ManDee

Southern Stand? Is that the one on the other side, looking into the sun?

And here's one at play.

The parousia?

You could say much the same about Gawn.

There is a group of posts that seem to be stuck at the end and new posts get inserted before them. Time to reboot Dland?

Might be time to reboot DLand.

Melbourne FC ‏@melbournefc 48s48 seconds ago That wraps up today's intraclub. A good, contested hit out. Melbourne FC ‏@melbournefc 1m1 minute ago Sam Weideman takes a strong mark on the lead and pushes the ball inside 50. Billy Stretch finds some space and kicks a goal. 0 retweets2 likes Reply Retweet Like 2 More Melbourne FC ‏@melbournefc 3m3 minutes ago Jack Viney wins the ball in heavy traffic and finds the space to snap a nice goal. 1 retweet3 likes Reply Retweet 1 Like 3 More Melbourne FC ‏@melbournefc 7m7 minutes ago Hogan wins a free kick against Dunn. Takes the set shot from a 45 degree angle and slots it. 3 retweets2 likes Reply Retweet 3 Like 2 More Melbourne FC ‏@melbournefc 10m10 minutes ago Gawny kicks long on the run searching for Hogan who marks close to goal. He runs around the tight angle and kicks another. 2 retweets4 likes Reply Retweet 2 Like 4 More Melbourne FC ‏@melbournefc 12m12 minutes ago We're into the 4th quarter. Pedersen works hard to make a big spoil on Max Gawn inside 50. 1 retweet2 likes Reply Retweet 1 Like 2 More Melbourne FC ‏@melbournefc 20m20 minutes ago Christian Salem has been good to watch today - reading the play well and kicking beautifully.

Something weird going on, these posts are staying at the bottom, new posts are being inserted before them?

Oliver reminds me a bit of Jobe Watson. No drug references required or intended..

I imagine one could be implanted rectally the other merely discarded.

But the player with the ball can wander off? Or like Franklin approach at an angle and kick around the man on the mark? Perhaps if the player with the ball deviates from the line it should be play on or is that a different rule? This http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-02-18/2016-nab-challenge-explained#sthash.C1fJgooJ.dpuf certainly does not explain the rule. 16.3.2 Rules of the game NB:- Rules of the game do not mention The line of the mark. http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/2015-Laws-Of-Aust-Football.pdf

Not fair DIITD, $cullduggery was a lying traitor, Jimmy lost confidence with injury and probably won't make it. Good luck Jimmy.

They say there will be an adjustment to the line of the mark, except when a player takes a mark or receives a free kick within the forward 50. ?

New trials for 2016 The line of the mark: An adjustment to the line of the mark, except when a player takes a mark or receives a free kick within the forward 50, will be trialled. - See more at: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-02-18/2016-nab-challenge-explained#sthash.C1fJgooJ.dpuf Does anyone know what that new rule means?

White rum

Hawthorn did. Clarkson, Cam Bruce , Adem Yze, David Neitz & Chris Fagan

These imbeciles are whingeing about a penalty handed down by the highest sporting court in the world. This is not an AFL tribunal judgment by the boys club this is CAS the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The prosecuting body was WADA the World Anti Doping Agency, this is not a backyard decision by the boys club. These are the biggest most serious organisations against doping in the world of sport. The players were found guilty. A technicality does not make them innocent. I want journalists to stand up for the 750 players that have not been found guilty of cheating. I want journalists to decry the EFC for putting their players and all other players at risk through their damned supplement program. What about the innocent! What about the innocent?

Where do they get these imbeciles? One after another goes off half cocked, espousing their fantasy worlds, I suspect very few have read all the available documentation. Margaret Wenham " The CAS finding also arose from it accepting WADA’s evidentiary “cable”, with that cable comprising “strands” of evidence. But, as far as I can see, there is no irrefutable proof TB-4 was given to the players and no evidence the players thought or knew they may have been supplied with it". How does she reconcile the fact that on many occasions the 34 lied to ASADA investigators saying that they took no supplements? There were thousands of injections and not one player thought to mention it! Many sportsmen have been banned on intent. You don't need a positive test Margaret. The players new what they were doing was risky, that is why they lied. Are there any real journalists out there? I am sick to death of the fan boys/girls.

Jobe Watson admitted taking AOD9604 on TV. Did he lie when asked by ASADA if he was taking any supplements?

Best odds they are likely to get.

I know it has been mentioned but can we please get rid of the previous quote when quoting?

Sue, I don't think that this appeal has anything to do with Essendons position. The players are trying to get off on a point of law. That does not support the actions of the EFC. The I was duped argument is still valid when it comes to the players suing EFC. Also the fact that all players did not answer ASADA honestly regarding supplements would indicate that this lack of honesty was an organised response probably by the club. I think the worst case for the players is if they win the appeal. (unlikely) I quoted you it's time as it saved me a lot of typing.

Frawley Gawn Scullduggery Blease Morton