Jump to content

NON-MFC: Practice Matches

Demonland
Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

Jeez Mason, did you forget what happened last September?

38915CB1-CDF3-4064-AE8F-3EC805A022BB.thumb.jpeg.ee499dfdec2badea2c2fed33f28bcdc0.jpeg

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Angry 3
    • Vomit 9
     
    7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

    It’s actually a replica of the Cripps hit which concussed his victim and put him out of the finals.

    Cripps’ penalty, a Brownlow.

    Well, the tribunal chairman did bang the gavel with his left hand, when protocol demands the right, so it's correct that as a matter of law, Cripps got off. Takes a QC to spot these little things.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Angry 1
     

    Ball was in the vicinity… 

    Attempted to smother missed the ball, left the ground braced for impact and hit Simpkin… 

    Really Simpkin should have invented teleportation to avoid the hit so really it’s his fault… 

    Should get off… 

    Am I doing it right? 
     

    Seriously a dog act, deserves 6+ like what Maynard deserved. 
     

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Clap 6
    1 hour ago, Demonland said:

     

    Ban the bump.

    That was a text book example of why.

    And of my point about the game not losing anything by doing so.

    Even if he hadn't flushed his head, and just say hit him shoulder to shoulder, what would have that action achieved for Webster's team, other than hurting an opponent?

    Nothing.

    He had already disposed of the ball. 

    Even a non reportable 'hit' would likely have been a free.

    If the bump was not legal he likely doesn't do it - or goes at him hands out, which still might hurt him but not as bad.

    Simpkin apparently had two concussions last year, one of which was apparently a bad one he struggled to recover from.

    Edited by binman

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Sad 2

    IMO it’s worse than SPP who got 4, but King suggesting 10 is over the top and I think it will land at 6.

    Late, left the ground, hip and arm into the head, totally unnecessary and if he wanted to bump, could have done so into his side and shoulder, still possibly illegal, but far less so.

    Hope none of our players do anything similar.

    PS: Given the current climate he could get a bit more. This could be the message penalty.

    Edited by Redleg

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    6 minutes ago, DaveyJones'sLocker said:

    Looked pretty similar to De Goey on Hewett from last year who got 3 weeks. 

    Which was ridiculous. Broke his jaw. Should have got 6 minimum.

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    1 hour ago, Monbon said:

    I thought P-P was stiff. A Port player turned the poor Crow dude directly into P-P's path...P-P never left the ground with the intention to thump....

    P-P's appeared to be a genuine "football incident" and in a contact sport, merde happens. Unfortunate.

     

    1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

    If the AFL want to make a statement on a head high bump then this is the perfect case study right here with this incident.

    You'd think 6 weeks at least is a starting point.

    Saints currently sitting in top 4? NO
    Saints with crack at a flag? NO
    Webster star player? NO
    Webster "good bloke"? Opinions vary.
    St Kilda fanboys in media cracking the [censored]? NO

    So that's one point at best. Webster to be hung drawn and quartered.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Thanks 4
     
    10 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

    Jeez Mason, did you forget what happened last September?

    38915CB1-CDF3-4064-AE8F-3EC805A022BB.thumb.jpeg.ee499dfdec2badea2c2fed33f28bcdc0.jpeg

    Anyone who has anything to do with Collingwood should be shutting their mouths. After the incident in last years final and the way Collingwood and their supporters conducted them selves the moment of and after the incident they should be ashamed of themselves. 

     

  • Quote
    • Like 10
    • Thanks 2
    • Clap 4
    5 minutes ago, binman said:

    Ban the bump.

    That was a text book example of why.

    And of my point about the game not losing anything by doing so.

    Even if he hadn't flushed his head, and just say hit him shoulder to shoulder, what would have that action achieved for Webster's team, other than hurting an opponent?

    Nothing.

    He had already disposed of the ball. 

    Even a non reportable 'hit' would likely have been a free.

    If the bump was not legal he likely doesn't do it - or goes at him hands out, which still might hurt him but not as bad.

    Simpkin apparently had two concussions last year, one of which was apparently a bad one he struggled to recover from.

    This is absolutely exhibit A for the ban the bump movement.

    Only intention was to ‘make him earn it’ in the old fashioned sense. It’s such an antiquated and dangerous attitude.

    It will never happen but this is as good an example of a 10 week ban as you will see.

    I think you’ll have many friends on board the bump ban train over the course of this week @binman

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Clap 1

    Ban the bump? why?

    head high bumps are already banned

    whats wrong with shoulder to shoulder?

    *ducks head for cover

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Haha 1

    It’s about time the AFL made a statement here, if they are serious about banning head high hits. FFS, it has already ended the career of Gus in the most recent history. Webster should be banned for the year. Draw a line in the sand AFL.

  • Quote
    1 minute ago, DubDee said:

    Ban the bump? why?

    head high bumps are already banned

    whats wrong with shoulder to shoulder?

    *ducks head for cover

    At very least there have to be hip to hip when contesting a ground ball. 
    Agree 100% re head high and maybe even shoulder 

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    4 minutes ago, DubDee said:

    Ban the bump? why?

    head high bumps are already banned

    whats wrong with shoulder to shoulder?

    *ducks head for cover

    Perhaps a better question is why not ban the bump?

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Clap 2

    2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

    If the AFL want to make a statement on a head high bump then this is the perfect case study right here with this incident.

    You'd think 6 weeks at least is a starting point.

    The AFL will act only when the $100,000,000 (minimum) law suit lands.

    Edited by Queanbeyan Demon
    Typo

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    26 minutes ago, binman said:

    Perhaps a better question is why not ban the bump?

    I don’t think that’s the question but i’ll answer anyway -

    it’s been a part of the game for 150 years. It is an exciting, brutal, unique part of our sport. Think back your favourite Matty Whelan bump. If you ban it completely how to players brace if high speed contact is inevitable? head to head front on contact? last comment tongue in cheek somewhat

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    54 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

    P-P's appeared to be a genuine "football incident" and in a contact sport, merde happens. Unfortunate.

     

    Saints currently sitting in top 4? NO
    Saints with crack at a flag? NO
    Webster star player? NO
    Webster "good bloke"? Opinions vary.
    St Kilda fanboys in media cracking the [censored]? NO

    So that's one point at best. Webster to be hung drawn and quartered.

    But the AFL is not corrupt! Ha effing Ha

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
    • Sad 1
    21 hours ago, Demonland said:

    Saints win the preseason Cup. IMG_2050.jpeg

    Webster out for 6 week

    Howard out for 3+

    Saints definitely the winners

  • Quote
    • Haha 4

    3 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

    i don't think it's going to be 10, but it should start at 6

    in other concussion news, will pucovski was sconned second ball of his innings down in tasmania

    he needs to be brayshaw'd and medically retired from sport where there's a chance of his head being hit

    Such a shame for young Will. A dozen hits to the head in a relatively short career. And that’s in a non-contact sport. 😢

  • Quote
    1 hour ago, Dee Zephyr said:

    Jeez Mason, did you forget what happened last September?

    38915CB1-CDF3-4064-AE8F-3EC805A022BB.thumb.jpeg.ee499dfdec2badea2c2fed33f28bcdc0.jpeg

    I agree with the sentiment. The only problem is who’s saying it. Anyone connected with that filthy team of thugs should know better than to comment on this matter. 

  • Quote
    54 minutes ago, Demonland said:

    Saints win the preseason Cup. IMG_2050.jpeg

    Love the old school early-mid 2000s club logos used in the ladder.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    26 minutes ago, DubDee said:

    I don’t think that’s the question but i’ll answer anyway -

    it’s been a part of the game for 150 years. It is an exciting, brutal, unique part of our sport. Think back your favourite Matty Whelan bump. If you ban it completely how to players brace if high speed contact is inevitable? head to head front on contact? last comment tongue in cheek somewhat

    I think it is an important question.

    Because really the only rebuttal I've heard against banning is a variation of it's an exciting element of a brutal game.

    Part or the game.

    But so was hitting and sniping players behind play in the 70s and 80s. And getting off because there was no video review to catch hits thst were missed or a blind eye was turned.

    But the VFL was increasingly out of step with community values. The level of violence in games was no longer accepted by the community.

    It took matthews sickening hit on Bruns to trigger a video review and start reducing the number of striking reports.

    Few would argue the game is not better for it. 

    I'd argue the bump is similar in some ways. The difference is it is legal violence  - a football act. One that until relatively recently was legal even if a head was struck. 

    The similarity to striking behind play twofold.

    One is a bump, even if a head is not hit, is also brutal. 

    Two it achieves nothing positive for your team - unless you consider taking out and/or hurting an opponent as being a positive (and in any cade you can hurt with a tackle).

    Unlike kicking, marking, tackling and handballing the game would lose nothing the bump, currently a football act, was outlawed. 

    The sport is plenty brutal without taking players out with a bump.

    As for two players running at each other, personally  in such scenarios ie to protect yourself from inevitable contact I'd allow bracing for contact which is a natural, instinctive action.

    Some head injuries are inevitable in such a chaotic 360 degree sport.

    For example in marking contests, which I wouldn't ban by the way as unlike bumping high marling is a fundamental of the game.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Clap 2

    Honestly bumps like this and Maynard's are why there should be a send off rule. 

    Because if you were an immoral piece of feces you could do this a few times in a GF or to the opposition's best player, win a flag and who cares about the suspension. Even in a home and away game it gives you an advantage as the opposition have to use their sub to replace someone they might not have wanted to replace at a time they don't get to choose.

    I'm not saying use a red card willy nilly but in cases like today's... 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Clap 4

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • GAMEDAY: West Coast

      It's Game Day and the Demons have a chance to notch up their third consecutive win — something they haven’t done since Round 5, 2024. But to do it, they’ll need to exorcise the Demons of last year’s disastrous trip out West. Can the Dees continue their momentum, right the wrongs of that fateful clash, and take another step up the ladder on the road to redemption?

        • Thumb Down
        • Haha
      • 48 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • FEATURE: 1925

      A hundred years ago today, on 2 May 1925, Melbourne kicked off the new season with a 47 point victory over St Kilda to take top place on the VFL ladder after the opening round of the new season.  Top place was a relatively unknown position for the team then known as the “Fuchsias.” They had finished last in 1923 and rose by only one place in the following year although the final home and away round heralded a promise of things to come when they surprised the eventual premiers Essendon. That victory set the stage for more improvement and it came rapidly. In this series, I will tell the story of how the 1925 season unfolded for the Melbourne Football Club and how it made the VFL finals for the first time in a decade on the way to the ultimate triumph a year later.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREVIEW: West Coast

      Saturday’s election night game in Perth between the West Coast Eagles and Melbourne represents 18th vs 15th which makes it a tough decision as to which party to favour. The Eagles have yet to break the ice under their new coach in Andrew McQualter who is the second understudy in a row to confront Demon Coach Simon Goodwin who was also winless until a fortnight ago. On that basis, many punters might be considering to go with the donkey vote but I’ve been assigned with the task of helping readers to come to a considered opinion on this matter of vital importance across the nation. It was almost a year ago that I wrote a preview here of the Demons’ away game against the Eagles (under the name William from Waalitj because it was Indigenous Round).  I issued a warning that it was a danger game, based on my local knowledge that the home team were no longer easybeats and that they possessed a wunderkind generational player in Harley Reid who was capable of producing stellar performances playing among men a decade and more older than he.  At the time, the Eagles already had two wins off the back of a couple of the young man’s masterclasses and they had recently given the Bombers a scare straight after their Anzac Day blockbuster draw against the then reigning premiers.

        • Haha
      • 1 reply
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • NON-MFC: Round 08

      Round 08 of the 2025 AFL Season kicks off on Thursday with a must-win game for the Bombers to stay in touch with the top eight, while the struggling Roos seek a morale-boosting upset. Friday sees the Saints desperate for a win as well if they are to stay in finals contention and their opponents the Dockers will be eager to crack in to the Top 8 with a win on the road. Saturday kicks off with a pivotal clash for both sides asthe Bulldogs look to solidify their top-eight spot, while Port seeks to shake their pretender tag. Then the Crows will be looking to steady their topsy turvy season against a resurgent Blues looking to make it 4 wins on the trot. On Election Night a Blockbuster will see the ladder-leading Pies take on the Cats, who are keen to bounce back after a narrow loss. On Sunday the Sydney Derby promises fireworks as the Giants aim to cement their top-eight status, while the Swans fight to keep their season alive. The Hawks, celebrating their centenary, will be looking to easily account for the Tigers who are desperate to halt their slide. The Round concludes on Sunday Night with a top end of the table QClash with significant ladder implications; both Queensland teams are in scintillating form. Who are you tipping this week and what are the best results for the Demons?

        • Like
      • 175 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: West Coast

      The Demons hit the road in Round 8, heading to Perth to face the West Coast Eagles at Optus Stadium. With momentum building, the Dees will be aiming for a third straight victory to keep their season revival on course. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 563 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Richmond

      The fans who turned up to the MCG for Melbourne’s Anzac Day Eve clash against Richmond would have been disappointed if they turned up to see a great spectacle. As much as this was a night for the 71,635 in attendance to commemorate heroes of the nation’s past wars, it was also a time for the Melbourne Football Club to consolidate upon its first win after a horrific start to the 2025 season. On this basis, despite the fact that it was an uninspiring and dour struggle for most of its 100 minutes, the night will be one for the fans to remember. They certainly got value out of the pre match activity honouring those who fought for their country. The MCG and the lights of the city as backdrop was made for nights such as these and, in my view, we received a more inspirational ceremony of Anzac culture than others both here and elsewhere around the country. 

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All