Chook

Very good work as always.

I disagree, but I won't act like I'm "amazed" at your opinion, because I think that's a pretty insulting thing to do. I'm against having to sit next to abusive people of any kind, but I think it's wrong to have a set-up whereby people are discouraged or looked upon disapprovingly for not being like you are. I don't like the idea of seperating supporters by what team they go for. Not only is it discriminatory (in the most accurate, non-judgmental sense of the word at the very least), but it also detracts from the footballing experience IMO.On the other hand, there are probably a bunch of Collingwood supporters who wouldn't want to sit next to any Melbourne supporters either. I guess it's a fair deal to provide an area where closed-minded supporters of either side can abuse the opposition without fear of having to hear opposition supporters do the same thing. I just reckon people are missing out a little. I suppose I shouldn't complain though, since by you guys paying the club a little more for the pleasures that come with living in an ivory tower, the MFC still benefits; and therefore, I benefit.

To me, bagging out opposition players is not as fun if there's no opposition supporters around to hear it. Is it hypocritical to be against discrimination but take pleasure at laughing at the flaws of the opposition? Probably, but there are degrees of discrimination. Refusing to sit near someone because they're not like you is pretty high up on the list, if you ask me.

Sounds pretty bad, right? What's the difference? Discrimination is discrimination. Don't do it.

Sorry, I'm already aboard the reality bus. It's going in the opposite direction.

How DARE she support her team! Sounds like she was just enjoying the game to me. Was there any cursing or offensive language ("GO PIES" doesn't count)?

Old Dunny-brush was alright today I thought.

Your opponent doesn't care what age you are. He'll beat you just the same.

One of our other gems like Davey, Moloney or Sylvia?

Me too. I said on the other thread that he's the only player from the Daniher era who's managed to avoid the awful funk that permeates our senior group. Sign him up pronto. Yes, I just said the word pronto. Big whoop! Wanna fight about it?

O'Brien did a pretty good job of keeping himself quiet, and Beamer frustrated me to no end today.

That sounds like a cut line from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. I love the Dees, I love the damn Dees. I want them to lock the ball up in the pocket Just give them a rocket Give it to them Now! I want a side filled with brilliant midfielders. Ten thousand tons of hard ball. And if they don't look like buff bodybuilders I'm going to scream!

Couldn't agree more with you there, Doc. The only think I'd say is I've made up my mind on Moloney (GTFO), but not yet on Sylvia.

The player I really want is Tyson Goldsack. I really rate that guy,

"Gee that's a slow backline sir!!"

You know who's conspicuously absent from that list? Jarred Rivers. Take a bow, Riv, cause you're the only one of our relics from the Daniher era who has escaped his evil curse.

It's bad enough getting destroyed by crack midgets, but hack midgets? Please!

Why? Because he has no defensive skills. If so, then how in the hell can we expect him to do any better as a DEFENSIVE forward? Pretty much the only place in todays game where you can get away with a total lack of defensive mindset is on the bench - and if it's come to that, then I reckon it's about time to give it up,

Yeah. Just a hunch, but I think Bartram's probably gone past Whelan at this stage. Highly underrated and incredibly important to our structure. It's no coincidence that Jarryd Blair et all destroyed us off the deck today. Even the lumbering ruckmen were grubbing gimme goals off the back of packs today.

Interesting.Why do you think I'm right? If it's just because my opinion happens to agree with todays atrociously inconsistent umpiring team, then that's no ringing endorsement at all!

On the contrary. I think it's in perfect working order. It's just that it rarely has any passengers. In this case, "no passengers" is bad.

I think he got one for the Tapscott whack, and he got a second for Garland's tackle on whoever it was that grabbed the ball and (to Garland's mind) played on. Fair? You be the judge. I refuse to believe that Garland's stupid enough to tackle the wrong bloke when he knows some other player has just been awarded a fifty-metre penalty. Whoever the officiating umpire was totally botched that whole messy saga.

Speak for yourself. I was once a hater, but I'm willing to accept the good things I see in Morton. Nowadays, I'd have to say I'm a fan.

That whole passage of play was a mess. The umpire was derelict in his duty by not adequately informing the players that a fifty had been awarded. I reckon the Collingwood bloke thought he could take advantage and Garland evedently fell into the trap.Horriffic umpiring, not because of the decisions (of which there were quite a few crappy ones today), but because of his inability to do his job and ACTUALLY LET THE PLAYERS KNOW WHAT HIS DECISION WAS!!!

First of all, a goal had already been given. Second, the Collingwood player's boot was touching the post. The ball bounced off his boot. As far as I know, that means it's still in play.