Axis of Bob

If Selwood was an Aboriginie and the Headlands white, then why would it change anything? If it did change anything then, by definition, it would be racist. And if you are suggesting that it does change anything, then perhaps the claim would be levelled at you. Why shouldn't anyone who doesn't have a young child comment? Did Selwood? He's the other party in this, and is also the only party who didn't physically assault someone. Are you suggesting that fatherhood turns you into a testosterone charged thug? Because you clearly are about the only person here who thinks that Headland did the right thing. The condemnation of his actions is universal and he has revealed himself as a lightweight. Should fatherhood be used as a defence to violent crimes? Sorry, but the comment just seemed absurd and so I stopped taking it seriously. Hmmm, maybe there's a point in the absurdity after all.

I am so close to getting banned due to the low regard in which I hold your intelligence. I said what would be the difference between the two comments, and you said they could not be compared. You then showed everyone that they were identical. Rogue, that's a very good point and a society wide anomaly. It would be more to do with discrimination against a race, whilst red heads are not generally discriminated against.

Which is exactly the same as what Selwood did, as all it does is call into question Selwood's persuasion and mentality, and was clearly inane. The act is vile and Headland would consider it fanciful. The only difference was the response by Headland. Hence the reason why Selwood didn't make the comment about his dog. But at least now I know why you didn't answer me the first time.

Not to me, because I'm not a Jew. Why would I be offended? I'd laugh that their attempt at sledging me was so poor.

You can't explain it, can you?

What's the difference? He obviously wouldn't have touched either, would he? How is it more, or less wrong?

Because their mate Broady is dead. Selwood has obviously not done anything to Headland's daughter.

belzebub59: And how would that be different to: "I ****ed your dog"?

You don't have to like what he said, the arguement is about whether what he said was punishable. The answer is that I don't like what he said, but there is nothing wrong with it.

Who said that a racist jibe is obviously false? If he called him a black ****, then how is that obviously untrue?

Moral crusaders only do so because they want to be seen to be moral. However they do not want to be held accountable for what they crusade for because, generally, it is not practical. They may not even want it to be enforced because then they have no high ground to stand on and they are on the same level as everyone else. The only people who are affected by this are the weak of mind. Nobody else would think twice. So now Des is blaming Selwood because Des is a headcase. It's testosterone talking. That's the sort of situation that results in signs on the wall of a building saying "Warning, stairs involved incremental increases in height" and having people sue because they fall down them because when you walk down them they decrease in height. It's not their fault, it's the sign. Someone could say that they raped my girlfriend/sister/mother/whatever and it wouldn't matter because it's obviously false. Obviously. Who is stupid enough to get worked up about something that is just fancifully false? Obviously someone who implies that I fancy dogs. (not directed at sideshowbob, because that was quite funny) *there are so many lines following that last one that would see me banned for that exact reason*

I can't believe all the moral crusaders out there. Dancing around in happy fairy land. You are what is wrong with society, where everything is someone else's fault. Everyone is saying that it's bad because they are worried about what people will say about them if they don't. It's disgusting. Think about this: If Selwood is punished for his comment, where do you draw the line? When does a comment become punishable and not punishable? If I said that I boinked my opponent's dog, does that become punishable because I engaged in beastiality?

I don't believe the general tone of this. I don't see how anybody could take the comments seriously. Did Selwood boink Headland's daughter? No, of course he didn't. Nobody even contemplated if he had for a second. Did Des think he had? No, of course not. So where's the big deal. How many times have you been told, when you're having a shot at goal, that your opponent is boinking your sister/mother/deceased great aunt/brother/self? All the time. Really the only thing that it could be classed as is humourous, because you know it didn't happen. Selwood attacked a crack in the shallow surface of Des Headland's mentality. And let's face it, in a psychological war Des is clearly unarmed. It worked and West Coast won with Headland distracted. Headland was reported twice for striking. While he claims he was provoked, which makes this case 'special', I don't recall too many striking charges where the player was not provoked in some way. The only thing that I have gleaned from this incident is how little people know about what happens on the field, because I already knew that Headland is a headcase.

Peter McKenna may have been ready. Chris Judd was ready. Michael Newton is neither Judd nor McKenna. He's a talented but immature player.

Better mousetraps, better mice. A tactic is introduced and coaches will find a way to beat it. The game evolves, as all games do. Or maybe we should all bemoan the demise of the drop kick.

We were bad a tempo footy early last year too, but it ended up being a really good tactic for us. The players need time to adjust to it. It's a different mindset, and players need to work out what works and doesn't work for them.

Interesting argument. From my POV, Bell was excellent on the weekend. Williams did virtually nothing and Bell was solid at the back cleaning up in the way that Wrecker has done so well in the past. As far as Carroll goes, he was excellent for us last year as a tall defender. Carroll is 26 and Bell is 21. I'm not too sure that a comparison is relevant. With Robbo, I didn't have a problem with him at all. He was dangerous up forward and I thought he put pressure on and chased down the ground. I remember seeing him in the Hawthorn backline at stages too. And Ward, for all his shortcomings, I think is quite important to our backline. I prefer his pace running forward and preparedness to take on the opposition than Doggy Brown's sideways movement. Both are very similar in role, but I think Ward is more valuable to us because of his pace and line breaking ability.

Alistair Clarkson even said at the press conference that Buddy was exciting, but that his goals came from the hard work of the midfielders who turned the ball over. He finished them off well, but the numbers definitely flatter his game.

I was not unhappy with the game. The run and carry game style actually didn't seem too bad to me. With that style you will always turn the ball over now and then because you are taking risks in trying to create run. The other thing to bear in mind is that this game style is not necessarily best suited to Telstra Dome, but rather the bigger grounds like you wind in SA and WA. I think some of our young players played this style better than the older players. Players like CJ, Buckley (who was very impressive) and Bate seemed to take to it more easily. Also, I thought we had the clear edge in the ruck, and that Hawthorn will really struggle in this area this year. Freak, it doesn't suprise me that you were are gushing over Franklin. It was an Yze-esque game. Read into that what you want. But in doing so I will ask you to notice how many of his goals came as a direct result of a Melbourne turnover or error where he was found in space forward of the ball. Then ask yourself why he was there.

A few minor things that I wanted to correct/have a different opinion on/have the same opinion on. Jones was OK, but wasn't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. Significantly better last week when opposed to Brock. Frawley wasn't on Robbo for the last part of the game where Robbo started to cut loose. He was actually on the bench resting. And I thought he competed very well with Robbo when they were opposed. Yes, Petterd is clearly class. Dunn did some good things, but I didn't think he was dominant as such. I, too, think he moves really well and is very clever, but I'm not sure his game deserves as much praise as he has received. Chris Johnson was excellent. He is the one who is really benefitting from our run and carry emphasis. He makes good decisions and hits targets as well as being very clean. Bate was outstanding in the short time he played. Bell very good in defence and Garland presented hard up forward. Looked promising. But in the end, it was just a practice match. Unless you looked as average as Newton, it's hard to read much into it.

There's a simple correlation between one's support for Yze and that person's belief in statistics as a sole measure of worth on a footy field. Every argument for Yze is based on statistics, and every argument against Yze is based on watching the game. But in the end it's up to the coach to decide whether his presence benefits the side.

Richo is a superior player. But I would much rather have Neitz.

Maybe he's just not used to alcohol, being a professional athlete and all........

I'm not having an opinion one way or another at this stage, simply playing devil's advocate. Sautner and Riewoldt are very different. Sautner is very strong body on body, while Riewoldt is a runner. Newton is built like Riewoldt and cannot rely on Sautner's core strength to win one on one contests. So while the running is not important for Sautner, it is exceedingly important for Riewoldt. Also, Riewoldt does not play full forward. He plays further up the ground where there's more space. It's hard to play uncontested football 20 metres from goal.

True, but he generally relies on his huge aerobic capacity and work ethic to get by himself. Does Juice do this?