Michael Walters Acting

[ManDee 7,076]

15 minutes ago, willmoy said:

I would be willing to put a small pecuniary wager if i could prove it, but then how does one suspend an officer of the "crown" 

[Willmoy1947 3,765]

3 hours ago, ManDee said:

We will know part of the answer on Brownlow night when we look at the votes at round 14. If the vote tally is the same you will have piqued my interest. But I do not think anyone at the AFL would know more than a couple of votes in a couple of games, most would be guesswork as you or I would do. I will put a note in my diary to revisit this September 24th. Any pecuniary win you may donate to the club.

A laudable cause......

[McQueen 17,862]

WOw. 

Just watched the last minute of the third term again and Walters subsequent carry-on to Jones hardly contacting him.  

What a tool. My most disliked player by a country mile. 

[Biffen 12,323]

Such a crap actor I’ve decided to call him Denis from now on.

[Males 577]

In regards to the free kick, I believe the original free to Lockhart would’ve been from the top of the goal square, because Freo were kicking out. The reversal against Jones though should’ve just been a free kick to the filthy diver where he flopped.

I wasn’t aware of the rule, but the commentators did mention that if a team is kicking out from a behind and get a free, it’s 50mtrs. I believe this is where the issue may have come from, the Commentators mentioned that it was the umpire near the goals that gave the 50, not the umpire who reversed the free. I reckon the umpire near the goals has just heard the free kick to Walters, therefore paying the 50 when the other umpire didn’t, possibly thinking the other umpire missed it? The umpire who reversed the free kick probably assumed the other umpire gave the 50 for another reason, just an honest miscommunication that cost us a goal.

 

[DEE fence 4,445]

31 minutes ago, Males said:

In regards to the free kick, I believe the original free to Lockhart would’ve been from the top of the goal square, because Freo were kicking out. The reversal against Jones though should’ve just been a free kick to the filthy diver where he flopped.

I wasn’t aware of the rule, but the commentators did mention that if a team is kicking out from a behind and get a free, it’s 50mtrs. I believe this is where the issue may have come from, the Commentators mentioned that it was the umpire near the goals that gave the 50, not the umpire who reversed the free. I reckon the umpire near the goals has just heard the free kick to Walters, therefore paying the 50 when the other umpire didn’t, possibly thinking the other umpire missed it? The umpire who reversed the free kick probably assumed the other umpire gave the 50 for another reason, just an honest miscommunication that cost us a goal.

 

I think you got it, FWIW I actually don't have a problem with Jones, yes the ump got sucked in by the flop, but you can't have it both ways, fly the flag or be accused of bruise free football. Jones was careful he was never going to maim anyone with that shoulder shot. I'd rather be known as a hard team, which I think is what Ross Lyon credited us as.

[monoccular 16,041]

17 hours ago, Males said:

In regards to the free kick, I believe the original free to Lockhart would’ve been from the top of the goal square, because Freo were kicking out. The reversal against Jones though should’ve just been a free kick to the filthy diver where he flopped.

I wasn’t aware of the rule, but the commentators did mention that if a team is kicking out from a behind and get a free, it’s 50mtrs. I believe this is where the issue may have come from, the Commentators mentioned that it was the umpire near the goals that gave the 50, not the umpire who reversed the free. I reckon the umpire near the goals has just heard the free kick to Walters, therefore paying the 50 when the other umpire didn’t, possibly thinking the other umpire missed it? The umpire who reversed the free kick probably assumed the other umpire gave the 50 for another reason, just an honest miscommunication that cost us a goal.

 

Have our mates Gillon and Shocking succeeded in introducing another ambiguous rule that nobody has any idea about?

Well done guys - your annual bonus has been well earned. 

[ManDee 7,076]

On 6/26/2019 at 8:55 AM, willmoy said:

From the AFL bloke i was talking to, Walters has the same amount of Brownlow votes as our best player at the moment.......

 

On 6/26/2019 at 12:33 PM, ManDee said:

I call bulltish!

 

On 6/26/2019 at 4:05 PM, willmoy said:

I would be willing to put a small pecuniary wager if i could prove it, but then how does one suspend an officer of the "crown" 

 

On 6/26/2019 at 4:14 PM, ManDee said:

We will know part of the answer on Brownlow night when we look at the votes at round 14. If the vote tally is the same you will have piqued my interest. But I do not think anyone at the AFL would know more than a couple of votes in a couple of games, most would be guesswork as you or I would do. I will put a note in my diary to revisit this September 24th. Any pecuniary win you may donate to the club.

As I thought Walters at round fourteen had 10 votes and our best Max was on 16

Please send my winnings to the club. 

Cheers