My point is a little different, but somewhat related.
The value of winning a final is greater than the value of winning a normal home and away game ... so if fines and suspensions are equal, you would expect to see more players breaking the rules during finals.
If you then decide not to actually enforce the rules, it’s likely to be worse again.
The value of winning a final is greater than the value of winning a normal home and away game ... so if fines and suspensions are equal, you would expect to see more players breaking the rules during finals.
If you then decide not to actually enforce the rules, it’s likely to be worse again.
First, they told the jockeys that suspensions handed out in the big races would be bigger and longer, than they were in the everyday races.
This lasted about 2 years, and they realised, some jockeys were happy to "stretch" the rules to win a major, and would just cop the "holiday".
Quite cleverly, they then adjusted the rules again, and told the jockeys, longer suspensions, AND you'll lose your winning % of the prizemoney.
This has improved the quality and "fairness" of riding in the big races, though there is nothing they can do, to stop owners backhanding the offending jockey for getting the win, at any cost.
I'm not sure how the AFL do something similar.
It becomes a real minefield, if they start apportioning suspensions and fines, on the basis of "we believe your act had a considerable determining factor, on the outcome of the match".
Something like someone maliciously knocks Dusty out 2 minutes into the game, and Richmond lose the Grand Final by 2 points.
"We say you affected the outcome of the game. You are fined 50% of your years salary, and suspended for 12 weeks".
You'd sort of like to see it, if you could trust them to get it right. It seems that "match determining" infringements, get treated like any other.