle have been written off as basket cases in much easier AFL markets, and Brisbane have never really been taken seriously even though they featured the best AFL team of all time not that very long ago.

I certainly won't be crying any tears for GWS; they're doing okay.