3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Seriously. Not even joking.

I heard him this morning, and he honestly sounded like he'd lost the plot a little bit. Not just in what he was saying, but he was almost incoherent in trying to explain it.

 

Too right! The footy media always made Mick out to be a guru and a sage, but I always found him to be inarticulate and rambling in interviews. His thoughts were like confetti on a windy wedding day.

8 minutes ago, stuie said:

Seriously. Not even joking.

I heard him this morning, and he honestly sounded like he'd lost the plot a little bit. Not just in what he was saying, but he was almost incoherent in trying to explain it.

 

He's lost the plot. Have a listen to Andy Lee's story on the Junktime podcast last week about his interaction with Malthouse. Quite bizarre.

1 hour ago, sue said:

If I ever had a positive view of Malthouse, he has just sunk it below the waves.    The Tribunal already has past-history in its calculations, but apparently if you are a top player the rules should be different. 

(BTW, people can believe whatever they want, fairy-tales and spaghetti monsters included, but I don't think a parent whose religion prevents him from giving his kid a blood transfusion can be called a 'model citizen'.)

Call Rance what you like but Please.....His religion has nothing to do with this incident and should not even be mentioned.

9 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He's lost the plot. Have a listen to Andy Lee's story on the Junktime podcast last week about his interaction with Malthouse. Quite bizarre.

Link?

Remember when Malthouse couldn't even see where Carlton would lose a game last year?

Says it all.

15 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Link?

http://junktimeafl.libsyn.com/junktime-afl-podcast-with-adam-rozenbachs-and-michael-chamberlin-78

Not sure what time but it would be about a third of the way in I think? Basically it's Malthouse driving through Carlton and heckling Andy Lee (a Carlton supporter) about the Blues from his car while Andy is having lunch at a cafe. It's just a bit weird.

I sorta get that you would give Rance 3 weeks down to 2 weeks as opposed to say Ballantyne who is a serial offender - you would add at least week to his penalty. But to let him off because he is good bloke ? umm no - do the crime do the time.

2 minutes ago, Akum said:

Amazing how often Viney seems to be the nearest Demon if something out of line happens to one of his teammates. Sixth sense?

He is a proper leader. He is physical and then backs up that physicality by influencing contest after contest. 

This is the same Mick Malthouse who was coaching West Coast at the time that rang up Todd Viney and abused him because Chris Lewis nearly bit his finger right off.

Work that out...

1 hour ago, Bossdog said:

Call Rance what you like but Please.....His religion has nothing to do with this incident and should not even be mentioned.

I was responding to Malthouse's claim he was a model citizen.  Seems some people think if someone justifies endangering their kids out of religious conviction it can't be criticised. 

Malthouse: 'you can't be lenient on an all star' then next sentence 'should just let him off, give him 4 if he does it again'.

He really has lost the plot.

That said, it explains why he was always so reluctant to punish his good players caught in trouble. He was the king of double standards and it's been played out at Collingwood ever since. 

When Viney pushed him in the chest he went down like a soccer player...very poor acting just trying to distract attention from his cowardly act. 

His dangerous cowardly act was certainly not out of character: it is just that true character surfaces when under pressure.  Maybe he has just hidden it until now.

As an aside, was it he also who wend down like a sack of potatoes just before half time when he barged headlong into an opponent's chest, and won a free for it?  In my view that IS an action that needs to be stamped out very quickly, with free kicks being paid against the protagonist.  If it is allowed, indeed encouraged by receiving free kicks, to continue someone WILL get a broken neck.

Last year, who would have thought that Viney would be become a better player than Wines.

4 minutes ago, monoccular said:

When Viney pushed him in the chest he went down like a soccer player...very poor acting just trying to distract attention from his cowardly act. 

 

I am not sure on this - it was pretty forceful shove by Viney. I thought it was hysterical that he then tried to wrestle and outstrength Viney  - Viney giving away 16cm and 12kg and making Rance look like Cale Morton on a bad day.

Edited April 27, 20169 yr by nutbean

When Viney pushed him in the chest he went down like a soccer player...very poor acting just trying to distract attention from his cowardly act. 

His dangerous cowardly act was certainly not out of character: it is just that true character surfaces when under pressure.  Maybe he has just hidden it until now.

As an aside, was it he also who wend down like a sack of potatoes just before half time when he barged headlong into an opponent's chest, and won a free for it?  In my view that IS an action that needs to be stamped out very quickly, with free kicks being paid against the protagonist.  If it is allowed, indeed encouraged by receiving free kicks, to continue someone WILL get a broken neck.

4 minutes ago, monoccular said:

When Viney pushed him in the chest he went down like a soccer player...very poor acting just trying to distract attention from his cowardly act. 

His dangerous cowardly act was certainly not out of character: it is just that true character surfaces when under pressure.  Maybe he has just hidden it until now.

As an aside, was it he also who wend down like a sack of potatoes just before half time when he barged headlong into an opponent's chest, and won a free for it?  In my view that IS an action that needs to be stamped out very quickly, with free kicks being paid against the protagonist.  If it is allowed, indeed encouraged by receiving free kicks, to continue someone WILL get a broken neck.

disagree with 2 out of 3

 - have another look at the shove - I am not sure that Rance was expecting such a forceful response but it was ultra forceful ( See Steven Morris throwing his head back as he taken across the chest for poor acting) 

 - Rance's act was out of character as he has not done anything like this before - does not excuse it in any way shape or form but I am not sure how you can label it not out of character when that is not the way Rance plays the game on what we have seen over many years

 -  yes it was Rance that went down and he was taken hard on his neck but he did go in head first and you are spot on. I absolutely know that it is impossible to police but sometimes when umpires don't pay frees as a player has ducked his head, they should actually pay a free against for ducking the head. ( I know  - impossible) - you are right - someone will end up with a broken neck. The trouble is that players have to bend down to pick up the ball and that puts the head in a potentially bad place so it is impossible to umpire. ( frustratingly so)

3 hours ago, Bossdog said:

Call Rance what you like but Please.....His religion has nothing to do with this incident and should not even be mentioned.

Boss, I certainly agree with you that the particular link/reference to his religion by the poster was not on. However, The Age, having said "Rance, a Jehovah's Witness,..." then reports that Rance "...said his action went against his faith...". So technically Rance brought at least his faith into the broader 'incident' (the original act plus its follow-ups). Note - and this annoys me about the media - it was the paper that 'cleverly' brought in his particular religion and made it seem Rance said something he did not evidently say.

And while I'm at it about what annoys me about the media, do they do this deliberately?: Given the bolded excerpt in the article, the photo in today's Age of Viney and Rance gives a clear impression that this was the initial contact and so appears to put fist, neck and head 'in the frame' (so to speak!) for the contact from which Jack was 'let off'. This still is not the original contact; it is the follow-up grab a few seconds later, which had no force at all. The fist is the bunched grab, and there was not even a jumper-punch. Grrrr!

56 minutes ago, Moneider96 said:

Last year, who would have thought that Viney would be become a better player than Wines.

Most people, I would have thought.

3 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

And while I'm at it about what annoys me about the media, do they do this deliberately?: Given the bolded excerpt in the article, the photo in today's Age of Viney and Rance gives a clear impression that this was the initial contact and so appears to put fist, neck and head 'in the frame' (so to speak!) for the contact from which Jack was 'let off'. This still is not the original contact; it is the follow-up grab a few seconds later, which had no force at all. The fist is the bunched grab, and there was not even a jumper-punch. Grrrr!

I had small stoush on air with Brian Waldron on SEN about this and then we punched on off air !

He suggested exactly the same as Age and I pointed out that is was not the initial shove - this was the grappling straight afterwards. He then said I can't have it both ways - it is high contact. Off air I asked him some questions - when two players grab each others jumpers  - where do the grab ? he conceded around the collar. I then asked when they push and shove where are their hands ? He asked for my answer and I said  - they are high like Vineys are - but  i said he has missed the most important point - the pushing and shoving and show of strength does not have the strength like a punch. It has insufficient force. I pointed out that the picture he is looking at was something that goes on every week !

He then said "I know what I see in that picture".

I said " obviously you don't or you wouldnt have passed of that picture on air as the initial contact"

He then said " You can't convince me"

I said "I can't convince you because you are looking at a still picture instead of the TV footage of the incident. I also can't convince you because you are a giant knobhead"  and then i put the phone down.

A bit childish i know but i felt much better.

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

I had small stoush on air with Brian Waldron on SEN about this and then we punched on off air !

He suggested exactly the same as Age and I pointed out that is was not the initial shove - this was the grappling straight afterwards. He then said I can't have it both ways - it is high contact. Off air I asked him some questions - when two players grab each others jumpers  - where do the grab ? he conceded around the collar. I then asked when they push and shove where are their hands ? He asked for my answer and I said  - they are high like Vineys are - but  i said he has missed the most important point - the pushing and shoving and show of strength does not have the strength like a punch. It has insufficient force. I pointed out that the picture he is looking at was something that goes on every week !

He then said "I know what I see in that picture".

I said " obviously you don't or you wouldnt have passed of that picture on air as the initial contact"

He then said " You can't convince me"

I said "I can't convince you because you are looking at a still picture instead of the TV footage of the incident. I also can't convince you because you are a giant knobhead"  and then i put the phone down.

A bit childish i know but i felt much better.

I heard the conversation! Fiona also tried in vain to set him straight. I was getting agitated by this flogs attitude and he topped it off by trying the stereotype something on the sleeves of your jackets! He was too stupid to get the slur right! It wasnt until after that interview that I heard his name.

Brian Waldron, the guy who was responsible for melbourne storms salary  cap breaches and lost premierships? If i could have gotten on air I would have mentioned a passage from the bible, which I believe is somewhere towards the back that states "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I would just leave him to consider that. What a [censored] trying to hang Viney.

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What a silly old coot.

I hate autocorrect.

Apparently Rance is jealous of Watts' initials..... 

Edited April 27, 20169 yr by DeeMfc

20 hours ago, Bossdog said:

Call Rance what you like but Please.....His religion has nothing to do with this incident and should not even be mentioned.

Why not? He referred to it himself in the press conference. PC in this instance is not press conference but your attempt to censor/moderate another poster's views.

13 hours ago, defuture15 said:

I heard the conversation! Fiona also tried in vain to set him straight. I was getting agitated by this flogs attitude and he topped it off by trying the stereotype something on the sleeves of your jackets! He was too stupid to get the slur right! It wasnt until after that interview that I heard his name.

Brian Waldron, the guy who was responsible for melbourne storms salary  cap breaches and lost premierships? If i could have gotten on air I would have mentioned a passage from the bible, which I believe is somewhere towards the back that states "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I would just leave him to consider that. What a [censored] trying to hang Viney.

Why does this cheat even get air time?