Smokey

Wow wee the round 1 over reaction is even more crazy than I expected haha. Its 1 game. We had a short off season full of surgeries. The team looks under done across the park. I am compiling a list of some of the most outrageous comments after the round 1 loss and will crack them out at round 23 and we can vote on the best ones.

Jones to the twos

Thanks for sharing. Yep, a d***head. Ban him from the G.

Agree. But we should be thankful this is what we have been reduced to complain about

I'll say it again, hypotheticals don't outrage me. The bloke was just fine afterwards, no need to cry for his family over what could have happened because it didn't. The fact he insisted police make no further inquiries suggests to me he may have provoked it and as always, the short video filmed on a phone captures 20% of the incident and none of the context. Facts are all I'm interested before I form an opinion on something and call for witches to be burned at the stake, that's actually all I'm trying to say here. Take it or leave it mate.

Since you enjoy hypotheticals so much, here's one: Bloke that ate those punches sexually assaults a women in the crowd. Her husband, wearing a filthy Richmond guernsey, remonstrates. Whats wrong with understanding the full narrative before forming an opinion on something?

There no doubt its poor behavior. I just personally wouldn't point the blame finger at anyone that was involved because I don't know why it happened. The bloke that ate those punches could've slapped a child across the face before the video started rolling for all I know ...

Nothing happened to anyone's family, a few blokes had a dust up and called it a day as far as I can tell. Context is key. How do you know who started that? I'm not condoning the behavior, I just dont like the idea of crucifying people before all the facts are known. I'll save my outrage for situations that aren't hypothetical in any case.

You have zero context surrounding that situation, nor the personal circumstances surrounding those involved. Yet, you have quickly called for a lifetime ban based on a few seconds of video. The outrage brigade commentary is getting more and more annoying by the day. Kids at risk? Is there a separate video of this guy belting an 8 year old that I haven't seen yet?

Rance - couldn't of happened to a nicer bloke. Big blow for Richmond which bodes well for us as a fellow contender.

Some anger management therapy wouldn't be the worst idea for him if he doesn't do it already. There's no denying his ability, but when someone is so prone to spending time on the sidelines due to infractions it makes it hard to truly rely on him to permanently fill the role we require, as an incident at the pointy end of the season could spell disaster for our backline structure.

Fully agree with this, and I got roasted here for saying something similar recently. The cop out of "his disposal isn't going to be great as he is constantly disposing of the footy under pressure" was floated and I think that is ridiculous. The thing is, smart ball placement for attacking kicks can't always be taught and we may be looking at the best version of Gussy we'll get right now (which I still love FWIW). I'm still hopeful that KK can fill the connection void between mid and forward as I doubt our ball winning grunts have the scope to improve in that area meaningfully.

Gen x huh? Of course meaning you raised the smashed avo generation. Maybe you lot should have been better parents lol

Shades of jack watts really. Glad he’s gone, all the best to him.

We have no room for sentiment anymore - unless he comes back with a vengeance this year, there will be no extension.

I've said it before but in terms of the leadership group it must have come down to Nev or Tmac. Could have easily gone either way but agree Tmac oozes leadership, especially in front of the media.

I thought Keilty showed enough in JLT to warrant his inclusion on the backup ruck list. Much rather him line up than Bradke at this stage.

Obviously the obviousness of obvious things are obvious

Wasn't aware, thanks for letting me know. In that case, giddy up! I expect this to be reduced to a fine

Nothing in it. The watering down of our great game continues. Tough one for MFC - our backline is better with him there, and we could probably account for Port without him. Do we really want risk not having him available to match up on Hawkins in R2? Hawkins has a track record of belting anyone else we could put on him.

Is it just me or is advocating for legalisation and demanding more invasive testing for little reason fairly oxymoronic?

There is no doubt to the addictive qualities of meth, good luck finding someone that will argue you on that point. My point is a simple one though - the current system for dealing with drug abuse clearly isn’t working (it never has actually) and we as a society need to start questioning the value of our current methodology and open our minds to alternate concepts. And if we can’t do that, at least recognise the data that is beginning to exist that favours as far more progressive approach.

It's a hard pill to swallow (ha!) and goes against most peoples intuition on the subject, but we are seeing more and more examples that legalization/decriminalization when combined with targeted mental health frameworks to support addicts actually reduces addiction and overall usage. People take drugs for a variety of reasons, but usually it comes down to something pretty simple - their life sucks. They are unfulfilled, be it a meaningless job they hate, a family who is unloving or distant, or no family at all (just to name a few). These people need an escape, which is quite a natural reaction for a human being who has the capacity for this type of awareness. Some choose escape with alcohol, some with prescribed opioids, others with meth. Until we understand and treat the underlying reasons that trigger substance abuse for these people, no amount of policing and litigation will ever amount to positive change. We need to think outside the box, because at this point we are just banging our heads against a wall and expecting different results. Legalization to reduce usage is a bold idea, but we are starting to see really positive results in those countries brave enough to try it. Decades of prohibition indoctrination has most people blind to these new concepts, but at this point we need to either try something radical which may work, or continue on the current path which DEFINITELY doesn't work. Small chance of a result is better than no chance, right?

This type of conservative thinking paves the way to a hyper-nanny state which is terrifying to imagine. To suggest conducting drug testing in jobs beyond those that would benefit from performance-enhancing drugs or pose serious physical safety issues is as invasive as it is downright stupid. What on earth would a positive drug test from a office staffer prove (other than potentially ruining someones livelihood because they prefer some ecstasy on the weekends instead of a bottle of scotch)? Come on, its almost 2020 - can we please consider moving away from this ridiculous hard line approach to the war on drugs that that puts trillions of dollars in the hands of criminal groups globally, poisons our children with substances they never intended on taking and criminalizes addicts for life instead of treating the addiction with medical/psychological intervention? Switzerland made heroin completely legal and free to obtain in clinics and the stats are in - heroin use is significantly down in that country. Instead of criminalizing users with endless litigation and police resources, they diverted that money into mental health initiatives for addicts, which in turn uncovered the underlying cause of their use and saw an overall drop in usage, despite its open availability. Modern problems require modern solutions - prohibition didn't work for alcohol and your a fool to think it will work for other drugs (I saw other drugs because alcohol is no different, other than being legal and socially acceptable). There are other examples of effective progressive thinking like in Portugal or The Netherlands, but I digress ... The main focus should be to catch players using performance enhancing substances, which I'm all for as no-one wants to see a game played by people with unfair advantages. Recreational testing should be for impairment on game day only, not for the presence of substances in the system outside of game day. Instead of teaching kids that adults, including their footy idols, take drugs - let them figure it out the natural way; in a seedy nightclub after their 18th birthday surrounded by friends and questionable loud music (unless you live in NSW as I don't think you guys are allowed out after midnight anymore thanks to your "liberal" government)

I wouldn't think too much into this. Playing footy in 40 degree weather doesn't tell us much other than it's too bloody hot to be playing footy.