2 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

WTF?

We can't be relying on teams not being at full strength. It is time to assert ourselves on any given circumstance and have a welcoming attitude to every contest with some confidence of prevailing.

5 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Ok, sure, but 'latent potential irrespective' aside - we can discuss the team we play possibly losing its FF...

It shouldn't be about who is in for them but that we can cope with all comers..

2 minutes ago, Tessaract said:

We can't be relying on teams not being at full strength. It is time to assert ourselves on any given circumstance and have a welcoming attitude to every contest with some confidence of prevailing.

Wt DFF

Did you swallow a dictionary Tessaract?

28 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

Did you swallow a dictionary Tessaract?

The book of calm.

Mathieson $ 2000 fine for unduly rough play and write a letter of apology to Cameron for getting in his way. 

Fair outcome. 

As much as I'd like to beat GWS with Cameron in the side, him being out will make a massive difference to their structures.

Add to this McCarthy and it starting to look like $2.30 at sportsbet is a good bet. 

1 hour ago, Tessaract said:

Our minset should cease being reactionary to potential omissions and more focused on our own latent potential irrespective.

 

Wouldn't "dee-luded" be obliged to notify us that he was sub-contracting his posting?

1 hour ago, Tessaract said:

We can't be relying on teams not being at full strength. It is time to assert ourselves on any given circumstance and have a welcoming attitude to every contest with some confidence of prevailing.

who said we were 'relying' on anything?

all I care about is 4 premiership points and I will welcome the opposition's best players being unavailable when ever the opportunity arises

8 hours ago, Robot Devil said:

 

Wouldn't "dee-luded" be obliged to notify us that he was sub-contracting his posting?

lol..nice.

I'm not sure their losing Cameron will hurt them so much.

Early last year their mids tore us apart when their forwards went off injured or led our backmen into the pockets, opening up the forward corridor.  And they ran straight down the middle and goaled time after time.  Yes, they can win without Cameron especially if Patton plays! 

But one thing for sure, they will have to bring their 'A' game to beat us!

1 minute ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

But one thing for sure, they will have to bring their 'A' game to beat us!

And the reverse is also true.

14 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I'm not sure their losing Cameron will hurt them so much.

Early last year their mids tore us apart when their forwards went off injured or led our backmen into the pockets, opening up the forward corridor.  And they ran straight down the middle and goaled time after time.  Yes, they can win without Cameron especially if Patton plays! 

But one thing for sure, they will have to bring their 'A' game to beat us!

This.

Stop Dylan Shiel and their outside run and we can seriously win through our hardness and ability now to run games out.

Every big out helps. Cameron when he is on is one of the premier forwards of the competition and if he gets a week then good for us.

We have a better/ proper midfield this season. Will make a huge difference.

Should get more than 1

Pete Ryan (afl.com.au) on SEN reckons 1 week - careless and high impact. Mathieson suspected broken jaw. Pedersen touch and go.

It doesn't actually look that bad to be honest. I reckon he and Pedo will both get a week. 

Win for us, in the end.

Apparently Mathieson has a fractured Cheekbone. If true then I have no doubt Cameron is gone. 

Fractured cheekbone confirmed. Gorne 

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-14/scans-reveal-fractured-cheekbone-for-young-lion

Yep, gone.

Two big differences - Cameron was off the ground, 'Peders' wasn't, and the Saints player got up and continued. Still think 'Peders' is touch and go for 1 week.

Cameron has to be 3 down to 2 with the confirmed cheek fracture.  Pedo a good chance of being graded low impact (in which case a fine) given that the Saint's player took his free kick and stayed on

i've never really understood this "feet leaving the ground" or "being airborne" as an indication of guilt, surely it's simply if you hit him high or not

i would think i could hit harder if i had one foot anchored, plus if a smaller guy bumps a taller guy it makes sense to elevate to bump at the shoulder 

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i've never really understood this "feet leaving the ground" or "being airborne" as an indication of guilt, surely it's simply if you hit him high or not

i would think i could hit harder if i had one foot anchored, plus if a smaller guy bumps a taller guy it makes sense to elevate to bump at the shoulder 

The 'airborne' indication removes the old excuse 'I was just competing for the ball' (this is for when it is on the ground of course) as keeping two feet on the ground would be a prerequisite for winning a ball on the ground and disposing of it adequately.

Edited March 14, 20169 yr by rpfc

8 minutes ago, rpfc said:

The 'airborne' indication removes the old excuse 'I was just competing for the ball' (this is for when it is on the ground of course) as keeping two feet on the ground would be a prerequisite for winning a ball on the ground and disposing of it adequately.

yeah, of course, but here we are talking of an intentional side on bump (front on bumps no longer allowed). no one is confused about going for the ball.