1 hour ago, Petraccattack said:

 

He called for Neeld to be sacked in his first season.  It was a bold call but he was 100% right, and every Demon supporter blindly defended Neeld and shouted King down.

Kingy throws enough out there...he's got to get one right every now and then.

Edited April 11, 20187 yr by rjay

22 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Rubbish.  Looking at an opponent then blocking him is, sure, but Lever did not block him (other that head butting Goldstein’s forearm I guess).  

Lever's head made illegal front-on contact with Goldy's elbow/forearm.  That is the only logical reason I can see for the free.

4 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

 

He called for Neeld to be sacked in his first season.  It was a bold call but he was 100% right, and every Demon supporter blindly defended Neeld and shouted King down.

Fair enough. My disllike/disrespect for King is obviously a touch flippant and King isn't a moron - I daresay I'm mostly annoyed by the whole scheme of what he's paid to do is to mostly state the obvious.

But wait! Why am I stepping back!? This is the 21st century after all!

David King's undermining of Neeld's coaching legitimacy was the crack that ruined our young teams cohesion! Neeld was forcing through a new level of professionalism and commitment that the lazy and casual players at the club were looking to avoid, and they used King's media role as a backchannel to put the pressure back on the coach instead of them! Our entire 'second failure' period is actually the Fault of David King personally!

(in need of a sarcasm font for that bit, I always like backwards italics as an option, please return to normal program)

On 4/10/2018 at 1:08 PM, Moonshadow said:

You must've missed the last side-on shot where Lever's right arm contacts his opponent's midriff shortly followed by an elbow to the head from the outstretched arm going for the mark. And it looked like Lever's left arm was also making contact around Goldy's body at the same time.

Put it this way: one player was going towards the ball attempting to mark it. The other was running back into his opponent without his eyes on the ball. At no point was I convinced Lever was going for the ball. His last 4 steps were spent looking in the opposite direction. In that case the umpire always rewards the player going for the ball. Lever was inevitably going to make front contact and did. The elbow to the head looked bad, but was secondary to the interference on the ball player

If the jumpers were reversed I'm certain 99.9% on here would agree with the decision. I disregard Roosy's commentating view as he's clearly biased.

But I'll agree to disagree and move on.

You are either willfully misrepresenting what happened or you can't see.

Lever had eyes on the ball, was running back, took his eyes off for a split second to see where his opponent was and then turned back towards the ball. Totally legal. Nothing in the rules whatsoever against this. He did not impede Goldstein at all.

25 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You are either willfully misrepresenting what happened or you can't see.

Lever had eyes on the ball, was running back, took his eyes off for a split second to see where his opponent was and then turned back towards the ball. Totally legal. Nothing in the rules whatsoever against this. He did not impede Goldstein at all.

Lever's did initially look at the ball but he turned and his eyes were off the ball looking at Goldy for his last 4 steps. Count them. I did.

After this he did not turn and look at the ball again, hence why he was not hit by the elbow on the back of his head but across the chops. And his arms did contact Goldy's midrift.

I can see, it's just that sometime I see better without the red n blue tinted glasses

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

Fair enough. My disllike/disrespect for King is obviously a touch flippant and King isn't a moron - I daresay I'm mostly annoyed by the whole scheme of what he's paid to do is to mostly state the obvious.

But wait! Why am I stepping back!? This is the 21st century after all!

David King's undermining of Neeld's coaching legitimacy was the crack that ruined our young teams cohesion! Neeld was forcing through a new level of professionalism and commitment that the lazy and casual players at the club were looking to avoid, and they used King's media role as a backchannel to put the pressure back on the coach instead of them! Our entire 'second failure' period is actually the Fault of David King personally!

(in need of a sarcasm font for that bit, I always like backwards italics as an option, please return to normal program)

If you're not working in PR or politics, your talents are being wasted.

Brilliant.