Axis of Bob

I could not think of 3 worse people to be deciding on the future of our great club. The board will decide, because we have voted for them. If they need help then they will seek it as they see fit.

You're a cretin, Brentnall. Anyway, this statement has typified ND as a person, as a coach and as a servant of the Melbourne Football Club. He has always put the club before his own selfish desires, because he feels that what is best for the club will be the best for him. He has been honest, dignified and has left the MFC in a better state than he found it. Kudos to you, Neale Daniher.

Yeah, Selwood's silky.

I had a hard time reading that, and a lot of it is just your subjective opinion and broad motherhood statements that are fun and cuddly but don't really mean anything substantial. But I will say that West Coast play both Stenglein and Selwood as taggers/run with players.

Scoop, I'm not disagreeing with you but I'll throw something different at you. Would your issues be as big as they are if he was playing deep forward, rather than CHF? Is it worth giving him a crack at playing deep forward, ie full forward? At the moment we don't have a Neitz replacement and, while he may not be a long term option, I'm not sure he would be a bad option. When he first started out he was good on the lead out of the goalsquare, but has since been moved away from goal to make use of his work rate.

I'll let you know if I make a joke, because you're struggling to differentiate.

YM: Bell has always been accountable. Always. The problem was with him finding the ball easily and having the fitness to run out games. There has never been a question mark on his accountability. The only similarity is that they both have speed. But they play such different games that it isn't funny. Unlike your judgement and ability to form a logical argument, which I find tremendously funny! Jaded is all over you, as you do not have the intelligence to counter her arguments (as well as the fact that the material with which you have to work is non-existent).

It's OK, because I'm sure he rates your opinion as highly as we do.

Don't worry, Nick got back.

OK, our season is, more or less, shot. So surely, if the Football Department has a plan for Newton, they will not budge on that plan for the sake of giving him a run earlier than planned. Juice has only just started playing good VFL footy for the first time in 2.5 years on our list. He only started playing good VFL reserves footy at the end of last year. He has been a slower developer than most. So I am more than happy to have him spend time at Sandy so that he is genuinely ready to play AFL. Different players, and different personalities, need to be handled differently by the coaching staff. Human beings aren't 'one-size-fits-all'. Just look at the posters here of various personalities, intelligence and knowledge.

CB: And who was his opponent for the day? See if you can find out.

IMHO, we have two needs and two needs only (in no particular order): - midfielders - ruckman Unless a super ruckman is available with our first pick, I'd be wanting to draft a midfielder.

With that many Johnsons, it may be the Rock Ridge Football Club! (For those that remember Blazing Saddles)

If they don't think he's quite right to play AFL, they'll give him an extra week off instead of playing a half for Sandy.

Old, if someone ran up to someone else, tackled them and threw them to the ground, I assume that they would do the same.

Watson and Ebert were both father-son picks and would be excluded. It's like complaining about Petterd because he was taken before Tom Hawkins.

Mmmm, Jones looked average during his first month or two at Sandringham. He was selected while in form and it continued at AFL level. He needed time to adapt to playing with men.

Of course I don't, because the law isn't designed to do that. I know what's right and wrong, and what Selwood said was wrong to me. However that doesn't mean that he should be punished by the AFL for it, because right and wrong are different to legal and illegal. Can you suspend Gary Ablett Snr because you think he's a bad person? No, you wait until he whacks someone and then suspend him for doing something illegal.

But, RR, that incident actually occurred. There's a difference. Just because it was in poor taste it doesn't mean that he's not allowed to say it. Do you prosecute if one of your friends makes a paedophile joke? No, but if you don't like it then you'll tell him and probably think less of him afterwards. A law talking friend of mine summed it up very well when he said that Selwood hasn't defamed anyone but himself.

But what is sound judgement? How do you test what is sound judgement and what isn't? In law (of which I am only vaguely familiar) the test would be the 'common man'. Please people correct me if I'm wrong. You are saying that a common man wouldn't say this. But a common man wouldn't believe those comments to be anything but foolish baiting. The standards for what is OK to say are different for everybody. Unless there is some line that can be determined then who is to know what is appropriate or not. Are we trying to police what people can or can't say? Isn't that the idea of free speech? I don't like what he said, but I'll defend his right to say it. stinga: One is intimidating and one is sledging, and both are part of the game. Even saying nothing can be a form of sledging sometimes.

If it's not illegal at the time when Selwood said it, then he shouldn't be punished for it. If they want to make it illegal in the future then it's a different issue and people who do it in the future should be punsihed according to the law at the time. The point is that Selwood has not actually committed an act which is against an AFL law. And everything anyone says is offensive to someone. Does that mean that we should just outlaw talking or communication? As Scoop said, what about telling someone that if they go near the ball then they'll whack them? Just because you don't like what was allegedly said, it doesn't make it illegal. The consequences of his actions are what's happening now because he is being judged by the public. That is enough to stop people doing it in the future, but you can't legislate against it. You can't live in a bubble forever.

I stopped caring after I saw the first 12 "woe is me, the club owes me" topics. I don't know why I looked in here.

deefuture has summed up 4 pages worth of argument in one post. Everyone is arguing that child abuse is bad. Really? No ****!!! People are calling Selwood a paedophile. There is no proof to that and his comments do not make him a paedophile. What Selwood said was stupid, but there's nothing illegal about them. There are people that cannot distinguish between these points and want to be seen by everyone to be saying the right thing. Politics is built on it. PGSquad: So you are the one that condones the assualt of another individual. I have not been condoning illegal action, but you are. What if he killed Selwood after the game? Is that OK? Or is that suddenly wrong? Alternatively maybe you are more in favour of pistols at 10 paces. You'll also note that I have not said that Selwood is a good person for making the comments, but he has a right to say what he has because it's not illegal. Is it? There are so many people that I'd love to hit because I don't like what they say, but they have every right to say it. Also, misspelling your username give you exactly zero respect, just as a hint.

Ha ha ha ha!!! I see the joke! You're calling me a paedophile! That's really funny because of the topic. And it's like you've turned it around so that you're calling me a paedophile! And that's so topical, too. And then you used my signature as a witty carrier for the joke! Because it was about paedophilia and you changed university and student to be playground and adult. Which is really clever because that's where paedophiles go to look at little children. And at the same time you're calling me a paedophile. So it links in really well with it. Plus it's so topical! You clearly don't get the idea of sledging, because that's just bad. That's where your team mates cringe and leave you alone.

What does Headland's history have to do with it? Why do you care who did it to who? We could call it player X and Y and nothing changes. Why the fixation or the player, his name/race/skill/mental capacity or whatever? Who cares? Yes, people belt people all the time. I have a black eye because someone hit me on the footy field on the weekend. And no, I didn't hit him back or antagonise him. But in one on one contests I always tried a little harder to beat him. But it is illegal in football and Headland should be rightly suspended because of it. What Selwood said wasn't illegal. He has a right to say it if he wants. What he spoke about was illegal, but there was nothing illegal in saying it. I don't care if you've ever read my posts before. I don't write for other people and I don't even know who you are.