Jump to content

Monbon

Members

  • Joined

  • Last visited

View Profile Find content

Posts posted by Monbon

    ·

    Edited by Monbon

    2 hours ago, chook fowler said:

    Not a great weekend for the Club. So good to see him return to the fold in recent years and that he got to enjoy our 2021 premiership. 

    His return is not so recent. I was working part time hours in Acland Street Cellars in early 2006. In walks the mighty Mister Barassi. He brings a bottiglie to the counter, I confess my allegiance, my adoration of the way he played, the number of times I had the privilege to watch him play, asked how he fancied our chances in 2006 - the same question I had asked David Neitz the week before -  and as he left the shop, he turned to me and smiled and yelled, Go Dees.

    • Like 5
    • Thanks 1
    • Love 3

    10 hours ago, Roost it far said:

    Last night felt inevitable, I’ve never seen us be so undisciplined, make so many crazy errors, ignore team mates in better positions and generally gift a lesser team a ridiculous win. I really hope Carlton win or go close against Brisbane as maybe that might rub in what we just blew.
    We need some fresh eyes in the coaching box…I’d be offering Justin Leppitsch whatever it takes to come on board. We need a replacement brewing for May, another forward and some elite ball users. I really hope Woewodin and Howe can replace one or both of our wingers. Langdon has fallen off a cliff and Hunter, while serviceable needs upgrading. If TMac and Brown remain on the list I’ll cry and we need to find Max some help. I still think we have an excellent list and I’m bullish for the next few years but jeez the last 2 weeks hurt. Onwards and upwards. Go Dee’s…..and remember gifting finals to your enemies is supposed to hurt.

    I guess my one worry in this homogeneous world where everything is seen as a transaction is do the players really really really want it. Would they walk over coals for each other and success. Or is making pasta on your socials and shaving your balls enough. That’s the question that concerns me with this team. 

    Re hurting the enemy: you no doubt saw the result of Christian's Pontifications today: 3 Demons fined, Pickett suspended for bumping poor Crippsy, a bump that slide due to momentum and size discrepancy onto poor Cripps's nose - what was described as recently as last Wednesday as a Football Act. And, instead of Mc Govern being fined for staging, Pickett gats fined for 'Rough Play'. 

    I ask, Your Honor, what is your point?????

    • Clap 3
    • Angry 1

    2 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

    This club needs to rapidly, and forcefully, indicate to the afl how we won’t be going to Geelong for the next 20 years and now the Maynard Potemkin show trial was wholly disgraceful

     

    why are we so meek and keen to be the good corporate citizen. Collingwood doesn’t do this. Why should we

    Blaming luck is an easy way out. 2 absolutely wrong ARCs against Carlton , continually shoddy umpiring. And the games we lost with the disgusting sub standard kicking - that’s not luck

     

    I’ll give you the injuries though 

    where’s the depth cover ?

    AS I wrote, yes, we are the pawns of the AFL: witness Pickett getting a week for a bump to  Cripps which connected with his shoulder, then, yes, I know, Cripps turned, Pickett's shoulder continued  and poor Cripps's nose was affected. It was called once a Footy Action...

    As far as Depth Cover and I alluded to this - we have that aplenty back of centre, but it's hard when the depth cover for the loss of McDonald, Fritsch, Melksham, JRV, Petty, Brown, and earlier in the year, Smith, was Schache...

    And I totally agree about the Geelong Bull...t.

     

    All of these post mortem/coach/tactic blaming posts miss out on the biggest factor around, and it ain't Max. I'm talking about the sheer perversity of the element called LUCK. Luck is involved in the Injury list. Just examine the players who luck slaughtered at crucial stages this year:

    Gawn

    Oliver

    Melksham- just when we needed him.

    Fritsch

    Brayshaw   -  the  unluck in his case to be brutally assaulted by Maynard

    Salem early season blues, struggled to get back to his best...

    McDonald - again.

    B.Brown

    Petty

    Smith early in the season

    Okay, the arrow of injury slaughters many sides but the bottom line in the Demons case is that despite all these setbacks - note well, most afflicted were the forwards - we finished Top 4, 2nd year in a row.

    Therefore, the Doomsday Desperadoes who dwell on woe to woe, who want every coach replaced most of the time, should remember that in the end, on that last game in September, there can only be one winner. To cast the rest to hell for 'Failure' is my idea of a Utopian Hell. 

    Sure, our list needs to be strengthened. We seem to have a surfeit of more than capable defenders - some fine Casey backline regulars must be cursing their lack of opportunity - and, it has to be said, we have made some recruiting blunders on the one hand - Grundy comes to mind - but here also, some of the recruiting tosses of the coin - Ben Brown comes to mind - seemed to be well-fated and ended in despair for both parties, but all in all, the recruiting team have handed us some genuinely talented players and their success ration is way in its favor - Hibberd, Melksham, May, Lever, Langdon, Hunter from other clubs come to mind - and look at the backline talent they've assembled. 

    So, stay positive, ladies and gents, and pray to the God who dispenses injury woes.

    It must also be said that it is obvious we are not in the good books of the AFL Masters, witness the MRI farces which they present as 'justice' for a start. And, also, keep in mind, the factor the luck of the draw in umpiring decisions has made on some of our games. I cannot bear to watch the replay of yesterday's match, but I have noted the howls of 'WE was robbed' from some of you.

    Wid a little bit of luck, I am 173 years old now, toodle pip, see you all next year.

     

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2

    On 9/14/2023 at 8:53 AM, Roost it far said:

    Can we please not have threads about him

    You are very specific about what threads we should and shouldn't have or follow. It shows a certain character trait, quite the opposite of mine , i.e. live and let live. Let the reader choose...

    • Like 1

    28 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

    Don’t be sucked into this conversation. This is the argument being made by people drawing parallels between things that don’t exist. It’s not logical to assume that if the AFL suspended Maynard they would have to suspend anyone attempting a mark. 

    The ball in dispute, in the air, is significantly different to a player moving passed the ball and cannoning into a player.

     

    Great reply.

    • Like 1
    • Clap 1

    31 minutes ago, tiers said:

    There is no denying that EJ played it tough but he was no thug and, when needed, could play the game as well as anyone. I was once fortunate, in a state game at the MCG, to see him play probably the best game I have ever seen by any player in my time (except for the incomparable Robbie). He was that good.

    Like most true champions, he would have been able to adapt to today's rules and still be able to dominate.

    He personally delivered a budgie I had won in a contest - you had to guess what time the 6.30 Pm TAA flight would actually land - I rang the airport a week before and asked them and they said 6.30, that's what I wrote and won - and the budgie did nothing but poo in its cage until I mercifully let it escape when I turned to cage upside down and the gate slid down as I tried to de-poo it - and I spent most of my youth arguing with Brian Enever about who was Mister Football. He said Ted Whitten. I said Ron Barassi. 

    I never forgave EJ for delivering that budgie...

    • Clap 1

    20 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

     

    So the game will need to continue to adapt to avoid head traumas to players. A rule change  to stop the Brayshaw incident is likely in the off season. How does the AFL intend to deal with such a case without looking at the incidents of high marks causing head trauma. I realise they are 2 distinct cases and not related except in their ability to cause injury. 

    • How can the AFL say and make rules to stop concussions in tackles, bumps and smothers but leave open the ability to cause concussion when going for a mark? Whilst I understand there is inherent risk in playing, player welfare is rightfully being taken very seriously. In fact I’d say the AFL are about 10 years behind on this but that’s unsurprising. The high mark is a beautiful feature of our game so what needs to be done to firstly keep it and secondly try and make it safe?
      For me it feels almost impossible to legislate all concussions out of the game considering the way the game is played. Is the high mark seen as the same as any 2 or more players competing directly for the ball where an injury may happen incidentally? Are coaches going to train defenders to avoid putting themselves at risk by not backing into packs? Do forwards need to almost “be careful” when jumping for the ball?
      Do we simply play a sport that is inherently dangerous and thus not only do we need to keep making it safer but we also need to invest heavily in player welfare and past player welfare? Will we get to a point where a player with X number of concussions is no longer allowed to play the game and the club receives a draft pick to replace the player. Is concussion protocol going to be extended to 4 weeks? 
      Over to you guys……

     

    For a start, 'going for a mark;, unless it's in the T.Greene category where you stick your boot studs into the face of an oncoming player, is a legitimate 'footy action': in other words, you are 'going for the ball'. It is, of course, a 'unique' aspect of Aussie Rules and I recall my father - who was a terrific athlete, a soccer player -trying to come to grips with this aspect of our game. Yes, there can be 'collateral damage', but when all is said and done, it is not all that common that players inflict serious injury when flying high in the sky, as they say: and most of the damage is done because of the impact to the upper back, and, let's face it, few players are able to jump that high that the heads of the other players becomes an issue.

    That's one consideration anyway. And, for the record, I don't see how it's relevant to what Maynard did. In other words, a lot of Maynard excusers bring up the 'Speckie' aspect as though it is in any way connected. It's the height of casuistry.

    • Like 1

    Gill said this today: "Our response is that if there's no avenues to appeal then let's actually look at the incident and see if there's tweaks or modifications or opportunities to change the rules or modify them so that we can do our very best to protect the health and wellbeing of our players on the field."

    In other words, next year it will be deemed a 'Footy crime', but you're still okay to attack an oncoming player who has just kicked and knock him senseless.

     

    I f...ing give up!!!!!!! The AFL  is total CR.P!

    • Like 4
    • Angry 1
    • Vomit 2

    28 minutes ago, monoccular said:

    Hasn't  that already been stated in previous tribunal statements?  Obviously this weeks kangaroo court didnt look at precedents - for obvious reasons.

    And has it been raised that (I understand) that Gleeson is a Collingwood member, or at least supporter.   IF true he should have been required to recuse himself over conflict of interest.

    Doesn't the AFL have that obvious requirement in their tribunal set up???

    Where can we read or prove Gleeson's Collingwood connection?

    48 minutes ago, Teufelmann said:

    Quite to the contrary, Messiah – your “simple“ analysis is spot on. In my view, the relevant decision the tribunal should’ve been focused on was that by Maynard when he launched himself forcefully into the air in such a way that contact between the lower part of his body, and the upper part of Brayshaw‘s body walls at the very least likely, if not probable. At this point, he effectively loses control of his trajectory towards Brayshaw and, at the last instant, alters, his own posture (not his trajectory), in order to minimise the impact to himself of the violent collision his voluntary action has brought about. Apropos his duty of care either you decide not to launch yourself in this manner, or it is incumbent upon you to minimise the likely forceful contact your action has caused. The frisbee analogy (i.e. becoming an uncontrolled missile) should’ve been used in cross-examination of the Collingwood expert as evidence against Maynard. The notion that Maynard, who is undisputed objective is to impede the progress of the ball, did not align himself with the undeviating trajectory of Brayshaw‘s progress, is nonsensical. How else would he have impeded the progress of the ball, given that Brayshaw  gives every indication of kicking in the direction his body is travelling (i.e. as opposed to, for example , where his back is to the goal, and he is trying to kick around his body, in which case the kicking leg and the other parts of the body would present distinguishable targets to the potential spoiler ).The proposition that any deviation by Brayshaw at the instant before contact was the reason the two players came into violent collision, defies the logic of what Maynard was attempting to do. 
    In my view, the league’s election not to challenge this contentious, and I believe flawed, decisionis highly dubious. The fact that this situation will be reviewed postseason indicates that it was not an acceptable “football action” and should have drawn a sanction, even under the present understanding of what constitutes a “careless“ action.

     

    Vell said, Herr Teufelmann.

    • Like 1

    30 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

    Agree. Prosecutor was weak.  Had 3-4 key points and missed them all. 

    Careless? Yes - duty of care - if you elect to jump in the air, you expect to be an uncontrolled projectile

    Head high? Yes 

    Sever impact? Yes 

    Had options? Yes 

    Gleeson!?! He advised they must adjudicate on whether it had been a voluntary bump? Gleeson also said Maynard was "not careless in either his decision to smother or the way in which his body formed after the smother".

    Gleeson is:

    1: Obviously biased.

    2': In need a patch on one eye because he is only one-eyed.

    3: he needs to see an optician to prescribe the correct lens for his remaining eye.

    4: He needs to be able to understand English, not the gibbersih amalgam of lies Maynard spewed  - called logorrhea.  

    5: He believes in miracles  because according to Maynard, Brayshaw ceased to exist as Maynard fell from the great height of his 'smother' attempt. 

    6: a pupil of the Church of Michael Christian.

    • Like 3

    11 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

    Red it wouldn't have mattered what Mayfart said...

    The circus act was already in play as soon as the siren went.  He was always getting off.

    It was just a matter of how and then coming up with the script / screenplay.

    Maynard seems to be saying he 'smothered' a phantom ball, kicked by a phantom who disappears the split second after the kick.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1

    1 minute ago, Emerald said:

    It comes down to training the unconscious mind to react. It takes 0.2 seconds for the signal to travel from the eye to the brain so a conditioned unconscious mind is what makes the reaction. If it was up to the conscious mind in the cricket example the ball would pass by before the conscious mind would even begin to move the body. Batting training is training the unconscious mind. Someone who picks up a bat for the first time is guaranteed to miss because their (slower) conscious mind is what's in charge in that moment.

    In Maynard's split decision, his unconscious mind reacted by turning his right shoulder into Gus's head which comes down to prior unconscious programming in his past as a thug. The way he plays the game is testament to this.

    I was once - and I swear it's true - the greatest living German cricketer. And I know exactly what you're talking about in the sense that when I first picked up a cricket bat - and I was before my double Kneemonia a very co-ordinated chappie, inherited from my father who represented German POWS against England in Port Said before King Farooq, England won because the referee wasn't Dutch , refer the Schumacher post  - that training the brain to co-ordinate with the speed of the ball etc took a while.

    • Like 1
    • Clap 1