daisycutter

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

Yes but it's only become popular in the West because Jewish idioms have become standard on American sitcoms like Seinfeld.

and broadway productions ...  toss in hollywood too

what makes it worse is that it was off the ball, there was no scrapping, just clarry standing there relaxed and he comes in from behind and hits him with clarry never seeing a thing .   no heat of the moment thing.

4 minutes ago, M_9 said:

I’m all for Petty going back to Casey until he is fit and kicking goals. However a major consideration if that were to happen is who he plays alongside. 
One or two of BBB, Schache, Sestan, Jefferson or Fullarton have to move out of the forward 50.

We can’t continue to carry a player who is having no impact - one goal in four games forward. Not taking marks, not tackling, not fit enough to chase.

Sub against Geelong. Fullarton to start and subbed out if not succeeding.

i'd give him another week (good break till next game) then re-evaluate if a period at casey necessary

26 minutes ago, Monbon said:

And at 74 one becomes an 'Alte Kacker'?

don't you mean a Scheißkerl?  😎

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

He is coming into the team on no pre-season and obviously important to the FD. He just isn’t going to be dropped without some reason related to his fitness base or ridiculous form of a tal at Casey.

People should just get used to it.

6 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

I thought the bloke who kicked three goals looked ok

looked better than ok

liked that play with the long handball over the top to fritta for a goal

12 hours ago, YearOfTheDees said:

If he gets off it will be daylight robbery.

he'll get a fine

4 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Did you have  halitosis issues at the time dc ?

foul breath, uncle ... fouled out in first qtr

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

Sue I took the best spekky ever in a basketball match, not paid and sent off! I prefer footy 😄

i breathed on a guy whilst playing bball and got fouled

computer says: "next question"

3 hours ago, Fat Tony said:

Surprisingly Caulfield and Cranbourne both have about the same average wind (14 km/h). Neither is that windy, but the openness really make both options not suitable/ideal for AFL programmes. 

gosch's is also pretty open

the hangar doesn't look very enclosed either

same with arden street

at least most of the old suburban grounds had brick walls around them until they pulled them down for community use reasons

so if he'd continued with marking attempt and smashed his head with his knees and showed no duty of care, he would have escaped suspension

rightio

1 hour ago, rjay said:

 

Boxing is in big trouble...

NRL along with AFL will end up non contact, it's just a matter of time.

10, 20, 100 years..

Will all go the way of the Coliseum & the Gladiators.

It really doesn't matter, we've had a good run with it, enjoyed the game & may or may not be around for the final demise.

but nrl is 90% contact. same with thugby ... no contact, no nrl, no thugby

nrl has banned the shoulder charge but still get multiple concussion checks per game

a bit off topic but what about striking the ball with your head in soccer. thousands of hits over some players careers

7 minutes ago, Demon trucker said:

He won't go the way of Jordan or Bedford, teams wanted those players, no teams would want bill, he has shown nothing, if he doesn't make it at the dees, then he is on the delist list 

someone would want him.  just never get much in these circumstances.

46 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think there is going to be no choice and contact sports worldwide are in trouble here.

 

 

boxing and wrestling will be in big trouble then

anyone for non contact nrl?

6 minutes ago, loges said:

Depends on which outcome the AFL wants.

quite probable ... and gleeson is the wild card  (in that he doesn't always follow the afl line)

26 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

At the point of contact with the player (who is contesting the ball), Greene was not contesting the ball. 

Your words even say this, that he was "up and until it was deflected and a collision was imminent". As such, when the offence occurred, Greene was not contesting the ball and therefore committed a reportable offence. 

He has two options once he is jumping at the ball: 1) Contest the ball, or 2) stop contesting the ball and protect the player who is still contesting the ball. He chose to stop contesting the ball and made no effort to minimise the harm to the other player's head. That's a reportable offence. 

in that last split second he was where he was purely because of a legitimate attempt to mark to mark the ball. to then claim he was a non contester is really getting over technical. there is also a duty of care on both players. greene himself was in a very vulnerable position being already legitimately air borne.

anyway, let's agree to disagree

39 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

There is no grade below careless (which like you I think is a problem).  An act is deemed to be either 'careless' or 'intentional'.

This is the structure the MRO works to (unless he uses his 'discretion' 🤨)

Source:  AFL

so, ok, no official grade below careless (for a charge to be made)

however that is what maynard achieved. it being regarded as a "football action"

i guess the real grade below careless then, is a no-charge

so to reword my original, greene's defence could argue it wasn't careless and therefore no-charge at all. by deeming it accidental or a football act.

wonder if gleeson will allow a bio-mechanics expert to give evidence on greene's mid air split second choices?

19 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

I hear what you are saying.

But one could argue the same about Maynard.

At the end of the day the only way to stop brains being damaged is to stop these bumps happening.

Yes it will change the game but it's the price necessary to give these young men some safety at work.

maynard was completely different. maynard hit well after gus had disposed of the ball. it was not during a football action 

as well as other considerations

1 hour ago, Lucifers Hero said:

It was graded as careless.  Accidental no longer exists.  If it did then Toby and many others would get off.

by "accidental" i meant the grade below careless ... whatever it is called now

yes, i know this case was graded careless ... just posing the question of whether it really was

3 hours ago, kev martin said:

I went to the site, and it says "out of stock", two lines down from availability. 

sorry for that ...  but when i looked it definitely said in stock

just re-checked and it says 

3 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

What's your alternative?

i think mr fence's main objection is there are no slitherers at caulfield racetrack

i presume they can't have it later at punt road ground because the lighting is not up to afl lighting standards for games and video streaming.

this site has them in stock 26cm mfc gnome

24 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

If he was contesting the ball then he wouldn't be in the brace position, he would be reaching for the ball. GWS can try to argue that he's contesting the ball but it'll only need that one photo of him bumping the head with his arms tucked in to show that he wasn't. Just because he jumped with the intention of contesting the ball doesn't mean he was contesting the ball when he bumped into the face of his opponent.

 

If the player he was jumping to was Jesse Hogan or a small child then he wouldn't have braced himself to bump, he would have shown some form of protection. A collision of some kind may have been inevitable but bracing yourself to bump your opponent with your shoulder was not inevitable. If one person is contesting the ball and the other isn't, then the responsibility for the collision lies with the non-contesting player. Greene messed up by not trying to protect the player contesting the ball and, at best, treated the player contesting the ball with negligent indifference. 

you keep saying greene wasn't contesting the ball. he certainly was, up and until it was deflected and a collision was immininent. this was in a SPLIT SECOND before contact.

it is disingenuous for you to insist he was a non-contestant