deanox

maybe you should try offering some more information to the topic. do you have an opinion either way? why do you ask? i cant see why they would need to resign. i think we are doing a good job slowly, but moving forward. there will be changes, and i think the new ceo was a good move. we are going forward not back. off field blood in my opinion, would almost kill the club...

we havnt picked him in the sandy team. we have picked him on an extended interchange bench. all 7 players on the bench are listed for sandy because the mfc side hasnt been finalised yet. its just the way it goes. thats what happens when you pick a final 'squad' and not the final team. the only other option was to put garland on the bench and frawley on the field and name garland at sandy. although i think garland had a better game last week so...

do you think the moderators will be held responsible? the owners? or the member who made the post? just wondering if you have a legal background, and actual knowledge or are you simply speculating?

you are wrong here surfa. before the internet people sat and spoke with friends. with the internet, you publish your opinions online. it is the equivalent of printing it in a newspaper. if what you say is defamatory, unsubstantiated etc you are held responsible for what you posted. unfortunately because of the ability to post anonymously, this responsibility is often passed along to the forum owners, which is precisely why one of the hawks forums is now 'members only' ie you cannot access it unless you are a member.

all players listed on the mfc bench are listed for the sandy side. same thing usually happens every week. because the emergencies have not yet been determined... good to see sylvia and whelan getting back on the park...hopefully dunn starts to step up. CJ was BOG last week so hopefully he can put in another game and force his way in. he can obviously play at vfl, he just needs to dominate for a few weeks in a row and then try and transpose that form to the dees... still no newton :S a pretty strong sandy team tho, some good names there

or is that purely because under 19 means effectively 12-19 (7 years) while over 50 could mean anything up to 100? (looking at the old school TBO crew )

well it looks like we are either 19-25 and a student or older and an other lol. but it is interesting we are much more likely to be over 50 than under 19...

out of interest, C Johnson, Buckley and Yze are all named on the ground for sandy, while Frawley, Holland, Bode and Valenti are named on the Sandy bench. I dont know if it counts for anything, but usually the dees pick the starting 18 and the outs come from the extended interchange bench, so i wonder if this could be happening in reverse (ie the sandy defs are named in the sandy 18 and the interchanges could be moved up to afl)...

i am all for curtain raisers...i reckon they should play them their during all day games, no need for them at night matches. if they did id get their at 12, watch the game and then have lunch their. ok i know its expensive, but i get a full days entertainment, not just 2.5 hours. i know the g looks great these games, but o you reckon 1 extra game a week is too much?

i dont know if its your memory thats stuffed, but going by that post soemthings wrong with you

it is not surprising that north have suggested to relax the rule for 2-3 years, when they expect players to come through for them in that period... i agree however. 50 games is a good cut of point imo, perhaps the bidding gets harder the less games they have played? ie if it is the son of a 300 gamer 5th round is an option, 200 gamer, 3rd round, 100 gamer 2nd round, 50 gamer 1st round. the stronger the tie the easier it is to secure the player...

we need to remember a couple of points here however. when we write and post something on this forum it is not the equivalent of having a discussion with our mates at home. it is the equivalent of publishing our views on the record, in the media. any slurs against a person could be argued to be defamatory (others with more legal knowledge would be able to enlighten us more on this). our biggest problem is that too many people want to have a casual chat, and vent frustrations, when a public forum is really a place for thought out and researched discussion. if you want to say someone is soft, you need to back up specific examples. and there is a difference between saying 'doesnt always go hard at the footy' or saying 'hes an f*n weak dog, shouldnt be near a football field.' as much as we feel like saying it when we've had a horrible day at the g, we cant, what we are saying is on the public record.

that is a fair argument as well RE did he have control. but he certainly didnt 'tap' or 'punch' it. he did try and grab it. either way, the tackle was not correct so should have been his free kick.

shepparding in a marking contest does still exist, it was payed against us on sunday :S what i cant believe is that players are now trained to jump behind other players trying to makr with their arms out to sheppard the contests but umpires dont pick that up. surely the contested mark is a skill the afl wants to see more of in the game, not uncontested marks. fwiw when frawley was sheparded 50 metres off the ball to prevent him from chasing his man on the lead the commentators said 'what a great block'. obviously they dont know that it is illegal to sheppard from 50 meters away, or that it is illegal to prevent a player from contesting a mark. grabbing the ball out of the ruck constitutes prior oppertunity. from that aspect the umps were correct. however the tackle needs to be legitiment - so the in the back free kick should have taken precedence. jeff white was called to play on, his team mates should have warned him. HOWEVER: i dont believe the adelaide player was 5 meters away from jeff when the play on call was made, in which case it should have been 50 meters for encroaching the protected zone. apparently umpires dont pay 50 meters for stepping over the mark, getting too close to a player or running across the mark, and likewise they hardly call play on if a player goes sideways when going back behind the mark.

the others might try and argue with you, but i realise that it is pointless. nothing will get through. you're an idiot. its a contact sport for godsake.

was there not some way we could have given some votes to neitz?

i thought garland looked ok today. and frawley had a dig and tried to use his body (or what there is of it). at least they had a go. play them 20 games and they will be better players next year imo

but why the animosity towards nick sautner? he hasnt done anything wrong. he is the best player in that position at the club he was playing for. it is an issue the mfc need to work through, but nick sautner has as much right if not more right to be there than juice...

wow. i thought we'd done this thread enough. any other puppies you want to kill demon222?

i could see a last game sendoff for about 3-4 players at some point this year. ive got no worries with giving them a testimonial, as long as nothing else is at stake. most importnat thing is that it really is a last game, and we turn the list over even more. within 2 years of the bailey era we will have close to 50% list turnover. that is a massive change...

Thoughts thirty Minutes before the game. For me the most important and interesting thing will be the first quarter, specifically the first 5-10 minutes. if we can get a run on and continue the style we had from last week it will be a big moment in our development and baileys career (even if we do end up losing). if we get blown away and dont start playing good footy til the game is over in the second half then some serious questions will be raised. FWIW i think we can win, but if we dont click straight away it could be a nasty afternoon...

media tend to pick out the 'bigname' players, those who do flashy things, those who get possessions, and those who kick goals. if you want to get a wrap as a defender you need to be a big name player. if you are a 'james hird' or a 'nathan buckley' media favourite, all you need to do is get a couple of soft touches at a crucial time... very rarely are the players who win the hardball or who do the 1%'s lauded, but those who do the freakish (a snap over the head for goal), are celebrated as the heros.

if the mfc wasn't desperately crying out for a KPF then no one would even notice. if the sandringham midfield all got 35 touches and kicked 3 goals each every week you wouldnt hear a peep. but it is because we desperately want a FF or CHF to say 'pick me i am your saviour'...

does the box with the best players have a byline? was it the same author?

i think the animosity is out of a lack of understanding when it is really animosity. and for someone like me who understands the system, i dont hate sautner, i reckon he would be good for players to learn fromn, but i think even i get frustrated that because of the 'system' that doesnt allow us to develop our own players in positions we want to develop them in. its not sandringhams fault, and we have had a great alliance. but my main concern, and the main concern of most on this forum is mfc success, and in a twisted way, the sandy partnership is perceived to prevent that. right or wrong.