daisycutter

i don't mind a bit of payback. ginnivan certainly deserves this. but this doesn't alter the issue of whether this particular decision was right or wrong

the free kick was already there in the previous frame.......on the shoulder

did you look at the previous frame? redman's arm is already on his shoulder which is technically high and knees are not dropped. it's not likely to go anywhere else but up at that stage. having an arm around your neck is a sure way to drop someone's knees. the point being he didn't drop his knees before contact. and why did you think the afl (after examination) said the umpire was incorrect in not paying a free?

btw for those interested, here's the next frame. at this point it is a free kick definitely. what happens after is irrelevant.

why did you deliberately change my quote and its meaning? it was - "so he's not allowed to bend his knees whilst running" natural bending of knees whilst running is not the same as ducking or deliberately lowering your body

waist high? lol, macca, you need to go to specsavers

oh come on. his body is actually leaning forward ever so slightly and redmans definitely aiming high redman is much taller and it's his responsibility to take this into account yeah, i do feel dirty defending ginnivan in this single case

so he's not allowed to bend his knees whilst running......lol remember it all happened quickly and the tackler is closing fast from an angle but the one thing i do agree with is he has a lot of false negatives to make up for all the false positives he was gifted

as far as jackson goes......none

point of initial contact no leaning head into opponent no dropping of knees no raising of arm (nor on next 3 frames where arm is around neck) i know ginnivan is a cheat (self confessed) but frees like this one are not the ones to nail him a cheat

c'mon macca. it was just a lousy tackle. and dangerous too i'm fully aware of ginnivans tricks, but this was just a poor tackle and a free every time

incorrect call i've watched it slo-mo frame by frame. essendon player went in too high. no question. there was no arm raised to push it high.i don't think ginnivan went low before first contact which was high to begin with.

i'd really like to believe that.....sadly i'm not convinced

well if the main reason is returning "home" no matter what, then there is no incentive for freo to pay the big money reported. seems to me freo should only have to offer a realistic value and term, say $700k x 5 years. He'd still only be 26 years old and if potential realised could grab another 5 year deal on big money. If he's already committed to returning to WA then no need for freo to over-reach contract-wise

lj took a 1 year extension, the other two took 2 year extensions

training today at gosch's

worst thing is this trade is likely to go down to the wire and with multiple clubs involved this could mean we miss out on trading in a good player from another club because of the timing/uncertainty

membership sales going crazy 65,835

naturally ... with some fava beans, and a nice chianti

this is a fantasy article written purely to appeal to the wa public can sum it up as follows: 99% jackson to freo 99% no loss of freo best 23 players 100% jackson's salary can fit in the cap p.s. i'd like to know if there was any dodgy financing arrangements on jacko's $1.75m new perth house

balta's wasn't a case of him playing on, he simply went to sleep by missing the 30 secs and he couldn't help at least scoring from 30m on a slight angle. dumbest thing ever.

and what if tigers had lynch?........same thing tigers blew it in the end. 2 marks in last 2 mins and didn't end up even taking the kick at goal

not so sure. he'd have to kick from 55m and directly over the man on the mark

i think their code of ethics is also referred to as their bank account

probably......but it also could have been a meeting about gus with his manager and essendon the media are very loose with their wording and love ambiguity