Daily Fantasy is a fun until you realise you're up against blokes running advanced data modelling programs spitting out best possible lineups with unlimited bankrolls virtually killing any real chance you have in the multiple entry competitions. I mean you might get lucky from time to time, but in the long run some of these guys are making a living from this and win out most of the time.
Either that or guys are paying for subscriptions for similar programs that do the same thing.
I'm all for the single lineup entry DFS comps. If you see the 25 or 50 entry comps you're literally plankton swimming with sharks.
I've done plenty well on it without any of that. All the models in the world can't make up for actually watching the games and seeing Aaron Hall move to the half back flank for a 2nd half and backing him in for the next month, or for knowing who the rookies are that are actually worth picking in a team.
But yeah, the reality is that you're not going to make bank on it without a genuine system but you should be able to finish in the money more often than not and can certainly get lucky from time to time.
So the AFL has come out and said a free kick should have been paid to Melbourne in the dying seconds of Sat's game. As if it isn't bad enough that we have a rule which requires the umpires in a split second and under extreme pressure to determine what a player's intent was (apparently they can read minds now!), their employer has now seen fit to admonish them after the fact with the benefit of 24 hours of endless review and histrionics from the 800+ football "journalists".
"Insufficient intent" - Give me strength!
I'm not sure what p!sses me off more at the moment - deliberate out of bounds or the vagaries around HTB.
<end rant>
To be fair, that was absolutely 100% deliberate and the umpire choked badly. That would be like a player missing a set shot to win the game from the top of the square and no one would be saying it wasn't a choke if he'd done it or not calling it out. The umpire is a professional and needs to be able to handle the pressures of the job.
I mean that one was so utterly deliberate that even if it went through for a point it should have been deliberate.
That said, the rule is still ass. I actually don't mind the insufficient intent but the inconsistencies to me are the issue. It's just so completely inconsistent. I hate the idea of last touch but honestly... I think we're at that point where it just solves all the stupid inconsistencies in the rule.
Still better than the dangerous tackle or holding the ball (and related) rules...