BoBo

Genuinely asking, what would you have done?

Whoah hold off, I’ve done one of those things and it wasn’t a new religion.

Happy to eat my hat and hat my eat. Sorry Goody 👒 🧢 🎩

That was also the year Collingwood had plenty of injuries going into finals and they only just lost the GF from a clutch kick from a tight angle. Everyone is gettable this year. 1 or 2 bad injuries to any team is going to change finals.

I think both TMac and JVR need to play their main roles for the majority of the game for us to win so I’d rather see someone come in and just try to make a contest in the ruck, but mids to rove off Draper. Haven’t watched any Casey so no idea who is the better option out of Fullarton/Verrall.

21 marks inside 50 which is 2 more than the last 2 games combined. Forward connection was beautiful and we converted with 17.10. Unequivocally a great improvement.

Dot’n gvie meth oot uchm iergf. Llpsnige si rahd.

I personally have only heard very good things about him as a person (could be things I don’t know?) which I like. If people want to criticise him for his footy (fairly or unfairly)… I’m glad he’s playing again?

@SFebes MFC website and Facebook both just say a ‘return to football’ without saying either seniors or Casey. Im just glad he’s back!

Going off MFC socials, Jake will be playing this week. I’ve never heard a bad word against this man. When he grabbed the Freo jumper that said ‘Jackson’ a couple years ago and threw it on the ground, it really struck me how much he cares about the jumper and his understanding of what club culture means. Have a cracker game Jake.

Kneepocalypse? Kneegate?

Perfect sentiment.

I spoke to 2 co-workers today about footy and they both (independent of each other) said exactly the same thing I said on here in the last week. That they only watch their teams play (Essendon/Carlton) and they don’t watch neutral games anymore because the umpiring is so frustrating. I was pretty surprised to be honest. Hard to extrapolate out to broader supporters thoughts, but 2/2 thinking and saying the identical thing is interesting.

EXACTLY!!! The AFL creates rules and then lets the interpretations/applications soften overtime until an umpire pays it again after LITERALLY 100 preceding times it’s already occurred without it being called. WTF is that?

I take your point, but if Maynard is overreacting then why is long copping a fine? Long pushed him in the chest and now suddenly it’s a fine?

Pretty undeniable at this stage and it is killing my interest in the game.

The AFL is either corrupt or insanely inept and I’ll prove it. Firstly there is the Maynard example. Now I’m assuming people know how human anatomy works. If not, being hit below the rib cage in the solar plexus is about the only way to take the wind out of someone and bring them to the ground, assuming both people are of about equivalent strength. If you watch the clip with Long, there is not a significant ‘load up’ or transfer of weight (which equals force). He swivels at the hip yes, but strikes Maynard in the PECTORAL MUSCLE and therfore above the solar plexus, which in no reality could cause you to hunch over (let alone grab the head). There is ZERO chance of Maynard being incapacitated by this hit and he is 10000% faking it: Note the distance between them and the fact that Long is REACHING to connect with his elbow way beyond a 90 degree extension. The force has been mostly expelled or absorbed by the fact, it hits Maynard in the god damn chest. Maynard is also looking directly at what is coming to him so he can brace for impact. The second example is Pendlebury. Now you can see in the below that Pendlebury hits Neale DIRECTLY in the solar plexus. Perfect hit. Go and watch the clip if you don’t believe me, but Pendlebury loads up (he jumps in the air, plants his feet, swivels his hips like a boxer does to land a gut punch) and hits Neale directly in the solar Plexus and is hitting UP INTO NEALE. Look at the angle of Pendlebury’s elbow, bent at 90 degrees, NOT REACHING, weight primed for weight transferred into the strike, Neale isn’t even looking at him and isn’t even expecting it. Both of these are a fine. If anyone thinks that these two examples are in anyway similar, you are out of your [censored] mind. The fact that the AFL deems both of these cases as similar is a [censored] joke. They are nowhere near each other by a degree of magnitude. Now if an [censored] like me can look at these two examples and find the gaping chasm in between them, I’m sure the AFL knows and can do the same. The AFL is either corrupt or so ineptly run that it’s a disgrace. Take your pick.

Man this is what I mean, how many other times has this exact thing happened, every week, for probably years now and no free kick given.

I’m kinda done to be honest. Up until a few rounds into this year I would watch 3-4 games a round but it’s gotten to the point where the umpiring just frustrate the [censored] out of me. It has gotten that bad. There is no consistency within games and it’s a joke. I don’t enjoy watching AFL anymore. I’ll watch Melbourne games and finals but outside of that, I don’t want to waste time just getting frustrated. If anyone reckons things have always been like this then that’s fine, I would say it has gotten much worse in the last couple of seasons. And I don’t blame the umpires, it’s the AFL for allowing interpretations to be so loose.

There were good signs to take out of the game for sure. We won the tackle count by 17 which shows intensity, which is an attitude thing.

Going into the game, I didn’t know whether to expect a 3 goal loss or a 12 goal loss. I don’t feel despair tonight, just dissapointed we couldn’t get it done.

Football.

Yeah true, showing any opposition to nicknames in Australia will only lead to worse nicknames.

I was going to write a whole thing to respond but I worked 13 hours today and I’m stuffed. Dangerous tackles are a category for suspension as far as I know (could be wrong). I don’t reckon Danger has a case to answer to be honest, but I’d bet a lot of money, that if this was a no-name player from say, St Kilda, that this 1 week suspension would be upheld. If nothing else, to show as an example. It isn’t the rules I have a problem with, it’s the inconsistency of application.

I distinctly remember players being given a week(s) years ago on the grounds that ‘both arms were pinned’ and therefore players can’t protect their heads from hitting the ground. So it’s a ‘dangerous tackle’ categorically and one in which the AFL was super keen to get rid of because: The tackler has to take the health and safety on board of the oppo player. But maybe only danger can do dangerous tackles. No consistency yet again.