16 hours ago, chook fowler said:

Embuggerance - a great descriptor.

A quaint, common little term to describe several thousand minor contradictions to the ideal flows of life and times. There are other descriptors, there are other alternatives; however, this little gem takes me back to the early 1960s when my barber cut my hair a little too short (for the fashions of the field, in those days), leading him to a lexicon of unutterable words in paltry platitudes of apology. 'Embuggerance' as a word, a condition, a state of being leaning to the negative was particularly striking for me and difficult to forget; thus, I began to use it regularly - and so did my susceptible friends.

Glad you liked it, chook - thought it might have been edited away for want of a more tasteful alternative but heedless, I took the risk.

16 hours ago, DubDee said:

We’ve been embuggered?

starting to sound a little sinister now!

It is a noun, not transferable to direct verbal modification. Such usage is an embuggerance. As for covid, it is perhaps embuggering our fine players 🙂

Edited May 3, 20223 yr by Deemania since 56

59 minutes ago, layzie said:

Last week he finally graduated from the famous 4-6 academy to 3 - 4 weeks.

cool :) so 2-3 weeks now. I think he'll play vfl in round 11 and play in round 12.

22 hours ago, Pates said:

It wasn’t Tom’s finest moment but to be fair him marking it made it a certain goal at an important time, for all he knew there could’ve been someone coming from behind to spoil it. It’s in the book for Tom, but I’m sure everyone recognises it as Harmes’s goal. 

 

19 hours ago, Robbie57 said:

Tmac has had a lot of stick for the mark, and I think he was unsure what to do. I read he was worried it may hit the line and bounce back to my mind it looked like he was also worried he may not be able to get out the way with someone behind him. A shame for Harmes who deserved it but the commentary has been over the top. 

 

18 hours ago, Action Jackson said:

I disagree with people potting Tom McDonald for taking that mark.

If you watch the replay he never took his eyes off the ball, so wouldn't have known exactly where he was.

If he let it go and it wasn't long enough there is every chance it bounces short of the line and goes left or right and hits the post.

He then went and apologised to Harmesy and explained it straight after.

I might be harsh but Im not having Toms explanation. he knows exactly where he is. The ball had more chance of hitting the fence on the full than bouncing on the line. Im not sure who could have come from behind him, a member of the cheer squad?? Add this to the massive burn in the 3rd he looked to me to be playing for his position and not the team.

I suppose when you look at his kick after the siren in the GF it makes a lot of sense.

Grimes you are right, my faulty memory of the incident. Weeds was in front of him.  Can see how others disagree but still think its been overblown.

 

26 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

 

 

I might be harsh but Im not having Toms explanation. he knows exactly where he is. The ball had more chance of hitting the fence on the full than bouncing on the line. Im not sure who could have come from behind him, a member of the cheer squad?? Add this to the massive burn in the 3rd he looked to me to be playing for his position and not the team.

I suppose when you look at his kick after the siren in the GF it makes a lot of sense.

I’ll start with the kick after the siren, why the hell wouldn’t he take the kick? It rubbed salt into the wound of the Dogs and that extra goal is in the books to show how dominant we were. I say good on him for nailing it while ever fibre of him probably wanted to hug his teammates. 

As for the mark on the weekend, at the end of the day the result is what matters, ie the goal. If we’re all about the team then Harmes should be recognising that at the end of the day he did his role which was to get the ball out into a goal scoring opportunity. Tom did his role as a forward in finishing the work. 

I don’t care who gets the goal, as long as it’s to the mighty Narrm FC.

No one has mentioned that with two key forwards, on their own, virtually in the goal square, why Harmes didn’t pass it to them, rather than take the shot. Kicking to the forwards would have made a certainty of the goal. Of late, Harmes kicking on the run hasn’t been great, so could have easily missed. Both were not team first decisions in my view.

2 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

No one has mentioned that with two key forwards, on their own, virtually in the goal square, why Harmes didn’t pass it to them, rather than take the shot. Kicking to the forwards would have made a certainty of the goal. Of late, Harmes kicking on the run hasn’t been great, so could have easily missed. Both were not team first decisions in my view.

Good point.

21 minutes ago, Pates said:

I’ll start with the kick after the siren, why the hell wouldn’t he take the kick? It rubbed salt into the wound of the Dogs and that extra goal is in the books to show how dominant we were. I say good on him for nailing it while ever fibre of him probably wanted to hug his teammates. 

As for the mark on the weekend, at the end of the day the result is what matters, ie the goal. If we’re all about the team then Harmes should be recognising that at the end of the day he did his role which was to get the ball out into a goal scoring opportunity. Tom did his role as a forward in finishing the work. 

I don’t care who gets the goal, as long as it’s to the mighty Narrm FC.

Completely correct, been done to death and over analysed by people who have no idea what was going through Tom's mind, or what his perception was about where he was regarding the posts, goal line other players etc.

1 hour ago, loges said:

Completely correct, been done to death and over analysed by people who have no idea what was going through Tom's mind, or what his perception was about where he was regarding the posts, goal line other players etc.

He also has the turning circle of the Queen Mary. He may have been concerned that he couldn't guarantee getting out of the way in time.

Good to see Zac Jones back playing after his 'personal issues'

Jones and Billings could both be back which make a big difference to their midfield

Any new Covid cases or Covid updates? Any news on Joel Smith's ankle?

17 minutes ago, SPC said:

Any new Covid cases or Covid updates? Any news on Joel Smith's ankle?

all the news has been positive so far

sorry

1 hour ago, SPC said:

Any new Covid cases or Covid updates? Any news on Joel Smith's ankle?

From the injury report video. 
Smith has fractured a bone inside his ankle and will have surgery this week. Griffith didn’t state a timeline of how long he will be kept out.

Edited May 3, 20223 yr by Dee Zephyr

Of the guys that missed last week because of covid, only Pickett appeared on the track today at training. No sign of Jackson, Sparrow, ANB or Petty.

The injury report suggests all five COVID protocol players are ready for this week. But I recall Brown was "ready" for the Port game but we chose not to rush him back. Wonder if ANB will fall into that category.

Lever's not on the injury list but I'm not convinced he's fully fit. Anyway, expect him to stay.

Would expect to see Petty, Jackson, Sparrow and Pickett straight back. Smith, Melksham and one of TMac/Weid make way for the first three. As for Pickett, I wonder whether we might give Bedford another game - if so, Dunstan's the likely player to miss, but could become the sub in place of Chandler.

If ANB is also fit, and we bring back all five, it might be moot. You would expect that Bedford and Dunstan will both make way, one of them moving to the sub role.

Edited May 3, 20223 yr by titan_uranus

Will be interesting if we keep Luke Dunstan in the team against his old side the Saints.

I am sure he has a point to prove against his former Club.

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

The injury report suggests all five COVID protocol players are ready for this week. But I recall Brown was "ready" for the Port game but we chose not to rush him back. Wonder if ANB will fall into that category.

Lever's not on the injury list but I'm not convinced he's fully fit. Anyway, expect him to stay.

Would expect to see Petty, Jackson, Sparrow and Pickett straight back. Smith, Melksham and one of TMac/Weid make way for the first three. As for Pickett, I wonder whether we might give Bedford another game - if so, Dunstan's the likely player to miss, but could become the sub in place of Chandler.

If ANB is also fit, and we bring back all five, it might be moot. You would expect that Bedford and Dunstan will both make way, one of them moving to the sub role.

Brown's return was complicated by logistics. He came out of iso on the morning of the game. Would then have had to get to the airport & fly to Adelaide & have limited prep time on the day.

This was also at a time when every second flight out of Tullamarine was being cancelled.

I reckon ANB plays if he's suffered no ill effects

You have to make a big deal out of something when you hate the better team so much, especially after they kick goals at will.

9 hours ago, Grimes Times said:

 

 

I might be harsh but Im not having Toms explanation. he knows exactly where he is. The ball had more chance of hitting the fence on the full than bouncing on the line. Im not sure who could have come from behind him, a member of the cheer squad?? Add this to the massive burn in the 3rd he looked to me to be playing for his position and not the team.

I suppose when you look at his kick after the siren in the GF it makes a lot of sense.

Pretty sure not kicking the goal so he could start the celebrations earlier would have been the more selfish move.

9 hours ago, Robbie57 said:

Grimes you are right, my faulty memory of the incident. Weeds was in front of him.  Can see how others disagree but still think its been overblown.

 

Maybe, had Weeds been a more "assertive" or confident sort of character, he would have called for Tom to leave it?  It was really up to him, with a wider view of the whole situation, to make such a call.

5 hours ago, dee-tox said:

Of the guys that missed last week because of covid, only Pickett appeared on the track today at training. No sign of Jackson, Sparrow, ANB or Petty.

They're probably still in iso

5 hours ago, Supreme_Demon said:

Will be interesting if we keep Luke Dunstan in the team against his old side the Saints.

I am sure he has a point to prove against his former Club.

And more to the point, former coach

We can't rush blokes back if there not 100% fit and ready. Plus they need to have at least one training run with the team. Have coverage on all lines and I'm happy whoever we select as I know they will play to the team rules.

Can we have a game or 2 with both Kozzie and Bedford in the forward line? They seemed to combine brilliantly on a couple of occasions in a pre-season game. Not sure how we'd fit him in if all 5 covids come back, but perhaps ANB to the wing, Jordon to the mids, and maybe Harmes has a rest? Not sure if it can be done, but would just love to see these 2 excitement machines playing together.