I booed and thought the majority of dees supporters did too.... And i would boo again as He has done a very disgusting thing.... To neil craig dont worry about us booing concentrate on playing a better brand of footy rather then that [censored]!

If Bock can be a tough man and hit a woman, he should also be tough enough to cope with the booing... which he did very well yesterday while racking up a million possessions

While I didn't boo because frankly I just don't care to indulge the behaviour of moronic footballers, it seems to me like it is more appropriate to boo someone who hit a woman, than to boo someone who wanted to return home 5 years ago. I honestly can't believe people are still giving Scott Thompson [censored]. Get over it people!

I was nearly moved to boo Juice Newton.

Sean Connery endorses Nathan Bock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgMLROTqJ0

LOL

He is in a massive public forum known as the MCG.

If you can get booed for leaving a club you can get booed for hitting a chick.

Poor taste is 'indefinitely' suspending someone for a week.

  Redleg said:

I was nearly moved to boo Juice Newton.

At least you weren't moved to jump the fence and kick him in the head, which was my primary thought process last night (it's all about killing two birds with one stone; getting kicked out of the G' thereby not having to watch the game and of course inflicting the same pain on Newton as he inflicts on us).

We have a reputation for being a bunch of compliant, flaccid, go to the snow supporters. The acid we poured yesterday made the 'G sound like a ugly home crowd for the first time in a while and I am proud of that.

Tough home crowds bag opposition players - those team's supporters who do this are those that teams hate playing. Are we ever going to become feared by sitting quietly while teams walk all over us or by getting into them and a bit of putting sh*t on them?

Bock committed a disgusting act and we bagged him out for it. He deserved it. His footy club tried to look tough by suspending him indefinitely and then called it brave when they bought him back after one game - they deserved it too. They tried to have their cake and eat it to, we showed them they we know what they are up to and they cannot pretend it didn’t happen.

I think what we can agree here is that opinions are like ( )*( )holes.

If I want to boo, I'll boo. I won't boo him next time because by then he'll have copped his whack from the courts as well. And can this crap about "we have courts to deal with this". He did it, he admitted it, his club suspened him for it. But only till they played Geelong

If Bock and anyone else who has thought about doing what he did watched that game last night and was squemish about the booing and therefore has second thoughts about raising a hand, a fist, a glass, then I am even more comfortable with the booing last night.

The scum bag should be in jail. Along with peds and rapists woman beaters are the scum of the earth.

I did not boo either.

I had flashbacks to our booing of Headland (which, apart from not liking the bloke in general, never made sense to me).

It seemed the more we booed, the more he got the ball rather than the other way around. Certainly fired him up that day

He belted a woman. He deserves to be boo'd, just like how Kobe Bryant was boo'd when he was charged for rape. The boos' went when the case was thrown out (or whatever happened.)

We can say "innocent until proven guilty", but everyone knows that it's really "guilty until proven innocent". The accusation is on him, not the supposed victim. So atm, I assume he did wrong, because I will take the victims word over his. He is in the public eye and deserves to be boo'd. IMO. We boo players who change teams, hit players hard or whatever, then we can boo players who do something like that. Whether it's his private life or not, we know, and we will boo.

Any of you ever been to a Adelaide game?

Some of you are kiddin arnt ya's

Bet you all are apart the "save Albert Park" eh?

I loved booing him. Loved asking him "hows his misses is"

  calabreseboy said:

We can say "innocent until proven guilty", but everyone knows that it's really "guilty until proven innocent".

No it's not. It is always innocent until proven guilty. He 'admitted' it because he had to, because he is a football player. That's not to say I think he's innocent, because I don't.

  titan_uranus said:

No it's not. It is always innocent until proven guilty. He 'admitted' it because he had to, because he is a football player. That's not to say I think he's innocent, because I don't.

We say that, but do we believe it? Let's not be so naive to think that society, not individuals, really believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty". If that was the case, jurors wouldn't be blocked from the media during a trial. It's just a technical term, something used so the defence can have a fair trial. How often do you see a person up for murder and say, "well, he is innocent and will be until he is proven guilty."? I doubt ever. I always think, "What a [censored]! I can't believe he did that!"

Innocent until proven guilty is just a technical term and fact. But it's not necessarily what the public automatically believe/think.

  calabreseboy said:

We say that, but do we believe it? Let's not be so naive to think that society, not individuals, really believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty". If that was the case, jurors wouldn't be blocked from the media during a trial. It's just a technical term, something used so the defence can have a fair trial. How often do you see a person up for murder and say, "well, he is innocent and will be until he is proven guilty."? I doubt ever. I always think, "What a [censored]! I can't believe he did that!"

Innocent until proven guilty is just a technical term and fact. But it's not necessarily what the public automatically believe/think.

Hmm. I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree. In a trial, the onus is squarely on the prosecution to provide enough evidence to prove that the defendant is guilty. In every trial. So I'm happy to say that Bock is innocent until he is proven guilty, even though, in my mind, he's guilty.

I do get what you're saying though.

  condemned 84 said:

The scum bag should be in jail. Along with peds and rapists woman beaters are the scum of the earth.

I did not boo either.

You dont even no the situation.

And booing for onfeild matters or an ex player is footy realted and fine with me.

But someones personal life well i think its really uncalled for.

I thought the booing was unnecessary and bordering on poor form but "poor taste" is a little excessive in description IMO. I understand Craig's sentiment to a degree and it was right after the game so I won't pick him for his choice of words. Steven Trigg on the other hand echoed the exact same words later and I find it a little bit over the top tbh. Yelling out vulgar language is in poor taste, or words to the effect (by Pies supporters) to Ablett "your daddy's a killer" is grossly poor taste. We on the other hand had a few footy fans vent their dissatisfaction for whatever misguided reason and decided to use the universally adopted means since the dawn of time to simply "boo". Big deal.

The Adelaide footy club is in many ways a benchmark club from the position of professionalism on and off field but if they wish to idealise themselves in a different light outright then they need to wake up and smell the coffee. They aren't squeaky clean like they would like to think themselves and perhaps the booing was an unwelcome reality check as much as it was unnecessary. Using a term like "poor taste" suggests to me a club that was taken out of it's comfort zone of feeling all good and prosperous and perhaps became a little precious.

I didn't have a problem with it and glad we made a stand that beating woman shouldn't be condoned.

I guess they think 'good taste' is an overgrown footballer beating up on a woman.

Disgraceful by Neil Craig as he's basically come out and condoned Bock's actions.

its interesting to see that there are two schools of thought really..those that think footy is part of life..and those that seem to think its a life apart..more pity them

  SJX said:

I didn't have a problem with it and glad we made a stand that beating woman shouldn't be condoned.

I guess they think 'good taste' is an overgrown footballer beating up on a woman.

Disgraceful by Neil Craig as he's basically come out and condoned Bock's actions.

[/quo

Do you think his proud of what he did? He knows his done something very un exceptable to say the least.

I've heard from a couple of places that all he did was break her handbag.

Whether or not that's correct is a completely different story

  Eastie Boyz said:

Whether or not that's correct is a completely different story

It would not matter to those who feel the need to condemn based on mere allegation and the lack of the facts.

  SJX said:

I didn't have a problem with it and glad we made a stand that beating woman shouldn't be condoned.

I guess they think 'good taste' is an overgrown footballer beating up on a woman.

Disgraceful by Neil Craig as he's basically come out and condoned Bock's actions.

Couldnt agree anymore. Hope it stays with him for a few more weeks away from home.

Who cares? If i had hit my girlfriend id let you guys boo me.

  calabreseboy said:

We say that, but do we believe it? Let's not be so naive to think that society, not individuals, really believe in the whole "innocent until proven guilty". If that was the case, jurors wouldn't be blocked from the media during a trial. It's just a technical term, something used so the defence can have a fair trial. How often do you see a person up for murder and say, "well, he is innocent and will be until he is proven guilty."? I doubt ever. I always think, "What a [censored]! I can't believe he did that!"

Innocent until proven guilty is just a technical term and fact. But it's not necessarily what the public automatically believe/think.

If society did not believe in the justice system then we would have a series of torch burning vigilantes running amok. I think it is a very important concept and one not to brushed off. Its a pretty sad indictment of your understanding that you are unable to give someone the right of a fair trial. It has all the logic of Monty Python's Holy Grail determining a witch.

If we work on what you or the media thinks the public automatically believe/think as a barometer of justice then we are not far off tribal neanthedrals.