So a lot of people frequently allude to an umpiring conspiracy / corruption on here. That the umpires are somehow instructed to give Essendon a rough time, or something similar. I see it posted around here all the time but nobody seems to really want to go into it in detail.
So, let’s do that. Go on the record in this thread with your views.
I’m a pretty logical and intelligent guy I think, and this is normally the sort of theory I would absolutely scoff at. However my view has changed over the past few years (essentially during and post saga).
I think the AFL has previously shown that it loves to manufacture a bunch of different outcomes. Lots of levers are used to do this, from the draw, to the tribunal, to draft concessions, interpretation of trading rules etc. The bizarre umpiring that I have seen over the past 2-4 years has now lead me to believe that umpiring is just another one of these levers, which is used by the league, on occasion, to try and influence outcomes.
Do I believe this applies to all umpires? No, not at all. Do I believe that games are fixed? No. But I do believe that there are a handful of umpires which the AFL throws into games where it wants a particular outcome, to try and see if those umpires can influence that outcome. It wouldn’t even be a matter of instructing those umpires to favour a particular team, it would be about those umpires having an implicit understanding of what outcomes City Hall is keen on and those umpires in turn understanding who cuts their paychecks.
This doesn’t just apply to Essendon either, it applies to a bunch of different scenarios where the AFL wants to see a particular outcome.
I’m not totally convinced of the above, and I recognise that there is still a reasonable chance that I’m insane. But enough of you seem to think the same way and I think its worth having a discussion about.