Jump to content

No10

Members
  • Content count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

122 Excellent

About No10

  • Rank
    Demon

Recent Profile Visitors

828 profile views
  1. Perhaps ANB out? He's clocked up a power of kms- given SCG is smaller he could freshen for WC. And JKH, it doesn't seem right to run him up to finals. 3 changes, probably too many.
  2. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    @Moonshadow Your ‘Fake maths’ comment was funny. I think it was meant to be funny? But yes, my assumption was wrong that Simpson gave 4. I withdraw, apologise and stand corrected.
  3. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    I read differently, the coach tried to refocus him on the game, I didn’t think Gaff was upset by that. My feeling is he’s more likely to stay. Alternatively, if WC handled him in the same manner we did Bugg, then I think he’d go. Even down to the 4 votes, I think they’ve played this ruthlessly.
  4. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    I actually like the ruthlessness from Simpson and WC. He’s a footballer, keep his head in the game, then after the game re-enforce he’s a good person and this is an accident in play, shield him from the media, make him feel totally supported and almost believe he wasn’t in the wrong. He’s one of their best, make sure it stays that way. Let the AFL deal with all that integrity spin.
  5. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    True, but is supported by the vision. And a truckload of character references. Plenty of remorse from Gaff too, to be fair.
  6. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    Solid defense from Gaff. Changing the conversation to the niggle off the ball. And as people have said on here, @McQueen - said he was aiming for chest but Brayshaw lowered his position... Building the case for a light penalty. Still think 8wks.
  7. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    I thought Bugg was ‘high impact’. Incidentally, Jonas also got 6wks in 2016 for high impact elbow that KO’d Gaff. To your point, I’m interested to see what a defense does to the result. I’m guessing 8wks, but if less then you’d have to wonder about all that integrity around the Bugg handling.
  8. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    I disagree. I mentioned Bugg because although the MFC article @Pates kindly posted said he'd trained harder and proven himself to be fitter and stronger, he can't break into the team, not even close. We ask these kids to play on the absolute edge, these incidents have an affect. If I were Gaff, I'd now stay at WC. The votes are just a hint to a far more brutal culture that rightly or wrongly can help him return to his best.
  9. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    I mentioned it because (given the thread is about Gaff being OOC) it seemed interesting that Simpson (*assuming it wasn’t Lyon) went out on a limb with his votes. It’ll surely come up. It might’ve been emotional, it might’ve been strategic, it might be club cultural. Either way, you’d expect Gaff will now think about how to recover from this and that becomes a factor in his choice. *for Moonie
  10. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    My God. It’s maths!
  11. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    Thanks, I hadn’t read this. I hope Bugg makes it back. At the time the conversation was about how the MFC took a very high road during the aftermath and tribunal. There’s a long thread, obviously.
  12. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    I’ve never seen a breakdown of ALFCA votes, unsure it’s released. Mathematics is at fault for that being 4 votes from one coach. I don’t think it’s emotional to assume Simpson gave him the 4 votes. But yes, that’s my assumption.
  13. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    There’s a long thread on Bugg, some more articulate legal comments than I could offer (I think Jr?). But essentially we left Bugg to wear it alone. If it were Viney I don’t think everyone would’ve been so fine.
  14. No10

    Go and get Gaff!

    I’m not guessing at what happened- Gaff punched him. I mean to suggest WC might offer some defense at the tribunal. The votes from the coach suggest they’re not so willing to play the way we did with Bugg. Ie. guilty, no defence.
×