TOPIC: AFL bias? Not this time.

Walter the baker AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #1

Walter the baker
Given its a slow footy day the following may give us something to chew over. I'm all for AFL bashing especially when it comes to it's Vic centric approach, but I think they've got it right with this one even of a Port player doesnt agree. Allowing non Vic clubs to train while Vic has continuing isolation requirements would create a massive advantage for those clubs. If only the AFL could be as fair with some of its other decisions (I couldnt write a whole post without taking at least one swipe at head office!).

www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-04/tom-rockl...estrictions/12211236
Login to reply,

Drubbing AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #2

Drubbing
Yeah nah/

Gillon talks about 'equity'. He doesn't understand the meaning of the word. Talk about equity in the same sentence as Richmond and Collingwood, where they play, and how often they play there and see how far you get.

It would be more equitable to let the interstate clubs do whatever they can to prepare. They're the ones that have to travel every fortnight. Or maybe in AFL 2020, every week.
Login to reply,
Raglan Matt, Corporal Agarn, PurpleDockette, themagoos said You Beaut

mac AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #3

mac
Can't train groups of ten because they can't.
The joke around town is If it's stormy and unsafe to train outside in Melbourne we can't if its a sunny day.
Get Collingwood to play a final at Geelong.
Stop giving money to Melbourne basket case teams like St Kilda.
Get Norths, St Kilda & Gold Coast merge and get Tassie in this National comp.
What a joke the AFL allowing Melbourne clubs to include past achievements as VFL premierships in AFL records. Who cares except the Victorians. St Kilda has one premiership long long long time ago, 54 years ago.
Article in the Australian...Official AFL records begin with the formation of the VFL in 1897. Adam Cardosi argues that the logic of history demands a rethink, and that 1877 should be the new starting point.


Login to reply,
Corporal Agarn, PurpleDockette, themagoos, Burton said You Beaut

hypen AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #4

hypen
Walter, what would have happened if this thing was flipped in the Vics's favour and in fact it was they who had the distancing controls relaxed before WA and SA?
Login to reply,
Corporal Agarn said You Beaut

pollyanna AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #5

pollyanna
We go for training, 10 at a time - Vic media wouldn't find out because they've never been interested.
Login to reply,
Raglan Matt said You Beaut

PurpleDockette AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #6

PurpleDockette
The precedent has been set. If it is not fair and equitable, it will not be allowed.
Gillon will be busy.
Nice to know teams such as Collingwood and Richmond will only play at home every second week.
WA/SA/QLD/NSW will get seasons where they are home for the final 5 weeks of the season and certain Victorian teams will be made to leave Victoria in the month before the finals.
Collingwood will travel, further than Marvel/Geelong more than three times.
And, 10 players kicking the ball to each other, is not an unfair advantage in light of the increased stress and travel time associated with playing interstate and the possibility of getting Covid19.
All variables need to be accounted for before Gillon suggests it would be unfair to train in groups of ten.
Fix the fixtures and the VFL bias, before throwing stones.
Login to reply,
Corporal Agarn said You Beaut

Corporal Agarn AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #7

Corporal Agarn
You know things must be grim when you agree with Kane Cornes or vice versa.

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&...ZfsD8YuTNRiYqaSIhXLo
Login to reply,

Walter the baker AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #8

Walter the baker
I think you missed my point Hypen, i.e. having all teams training for the same amount of time is fair. I’m not suggesting that the AFL would come to the same decision if it was the other way around or that the AFL are unbiased, but I am saying that this specific case is fair. I agree that it would be nice if they were as fair when it didn’t suit them.
Login to reply,
hypen said You Beaut

Raglan Matt AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #9

Raglan Matt
Yep, WTB it's fair, just not as "fair" as the fixturing or the umpiring or the "father/son" rules, when you look at it from a Victorian viewpoint
Login to reply,

Drubbing AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #10

Drubbing
Just because this 'equity' favours the Vics, doesn't make it fair. All they're doing is protecting their long standing inequity.

Not hard to find a sound legal opinion:

Login to reply,
The_Yeti, pollyanna, Quasimodo said You Beaut

mac AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 3 days ago #11

mac
Malthouse in the coach's interview after Collingwood beat Richmond at the MCG said first up with a chuckle
" Its always good to win away games " as it was Richmond's home game.
Login to reply,

Tragic AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 2 days ago #12

Tragic
I think the AFL has got this wrong.

Pinched this bit from "Science Mag"
"Over long periods of time, social isolation can increase the risk of a variety of health problems, including heart disease, depression, dementia, and even death. A 2015 meta-analysis of the scientific literature by Julianne Holt-Lunstad, a research psychologist at Brigham Young University, and colleagues determined that chronic social isolation increases the risk of mortality by 29%.
That may be because social contacts can buffer the negative effects of stress. Lab studies by Holt-Lunstad and others have found that having a friend present can reduce a person’s cardiovascular response to a stressful task. There’s even a correlation between perceived social connectedness and stress responses. “Just knowing that you have someone you can count on if needed is enough to dampen some of those responses even if [that person is] not physically present,” Holt-Lunstad says.

What effects, if any, might be caused by social distancing in response to the coronavirus is an open question. “I have a couple competing hypotheses,” Holt-Lunstad says. “On the one hand, I am concerned that this will not only exacerbate things for those who are already isolated and lonely, but also might be a triggering point for others to now get into habits of connecting less.” "

I think the argument that you potentially compromise the health of West Australian based footballers out of fairness to others, is not a defensible position to take. *



*unless they play for West Coast, in which case I may consider a process to form a Committee that reports to a Medical Adviser with a summary position being on referred to the Executive with the view to formulating long term strategies on this and other relevant issues. Gil could then ponder the options offered, in the fullness of time.
Login to reply,
The_Yeti, DocDocker, shane, pollyanna, Quasimodo, Raglan Matt, Corporal Agarn said You Beaut

zorro AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 2 days ago #13

zorro
Fair enough.

So now every AFL player should have to quarantine for 14 days before beginning training with their club, even if they are in their home state or returning to NSW or Victoria, so that there's a level playing field with players returning to states (WA/ SA/ Qld) where they'll be forced to quarantine by government regulation.

Because fairness and equity override everything in the AFL.
Login to reply,
ICONDOCKER, hypen, Quasimodo, Corporal Agarn, Docker by the Sea said You Beaut

mac AFL bias? Not this time. 3 weeks 2 days ago #14

mac
Tragic...several of years of supporting the Dockers would bring on most of the conditions you highlighted...and I can add a few more.
I been social distancing for 25 years away from West Coast supporters and that has help socially and mentally.
Login to reply,
Blue1red1 said You Beaut