On 8/6/2016 at 4:50 PM, Sylvia Saint said:

Surely Oliver never plays VFL again. 

I have been saying it for an eternity but what do I know??

We beat the Hawks and the umps. 

1 minute ago, spirit of norm smith said:

We beat the Hawks and the umps. 

They stayed out of our hair for the last quarter at least

2 hours ago, Biffen said:

Can't you can't past 5?

 

I can't.

11 hours ago, Dante said:

Not sure that's a reason to be happy.

Interestingly if you look at the comparison and how we crumbled in 1965, Hawthorn have looked shaky all year and we may have started the end of the empire, we dismantled them yesterday and the result was never in doubt even when they regained the lead.

 

 

Sorry Dante.  If you don't think experiencing the Demons in the 1950s and early 1960s is a reason to be happy, nay, ecstatic, then you will never be happy.  

2 hours ago, Nasher said:

The best part about that was I thought Watts was gone when he ran in to the two Dawks. In a split second I went from "[censored], we've stuffed this up" to "OMG I THINK WE MIGHT WIN". Gives me shivers seeing it again.

Bloody awesome kick by Watts and finish by Tyson.

JW4 has added bodily strength and self confidence to his never questioned ball skills and play reading skills and has advanced from being a promising skilled player to an essential gun through 2016  

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

According to the AFL Rioli's bump on Oliver was one of the "best moments" of the round.

Pretty clear that he won't get cited.

And did his acolytes mention the slam dunk spear tackle?  Wasn't Viney, or maybe Oliver, cited or at least penalised for such action. 

Or Mitchell's punch to the face? 

Edited August 7, 20169 yr by monoccular

15 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Sorry Dante.  If you don't think experiencing the Demons in the 1950s and early 1960s is a reason to be happy, nay, ecstatic, then you will never be happy.  

JW4 has added bodily strength and self confidence to his never questioned ball skills and play reading skills and has advanced from being a promising skilled player to an essential gun through 2016  

And did his acolytes mention the slam dunk spear tackle?  Wasn't Viney, or maybe Oliver, cited or at least penalised for such action. 

Or Mitchell's punch to the face? 

I meant to be old enough to have seen it.

Still struggling to believe what I saw at the G yesterday!

It was a fantastic performance all day long, but those final 15 minutes were something else. I can't remember seeing a Melbourne side like that - the hunt, the run, the ferocity, the desire, the clean ball handling, the finishing in front of goal. It just all came together and the power of the momentum generated just swept Hawthorn away.

Even with scores level in the final quarter, and the champion on the ropes and looking wobbly, you could just see Hawthorn finding a way to get over the line. You couldn't help but think this way having witnessed the Hawks thrash us and bully us year after year for the last 10 years. But the young challenger said "not this time" and just walked straight up to the champion and delivered a ferocious knock-out blow. It was incredible.

Some of the passages of play were also symbolic of our attitude. Viney side-stepping Lewis and just running away from him. Oliver and Viney out-pointing one of the great clearance players of recent times in Mitchell. Petracca holding off Burgoyne with one arm and marking with the other. Watts spinning out of a Hodge tackle and giving a semi-don't argue before passing off to Tyson for the sealer.

How we've waited for the time when we are no longer intimidated by the Hawks. And it was just as sweet as we thought it would be.

 

9 hours ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

There was a small bit of contact with both players in the air AFTER the ball had past. No free kick at all, was in shock when it was paid and not just because it was for us

This refers to Vanders' goal after he was "tunnelled" by Gibson. I'm sorry, but to think that this sort of manoeuvre is OK is just scary ignorant.

Is it because you have no idea how serious an injury can be done by what Gibson did? Or is it because you actually do know, but you think it's fair enough?

The umpire actually explained to Gibson that "it's illegal, you can cause a really serious injury by doing that". The commentators also explained this, and pointed out how Gibson tried to "disguise" it but couldn't fool the umpire.

I just have a major reaction when something happens that could cause serious injury and some people think it's all fine or just part of the game.

Or do you know better? 

Saturday was  Sorbent time. Double flush to be sure 

9 hours ago, grazman said:

Akum, having trouble responding.

- I have made clear my opposition to tunnelling.

- I love the way the umpires cop it big time here for a pathetic performance in the game yet now they have perfect knowledge

- as one commentator said"if that gets paid it will change the face of the..." Before another one jumps in to cover for the umpires, not uncommon at all.

-I have made it clear why I find the decision ridiculous, you can carry on with your emotional BS arguments and hop into beds with the umpires or actually look at my argument in the thread and feel free to counter them

 

or is that too hard for you?

Almost finished downloading the game (Bloody useless slow internet).  I'm really looking forward to seeing it from the TV perspective. 

14 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

- I have made clear my opposition to tunnelling.

- I love the way the umpires cop it big time here for a pathetic performance in the game yet now they have perfect knowledge

- as one commentator said"if that gets paid it will change the face of the..." Before another one jumps in to cover for the umpires, not uncommon at all.

-I have made it clear why I find the decision ridiculous, you can carry on with your emotional BS arguments and hop into beds with the umpires or actually look at my argument in the thread and feel free to counter them

 

or is that too hard for you?

It was a nothing. Soft call. That WASN'T tunneling. 

Watching the replay now and can't be bothered going through 25 pages of justified elation so it may have been already raised ...but can't believe Watts wasn't listed in the best in the papers.

Bloke was absolutely immense in the second half on top of his 2 goals in the first.

Feels good to be alive this weekend! Well done boys!

17 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

It was a nothing. Soft call. That WASN'T tunneling. 

So did Vanders land flat on his back all by himself then?

3 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

GOODNIGHT DAWKS

 

Best part of this was that Tyson didn't get sucked into the contest but stood off, confident that if Jack needed him he would get it to him somehow.

48 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

- I have made clear my opposition to tunnelling.

- I love the way the umpires cop it big time here for a pathetic performance in the game yet now they have perfect knowledge

- as one commentator said"if that gets paid it will change the face of the..." Before another one jumps in to cover for the umpires, not uncommon at all.

-I have made it clear why I find the decision ridiculous, you can carry on with your emotional BS arguments and hop into beds with the umpires or actually look at my argument in the thread and feel free to counter them

 

or is that too hard for you?

So you don't think Gibson's little stunt risks serious injury? Why, as one poster tried to point out to you, does it cause such fury if it's done in basketball?

Or you agree that it does risk serious injury, but it doesn't matter?

Or it risks serious injury, and yes it does matter, but it shouldn't be penalised.

I'm all ears doctor.

2 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

No, if he resembled Lloyd he'd be horizontal.

With his arms splayed out, while looking at the nearest umpire.

47 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

again to Akum

Do I think some incidental contact with the hips in a marking contest could cause serious injuries?

Highly doubt it, but it is a contact sport (until people like you ruin it completely).

 

What Gibson did was different to what happens in basketball, as I have pointed out a few times, but obviously comprehension isn't your strong point.

 

keep trying with you lame attempts at put downs, you do them better than make an argument.

 

 

 

38 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

Do I think some incidental contact with the hips in a marking contest could cause serious injuries?

Highly doubt it, but it is a contact sport (until people like you ruin it completely).

 

What Gibson did was different to what happens in basketball, as I have pointed out a few times, but obviously comprehension isn't your strong point.

 

keep trying with you lame attempts at put downs, you do them better than make an argument.

 

 

 

Pretty wimpy way to win an argument, just quietly.

Lucky you're so much tougher than the rest of us namby pambies.

14 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Ran past the ball and made contact with the head.

Clint I would be pretty happy with that shirt front if it was the other way around. Nothing wrong with it and no harm done. 

Same with the Mitchell slap. An annoying love tap...no big deal. Bit like the other Sammy (Newman) slap from decades ago that they always show on the Footy show for a laugh. Wattsy didn't worry too much either and just got on with things?? ??

Edited August 7, 20169 yr by Rusty Nails

10 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

Pretty wimpy way to win an argument, just quietly.

Lucky you're so much tougher than the rest of us namby pambies.

 

What argument? Have had arguments with others, all here in black and white in this thread. Each made their point.

 

you may well be a namby pamby, can't really say as despite the fact you have obviously posted here for a long time, you are obviously very forgettable as the name isn't familiar...

 

this is just some emotional buffoon trying to be a smart arse while he soils his pants when he thinks someone will get hurt

3 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

No, if he resembled Lloyd he'd be horizontal.

As long as it's in the act of flying for speckies I have no problem with him getting horizontal Ted!

"Simon Goodwin must feel like a kid in a candy store"  

Fair to say that Jono Brown is a fan of the list that has been assembled.

 

 

Hawk fan: The big point that no one is talking about (they're too busy circle jerking over us losing) is that without Frawley we had next to zero defensive structure.

Me: Without Melbourne, you wouldn't have Frawley. Think about his impact on the defensive structure of Melbourne. How would the Hawthorn forward line have gone against him? The irony is so delicious.

 

Edited August 7, 20169 yr by johndemons

2 hours ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

 

What argument? Have had arguments with others, all here in black and white in this thread. Each made their point.

 

you may well be a namby pamby, can't really say as despite the fact you have obviously posted here for a long time, you are obviously very forgettable as the name isn't familiar...

 

this is just some emotional buffoon trying to be a smart arse while he soils his pants when he thinks someone will get hurt

OK, what Gibson did is exactly the same as what happens with tunnelling in basketball. It just is. Anybody who knows about basketball knows that you need just enough "incidental" contact to push your opponent off balance while they're in the air trying to catch the ball. You think tunnelling in AFL is restricted to taking out the legs. Well, you can call it what you like - what Gibson did would be deemed illegal in all sports because it risks causing serious spinal or head injuries if a person lands the wrong way. The umpire explained to Gibson that "it's illegal, and it could cause a serious injury". If you don't agree with that - well, it IS illegal, and it DOES risk causing serious injury. Again, it just is.

Of course footy's a contact sport, and there's plenty of ways to hit someone hard, and hurt them legally, without risking serious injury. Increasing knowledge of sports medicine means that all sports are trying to stamp out any type of contact that could cause serious injury by making it illegal. It's not trying to "ruin a contact sport", it's about doing what can be done to control the play to lessen the risk of serious injury, which is actually part of the umpire's job.

The umpires had a shocker in that game (and something they definitely didn't do is protect both our first-year players from the risk of serious injury from a high shoulder (Oliver) and from being lifted off the ground in a form of spear tackle (Weidemann)). But this is one of the few they got exactly right. And that would have been true even if it were Watts or Petracca (both ex-basketballers by the way) who had done what Gibson did. 

I simply have a problem with those in sport who condone any contact (however "incidental") that risks severe injury. Which is what you seem to be doing. I haven't seen you actually "put an argument" for condoning this type of contact yet, except to keep repeating that you believe that Gibson's action - which in most other ball sports is called "tunnelling" and is banned because of the risk of causing severe injury - should not be penalised in AFL.

So I sincerely want to know: what sports medicine knowledge do you have, against the weight of evidence in all the sports that have banned this sort of contact, that leads you to believe that tunnelling doesn't risk causing severe injury? Or if you do happen to agree with the weight of evidence that it could cause severe injury, why should it be OK in AFL despite it being banned in other sports?

Do you have any actual points to make here? Or just abuse and blind prejudice?