Axis of Bob

His pace is important to us.

Happy with the result, but a little bemused that the appeal went our way. I thought we were really unlucky with the initial hearing, but overturning that is a different matter.

We appealed the Trengove tackle. I can't remember a time we've been at the tribunal since then.

Well the jury has been out for a while, so maybe his case isn't as bad as you think.

You called him a bozo. What is he supposed to do? In your world: Gleeson: "I refuse to prosecute this case because I think he's innocent" Demitriou: "You're fired"

So you are criticising Gleeson for doing his job (offering an opposing case), but cannot even come up with a single argument if you were in his position?! Gleeson's is clearly smarter than you are, because he did.

What would you argue, in his position?

His job is to provide a case where the player is guilty. He doesn't get to chose his cases, like a barrister would. That's what the jury is for. The MRP effectively said "we don't know", and now it's up to the jury.

"If he chose to bump, the consequence of Mr Lynch's broken jaw is that he must be suspended" That's the case. If the jury believes Viney had a choice, he's gone. If he didn't (and it was a footy collision) then he's fine.

There's no point getting angry at Gleeson. His job is to make the case for guilt at the tribunal. He needs to prove that Viney bumped him, and that he had an alternative to bumping him (because that's what the rule is). Gleeson needed to make the case that Viney could have done something else, other than what he did. Just because it isn't a strong case, doesn't mean that Gleeson is doing the wrong thing.

This is a definition of a 'Credible Witness'. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Credible+witness I dare say that based on your self confessed inability to correctly remember details, the date of when it happened and many other things, you are not a credible witness, deeluded. Added to that is the sheer unlikeliness of such a thing occurring, much less in front of a crowd of people specifically listening to you, including coaches, players and officials directly linked the the MFC senior coach, leads me to believe that this did not happen. I'm not directly saying you are a liar, but while you may believe you heard something, I would be fairly confident that it was not a correct interpretation of what actually happened.

If it left such a big impact on you at the time, why have you only mentioned it for the first time two years later?

I'm pretty sure that you don't know what irony is.

And the irony is that I was responding to a question where the person genuinely was interested in what I had to say. I was even thanked for it.

"100%" about an hour before Roos says he won't be dropped. Is that you, Freak?

Played wing, rather than his usual half back. Didn't really impact the game today.

Perhaps. They were fumbles on routine plays (ie, two handed handball receives) that were costly at the time, but not in character for him. He also missed some kicks that were very uncharacteristic. Was brave in the air at half back once or twice, which was good to see after being KO'd doing the same thing last week.

We can both have our opinions. But when two posters see the same thing and come to two different conclusions, they usually judge the truth based on past evidence about the posters, what apparent biases those posters have and also what other information is provided with their opinions. For instance, if your posts were written by picket fence, wyl etc, then I would instantly dismiss the post as not being credible, based on the past and their biases etc. I would then look for the opinions of posters whose opinions I trust to get a better idea. Since I don't really know anything about you, I was had to look at evidence within this thread. That evidence led me to believe that I was right to have faith in my own judgement of the situation. We can all have opinions on anything. But our opinions are there to be judged, questioned, contradicted and our opinions therefore reflect on us. Opinions are as cheap, or valuable, as you want to make them.

It's hard to know, because we were so awful today. A lot would depend on injuries. Garland looked good for the half he played, but went off before half time. McKenzie was good. Riley was solid enough. Gawn rucked well. Other than that, ummmm ...... we weren't great today. We tended to lack outside class that impacted the game. Evans worked hard, but lacks class. Ditto Nicho. It's a deficiency on our list and if people want to drop Watts and Howe then we aren't going to get a like-for-like replacement.

Your contribution to this thread: - stated Toumpas was "craping [sic] himself most of the first half", which was posted at about 3pm (ie, about half time of the game or just before). - stated that Toumpas went one handed at the balls because he was 'shirking it' causing him to fumble, which is in direct contradiction to what I saw when watching the game today. - failed to offer any other comment about any other aspect of the game by any player. - get angry and emotional as soon as another poster challenged your views with opposing views. Forgive me if I don't consider your opinion to be the most credible on Toumpas, especially considering you made no attempt to comment on anything else about the game at all.

He played mainly midfield, but also up forward at times. Actually presented pretty well as a medium forward at times and showed good hands overhead. I think he has a lot of good 'footballer' traits (good hands, hardness, etc) but alsoI was very impressed by his pace for an inside player. I think that we have a good AFL level footballer here in the making.

But they do a different job. That's the point that was being made (although it turns out that it was unintentionally too subtly made). Garland and McDonald usually play on different styles of players. We are better served having both of them.

No, that's not actually what happened. He fumbled the ball, but it wasn't 'shirking'. You were just so keen to pin it on him that you assumed that it was, or possibly thought you could get away with it assuming nobody else would have been able to pull you up on it.

For what role? I'm pretty happy that we have both of them. Who would you prefer in your team, Ablett or Franklin? Sloane or Boyd? Harvey or Frawley? You question is nonsensical.