On 12/06/2012 at 04:53, McQueen said:

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

Take all of the umbrage you want (it's a job lot) but I stand by what I said (note the bolded part): "going on about how great it is to see opposition players getting injured".

The hit on Nicholson didn't come to the MRP's attention? What a surprise.

  On 12/06/2012 at 05:08, hardtack said:

Take all of the umbrage you want (it's a job lot) but I stand by what I said (note the bolded part): "going on about how great it is to see opposition players getting injured".

I'm mustn't be keeping score like you about who said what in relation to this topic.

Can you share figures?

  On 12/06/2012 at 00:51, GM11 said:

The most dangerous thing I saw was Swan taking out (Blease?) legs by foot.

Way more dangerous than anything Tapscott did.

Until someone actually breaks a leg, the AFL and MRP seem to think that tripping is a minor trivial matter.

Well, I would hope that a tripper gets a leg broken before a trippee - maybe then someone will take notice!!

And PS: it seems that stomping on an opponents hand and wrist when they are down on hands and knees going in for the ball is apparently minor too.

Still, the only consistency from the MRP is their inconsistency.

  On 12/06/2012 at 02:22, titan_uranus said:

According to the majority of people on this thread, if you don't like seeing opposition players getting injured, you're weak. You're also an advocate for soft football if you ever dare think that a Melbourne player has crossed the line with their aggression.

Before everyone jumps down my throat, yes, I love seeing Melbourne players rough up opposition players, and none more so than Collingwood players. I'd rather have players like Tapscott and Moloney than Morton and Bennell.

But there is a difference between aggression and stupidity. I don't think Tapscott's bump on Fasolo was stupid (it was reckless, sure, but not stupid). But I think pushing Maxwell into the bench was just stupid and there was no need for it. I don't think it symbolised a strong team, I don't see how that is required in order for a team to avoid being deemed 'soft'.

Bumps in the play, strong tackles (even the occasional sling tackle), double-teaming players, pushing them at stoppages, all that kind of stuff, I love, and Tapscott brings all that. But pushing a player out of play into the fence is just dumb.

I maintain that if the exact same thing had been done by Maxwell to Tapscott, many here would be whinging and demanding he be suspended.

I love his toughness and hardness but i want to see it directed and taking someone over the boundary line will end up one way - suspension - sorry but its dumb. I was less upset with the fasolo one.

On a general note - i like it that we have someone that makes opposition look over the shoulders - i just dont want them to have to look in the stands to see him

Well he got 1 match for the Fasolo one and not the Maxwell one so what does that say?

Interesting reading the article on the MFC site about the report/suspension saying he was given 225 points reduced to 1 match with a guilty plea but also says, "He has no existing good or bad record." Surely if he has no existing bad record that means he has a good record doesn't it? I've given up trying to understand the clowns at AFLHQ.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/138353/default.aspx

I've decided the WTF in the thread title stands for ... Wins The Fight

  On 12/06/2012 at 07:10, Range Rover said:

I've decided the WTF in the thread title stands for ... Wins The Fight

Not in the title any more.

Deserves the one week penalty IMO.

I like Tapscott's approach when he's putting on a hard shepherd or laying a bone crunching tackle - he reminds me of Whelan at times - but striking someone low-ish in the back as they take a mark isn't tough.

I was in front of the Betty Cuthber Bar when Tappy cleaned up Fasolo. The crowd loved it. I thought his aggression fired Melbourne up and showed the filth that we are not "bruise free" pissants.

  On 12/06/2012 at 08:23, Rogue said:

Deserves the one week penalty IMO.

I like Tapscott's approach when he's putting on a hard shepherd or laying a bone crunching tackle - he reminds me of Whelan at times - but striking someone low-ish in the back as they take a mark isn't tough.

But he does do the tough things as well. That's why he deserves a bit of license to cross the line every now and then.

FGS we've dutifully played the part of the 90 pound weakling for long enough now.

It's time we did some of our own bullying and got the opposition jumping at shadows for a change.

Love this kid.

and I hope he gets a rep. I want the opposition to fear going near the ball when Tappy is around.

You didn't see many ppl mouth off to Big Bad Bustling did you.

All he did was make Fasolo earn it.

How that is considered "striking" I'll never know.

Maybe "charging", but "striking"..?

  On 12/06/2012 at 05:53, McQueen said:

I'm mustn't be keeping score like you about who said what in relation to this topic.

Can you share figures?

I'm not keeping any score at all... it was a generalisation and I'm not really interested in providing any figures to back it up - in case you hadn't noticed, this is an internet forum, not a court of law. Just read the thread and you will see enough comments feeling the love for Tapscott's actions.

  On 12/06/2012 at 08:23, Rogue said:

but striking someone low-ish in the back as they take a mark isn't tough.

Driving your knee in to the oppositions ribcage when flying for a mark isn't tough either.

Doesn't mean I don't want our players to do it.

  On 12/06/2012 at 07:07, Dr. Gonzo said:

Interesting reading the article on the MFC site about the report/suspension saying he was given 225 points reduced to 1 match with a guilty plea but also says, "He has no existing good or bad record." Surely if he has no existing bad record that means he has a good record doesn't it? I've given up trying to understand the clowns at AFLHQ.

I might be wrong, but i think you get a 'good' record after having x amount of years without a suspension - seeing as Tappy is only in his 3rd year in the system he wouldn't have reached it yet.

Would've liked to see him line up Sculldog, but I think we should take the week. I wasn't unhappy with the hit, but it was late and intentional. The bloke looked in a pretty bad way straight after it, but since he played on I'm sure that helped Tappys case.

Chance for Couch?

Goodness Gracious chaps

We can't have lads like young Tappy running round hurting people,can we. This as bad as those awful ski boarders who cut skiers and toboggan types off the slopes. Damn dangerous I say.

If we allow this sort of thing to happen other clubs might think we want towin.

Pip Pip.

You want to see tough when a player rides a hard bump and wrestles his way through a gauntlet of opponents to dish off to a team-mate.

You want to see brave when a player runs back with the flight of the ball to compete in a marking contest.

You want to see arrogance and unsociable football (hooliganism) when a player drives his knee into a felled opponent as the sweetener, or rips a jumper to shreds, or stands over an opponent as he tries to get up again.

One. Get your definitions right and respect which is which.

Two. No great Premiership teams of the past have existed without being seen as a pack of Cs. Leigh Matthews coached the best of them FCS.

If you want to stand by the adage of "a nice, fair game", then good luck when the dirty pricks in the top four mop the floor with ya.

Damn, who will destroy Scumbag Scully now??

  On 12/06/2012 at 10:15, Jaded said:

Damn, who will destroy Scumbag Scully now??

It's ok, Mortons going to the gym in his week off

  On 12/06/2012 at 08:59, rhaz said:

I might be wrong, but i think you get a 'good' record after having x amount of years without a suspension - seeing as Tappy is only in his 3rd year in the system he wouldn't have reached it yet.

It's 5 years.

Surely a level two, one week and reprimand with early guilty plea would have been acceptable. Don't forget it's 2 weeks down to one with an early guilty plea.

What Luke did was against the rules and was dumb football and we all know it

He deserved the week

He needs to learn to control his aggression

The good part is that he at least has it

  On 12/06/2012 at 08:33, Range Rover said:

But he does do the tough things as well.

He does indeed, and that's why I've commented positively on this aspect of his game on the forum, and why I applaud those efforts when I'm at the footy.

However, you can do those without hitting a guy in the lower back when you're nowhere near any sort of even half-realistic spoiling attempt.

  On 12/06/2012 at 08:33, Range Rover said:

That's why he deserves a bit of license to cross the line every now and then.

FGS we've dutifully played the part of the 90 pound weakling for long enough now.

Deserves it from who?

Do you reckon he deserves it from the tribunal? If so, you reckon the tribunal should let off players when they cross the line every now and then because they're tough?

Deserves it from his teammates and the Coach? Getting suspended isn't only a penalty for the player involved, but lets the entire team down.

  On 12/06/2012 at 08:33, Range Rover said:

FGS we've dutifully played the part of the 90 pound weakling for long enough now.

If we were any good, and Tapscott was an important player, careless suspensions like that would start to become a concern. As it is, we now need someone else to line up Scully

It'd be different if he was going in hard for the footy and happened to collect a bloke high or something, but 'FGS' he wasn't even in the contest.