I'd rather run into concrete than Tapscott.

Maxwell probably flung himself out of harms way.

Has anything been made of Maxwell's aerial squib yesterday?

Geez I hate that hack.

I challenge you DA to come up with a more punchable head ...

Offered a one match ban - for striking Fasolo.

Edited June 12, 201213 yr by hardtack

Offered a one match ban - for striking Fasolo.

Swan reprimanded for tripping up Blease.

We can't have it both ways. First people on message boards whinge about us playing softly. Then we get people whinging about dirty play. For crying out loud, when was the last time we had a player the opposition was scared to go near? Balls Grinter? This is way overdue!

What would people prefer. An opposition reeling from a hard encounter or a diet of Fairy Bread ?

Are we Demons or just dessert ?

Why do people care how it is viewed by opposition supporters? Of course if the shoe was on the other foot I would be filthy because I support Melbourne not Collingwood. That doesn't mean I don't want our players to exhibit that behavior though, of course I want our players to hurt the opposition and don't want our players hurt. This is sport, there is nothing logical about it, it is emotional. Support your players and team and never apologise for them to the opposition FFS. Do you think the Pies fans were all up in arms at Brown breaking Sylvia's nose or Wellingham jabbing Magner in the guts? How about Essendon fans after Fletcher sending Tapscott into the fence last week? Do you think they care that Wallis sent an 18yo Green to hospital in the 2000 GF?

Stop being so goddamn soft and support your club FFS or go and watch tennis or polo.

Edited June 12, 201213 yr by Dr. Gonzo

I challenge you DA to come up with a more punchable head ...

Easy,

Offered a one match ban - for striking Fasolo.

striking? when did he strike? rough conduct maybe, but it was body on body..

Easy,

Very hard to top. Impossible probably ... but I'll try.

I'd rather run into concrete than Tapscott.

Maxwell probably flung himself out of harms way.

Has anything been made of Maxwell's aerial squib yesterday?

Geez I hate that hack.

I saw that DA. I asked my brother how many hands maxy has 'cause I saw only one in the air...

He and Harry are great when they are not under pressure, can shepard off the ball, hit blokes from behind or double-team opponents.

Would be worth contesting on that alone. Striking lol.mrp = bunch of clowns

Stop being so goddamn soft and support your club FFS or go and watch tennis or polo.

Toughness, hardness, whatever you want to call it is fine... but when a player commits a late tackle that is seriously dangerous and could result in a major injury, then that is where I draw the line. Yes players break legs, break noses, break collarbones etc, but for the most part, those are injuries that happen in the course of hard play and are not the result of reckless play. I love Tapscott's hardness at the ball and at the player, but he needs to know when it is appropriate and when it is not.

There is absolutely nothing soft about having this opinion... what I find soft are all of these keyboard warriors puffing out and beating their chests Tarzan style and going on about how great it is to see opposition players getting injured... it's all so easy when you aren't on the receiving end yourself.

Easy,

Just for laughs .. type in "punchable head" into a google images search and see who's faces bob up. Hilarious.

David Koch, Matthew Newton, Robert Walls, Andrew O'Keefe, Jules Lund ... head the list.

striking? when did he strike? rough conduct maybe, but it was body on body..

It was a late tackle with a strike using the forearm to Fasolo's back, although after watching the replay several times I still consider it to be the kidney region despite Belzebub59's protestations :-) A forearm to the head or neck I assume would be considered striking, so I suppose that is just as appropriate when it is used in the way Tapscott applied it to Fasolo's back.

Why do people care how it is viewed by opposition supporters? Of course if the shoe was on the other foot I would be filthy because I support Melbourne not Collingwood. That doesn't mean I don't want our players to exhibit that behavior though, of course I want our players to hurt the opposition and don't want our players hurt. This is sport, there is nothing logical about it, it is emotional. Support your players and team and never apologise for them to the opposition FFS. Do you think the Pies fans were all up in arms at Brown breaking Sylvia's nose or Wellingham jabbing Magner in the guts? How about Essendon fans after Fletcher sending Tapscott into the fence last week? Do you think they care that Wallis sent an 18yo Green to hospital in the 2000 GF?

Stop being so goddamn soft and support your club FFS or go and watch tennis or polo.

I don't care what they think, I only care what I think. I want hard and fair.

Hard to accept that he gets the same as Ballantyne. At least the ball was there.

Toughness, hardness, whatever you want to call it is fine... but when a player commits a late tackle that is seriously dangerous and could result in a major injury, then that is where I draw the line. Yes players break legs, break noses, break collarbones etc, but for the most part, those are injuries that happen in the course of hard play and are not the result of reckless play. I love Tapscott's hardness at the ball and at the player, but he needs to know when it is appropriate and when it is not.

There is absolutely nothing soft about having this opinion... what I find soft are all of these keyboard warriors puffing out and beating their chests Tarzan style and going on about how great it is to see opposition players getting injured... it's all so easy when you aren't on the receiving end yourself.

Give me a spell the bloke was winded and back on the ground after a couple of minutes he wasn't king-hit behind the play Hall on Staker style. He was already committed to the contest and was a bit late so what else should he have done? If he didn't turn into it he would've likely clashed heads potentially resulting in a much worse injury to himself & Fasolo. It happens every week it's only because it was against Collingwood that it's received so much publicity.

I don't care what they think, I only care what I think. I want hard and fair.

Fair enough, I want a win by any means necessary.

Fair enough, I want a win by any means necessary.

That's a bit of a cop-out. Does the end justify the means? Also, we didn't win.

Give me a spell the bloke was winded and back on the ground after a couple of minutes he wasn't king-hit behind the play Hall on Staker style. He was already committed to the contest and was a bit late so what else should he have done? If he didn't turn into it he would've likely clashed heads potentially resulting in a much worse injury to himself & Fasolo. It happens every week it's only because it was against Collingwood that it's received so much publicity.

Well, that's how you see it... I saw it as a very late and very crude tackle.

I like the idea of opposition players being afraid to stand under a ball and go back with the flight because they WILL be crunched. Tapscott is the beginning of that and let it continue. Hard, nasty teams win.

Buckley himself had no problem with any of it. Why would we?

The hit to Fasolo and pushing Maxwell into the bench were not brave acts - I can do without it. The bump on Elliot was good.

Timing is everything.

I'm sure Tappy will improve in that area.

Loved it.

Can't wait to see Rivers and Frawley giving it to opposition down back, Taggert, Jones, Magner, Tapscott, and Viney fairly and lawfully annihilating blokes in the midfield by putting their heads over the ball, and Mitch up forward who does not take [censored] from anyone.

We will not be fun to play.

Toughness, hardness, whatever you want to call it is fine... but when a player commits a late tackle that is seriously dangerous and could result in a major injury, then that is where I draw the line. Yes players break legs, break noses, break collarbones etc, but for the most part, those are injuries that happen in the course of hard play and are not the result of reckless play. I love Tapscott's hardness at the ball and at the player, but he needs to know when it is appropriate and when it is not.

There is absolutely nothing soft about having this opinion... what I find soft are all of these keyboard warriors puffing out and beating their chests Tarzan style and going on about how great it is to see opposition players getting injured... it's all so easy when you aren't on the receiving end yourself.

I take umbrage to the keyboard warrior reference that you've so loosely directed at that vast majority in this thread.

Over my footy career I was on the receiving end of this plenty of times. I absolutely agree with you that it's not nice.

The nice bit comes when you get the chance to square the ledger next contest, next quarter or next time you play against the [censored] who donged you.

Fasolo and Maxwell have that chance too and they're welcome to take it as far as I'm concerned. I advocate for, I accept against.

Tapscott's no fool. He knows it's a big wheel.

That's a bit of a cop-out. Does the end justify the means? Also, we didn't win.

I think the end does justify the means, so long as there is no permanent injury (such as crippling a guy).

We didn't win yesterday however I don't think it was because Tapscott crunched a player. Also doesn't mean in the future I would reprimand one of our players for doing whatever they thought was necessary to help get the team over the line.

It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, the way some are carrying on you would think he went berserk Mal Brown or Robie Muir style. He crashed into a guy sitting under the ball, he didn't start throwing haymakers left, right and centre yet some on here are acting like it was the biggest heel turn since Hulk Hogan joined the NWO.