What they're saying over at West Lakes

[DemonOX 8,801]

7 hours ago, old dee said:

They have the worst supporters in the league by a clear margin.

on top of that their team / management are a bunch of arrogant pricks.

if you they never win another game it will be one too many. 

Love the passion old dee. I hate them cause my neighbour supports them and he is an arrogant [censored] and I’m being polite. 

It makes it all the more sweeter when we beat those pretenders. 

[Return to Glory 8,448]

What they're saying in West Lakes? Same old shite - 'let's put him in a barrel, put the barrel in a disused bank and claim his social security'.

[gregdemon 624]

7 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I'm curious od - why are the Crows the only team on your hate list?

Agree, very special to beat them twice this year especially after we beat them on their own dung heap last year.  That almost means we own them on Adelaide Oval?.

 Sorry to butt in I hate every team we play that week and that day   although special mention   to geelong crows   west coast  Essendon  coll wood Port  s  Carltank   richmond    .  Obviously beating interstate teams  interstate   is bloody Gold.   They look on the crows fans faces  priceless  !

 

How good would it be to beat west coast at west coast again  (not by a point  my heart cannot stand it)

[Wiseblood 24,637]

4 hours ago, Nasher said:

Alright. It’s @Wiseblood (only sees the good)

I'll take that.  I'd like to think I'm a little more measured than just seeing the good all the time, but I'd rather the above than the alternative.

I'll go back to being a bot now...

[Demonland 73,161]

4 hours ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Jeez. If I did that after every disappointing loss ....

[Forest Demon 4,681]

It was pretty sweet to put an end to their season. Given it was at the Adelaide Oval, and they have most of their best team back on the park, that was a good win.

[Skuit 10,031]

2 hours ago, AmDamDemon said:

Just realised I've spent years in a forum talking footy with a bunch of bots and Nasher. 

?

Drop by the boat today mate and we can discuss footy through our mouths as if it were 90s. Bring your Clint Bizkit hat.

[Cards13 9,117]

5 hours ago, Nasher said:

Alright. It’s @Wiseblood (only sees the good), @Clint Bizkit (ultra pessimist), @A F (sees good and bad but can’t see past his own bias once it creeps in), and @Petraccattack (goes flying off the handle in either direction over whatever happened in the last moment). Between these four autobots, I think I have the whole spectrum of footy supporters covered. 

You forgot the arrogant moderator bot, oh nope you’ve got that one covered yourself, kudos sir for all bases covered.

[Nasher 33,617]

4 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

You forgot the arrogant moderator bot, oh nope you’ve got that one covered yourself, kudos sir for all bases covered.

Wow. When did I put a bee in your bonnet?

[DV8 2,271]

5 hours ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

When's that crow supporter gonna com out, and go home ?

geez they're like school-girls, sometimes.  ?

[radar 1,865]

3 hours ago, Return to Glory said:

What they're saying in West Lakes? Same old shite - 'let's put him in a barrel, put the barrel in a disused bank and claim his social security'.

Snowtown movie - seriously scary. Used real locals for many roles. 

[DEE fence 5,039]

So I think a PM to Alexander Downer will go down nicely (of my son in his his football scarf). I also have a Adelaide colleague in the office in Rome, who is going to find her computer wallpapered with the membership stickers (and has to have the scarf on her desk for a week, (and buy a coffee and a muffin), we were winding each other up all week and the bets kept getting larger. I'm not doing this gracious in victory thing very well at all.

[DEE fence 5,039]

6 hours ago, sue said:

A cunning way of hiding the fact that you already have done it.  But tell us which login names are bots.

Petrackattack and Picketfence were early attempts at bots...

[Skuit 10,031]

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

Wow. When did I put a bee in your bonnet?

During the coding stage obviously.

[deanox 9,989]

8 hours ago, Nasher said:

Always funny to see how overboard fans go when they lose. Heaps of them are bagging Cheney, when I thought he was frustratingly difficult for us to get past and played a significant role in repelling our scoring opportunities. Would have been in the top 6 if I was voting in Crowland Player of the Year.

Then there’s the “it’s all the leaders fault” posts. Funny how leadership is always shining in wins and disastrous in losses.

It’s no different to here after a loss. People can’t see through their own disappointment, and look at the players through that lense.

I reckon I could program a forum posting bot where I just feed it the footy scores, and it writes post that mimick the average mug’s posts, and nobody would be able to tell the difference.

Basically Demonland was set up as an elaborate Turing Test experimental set up. 

[Copuchas 763]

16 hours ago, deespicable me said:

The worst decision of the evening (among many) was the push in the back free to Hoges in the 3rd quarter. A lovely easy goal. It's great as we become a serious side that we can have periods and occasions where the umpires see things our way and give us that "good old push along".

I hate the umpires more than Essendon but the last two weeks at hostile home grounds where you expect decisions to go against you they have been fairly good. (or equally awful to both teams)

It was not a push in the back free kick per se, it was an unrealistic attempt at a mark free kick and as with everything AFL they have introduced a formal process to assist the umpires in the adjudication of the decision.   That process dictates that if you fly for the ball, make contact with the player in front and don't get a finger on the ball, it is a prima facie unrealistic attempt.   You may disagree with that process but it was umpired 100% correctly with this season's interpretation of that rule.

[deespicable me 1,498]

2 hours ago, Copuchas said:

It was not a push in the back free kick per se, it was an unrealistic attempt at a mark free kick and as with everything AFL they have introduced a formal process to assist the umpires in the adjudication of the decision.   That process dictates that if you fly for the ball, make contact with the player in front and don't get a finger on the ball, it is a prima facie unrealistic attempt.   You may disagree with that process but it was umpired 100% correctly with this season's interpretation of that rule.

No worries, you can believe that was a "correct" free all you like. Almost every free is "technically" correct or can be argued so, as they do every week when decisions are questioned.

But if you reckon it was a deserved free and the umpire shouldn't have kept his whistle dry then I'll certainly beg to differ. That type of free is what makes Footy unwatchable

[Copuchas 763]

1 minute ago, deespicable me said:

No worries, you can believe that was a "correct" free all you like. Almost every free is "technically" correct or can be argued so, as they do every week when decisions are questioned.

But if you reckon it was a deserved free and the umpire shouldn't have kept his whistle dry then I'll certainly beg to differ. That type of free is what makes Footy unwatchable

Possibly you've misread my post?   I didn't opine on the virtue of it being paid a free kick, I simply provided insight as to how the AFL are umpiring the "unrealistic attempt" decision, which is not as far as I am aware, even a rule within the Laws of the Game.   You'd do well to vent your frustrations at the AFL rather than shoot the messenger who's shone light on what you were unable to decipher on game day!

[deespicable me 1,498]

2 minutes ago, Copuchas said:

Possibly you've misread my post?   I didn't opine on the virtue of it being paid a free kick, I simply provided insight as to how the AFL are umpiring the "unrealistic attempt" decision, which is not as far as I am aware, even a rule within the Laws of the Game.   You'd do well to vent your frustrations at the AFL rather than shoot the messenger who's shone light on what you were unable to decipher on game day!

Fair enough, I saw that you didn't back the decision, just gave insight to the umpires thought process that has given rise to him giving the softest of frees, and then hiding behind the guise of "correct interpretation". 

If we all hide behind facades nothing will change. 

Did you agree the free should have been paid? Will you be happy when the same free is paid against us?

[Leoncelli_36 2,264]

14 minutes ago, Copuchas said:

Possibly you've misread my post?   I didn't opine on the virtue of it being paid a free kick, I simply provided insight as to how the AFL are umpiring the "unrealistic attempt" decision, which is not as far as I am aware, even a rule within the Laws of the Game.   You'd do well to vent your frustrations at the AFL rather than shoot the messenger who's shone light on what you were unable to decipher on game day!

I've watched it again. The guy used his leg to get a rise and pushed off with his leg and did not touch the footy. My understanding is that you must touch the footy if you jump on someone's back. he definitely when up, used his leg and although it was minor, pushed hogan out with his leg and failed to touch the ball. That is a free kcik according to my understanding. It's soft...but there. 

[Dee Zephyr 19,269]

1 minute ago, Leoncelli_36 said:

I've watched it again. The guy used his leg to get a rise and pushed off with his leg and did not touch the footy. My understanding is that you must touch the footy if you jump on someone's back. he definitely when up, used his leg and although it was minor, pushed hogan out with his leg and failed to touch the ball. That is a free kcik according to my understanding. It's soft...but there. 

Agree. We’ve seen many similar incidents paid like that all season. The thing that stood out was the commentators stated the central umpire 40 metres away paid it and not the closest ump. 

Was that the case? I imagine it’d be hard to see the gentle shove from such a distance . Not complaining though.

[Copuchas 763]

2 hours ago, deespicable me said:

Fair enough, I saw that you didn't back the decision, just gave insight to the umpires thought process that has given rise to him giving the softest of frees, and then hiding behind the guise of "correct interpretation". 

If we all hide behind facades nothing will change. 

Did you agree the free should have been paid? Will you be happy when the same free is paid against us?

Deespicable, in the footy I grew up watching, it's not a free kick.  But my biggest gripe with AFL umpiring is around consistency of interpretation and on that score, the process applied and the resultant free kick was at least consistent with what they've been doing on the unrealistic attempt front this season.

[daisycutter 29,743]

32 minutes ago, Copuchas said:

Deespicable, in the footy I grew up watching, it's not a free kick.  But my biggest gripe with AFL umpiring is around consistency of interpretation and on that score, the process applied and the resultant free kick was at least consistent with what they've been doing on the unrealistic attempt front this season.

was definitely a soft free and costly (for cows) but technically correct

i wouldn't have paid it, because the cows player did not jump prematurely but at the correct normal time and just missed the ball. a "reasonable" attempt i thought. the contact was also minimal

p.s. i wouldn't have paid the free against fritsch for the deliberate oob either

Edited July 30, 2018 by daisycutter

[General Malaise 209]

18 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

p.s. i wouldn't have paid the free against fritsch for the deliberate oob either

He should have just hung onto it rather than handball it once he was over the line. Made it look worse.

[Return to Glory 8,448]

On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 7:42 PM, radar said:

Snowtown movie - seriously scary. Used real locals for many roles. 

Makes sense that they would.