daisycutter

good luck, wcw. it's definitely worthy of forgetting but difficult to erase such disturbing images once having seen them

yummo

could be a winger like dipper?

kevin bartlett rule was different he didn't handball away he threw the ball forward as in a bounce just as he was about to be tackled. it was an effective way to dodge around a player and play on, or to draw a free kick. bartlett actually most times did bounce it properly whereby he could receive it. As other players copied this unfortunately they just threw the ball forward and propped, and it be came a mockery and a farce. this was an interpretation change issued by the afl (vfl then) wherby you were not deemed in possession during the bounce, to reduce scimmages and get more ball flow (esp for the more skilled players) same as for the flick pass. Both interpretation changes had short lives......though some might argue the flickpass has virtually returned.

do you know what is behind his "blackballing"?

and those sheffield teams are not playing real football, they're playing association football 🤣

well the last sen audio went well didn't it? i'll take it with a dose of salts

both look like high contact to me, ds. no arm raising, leaning into or body lowering that i can see, but i think it best to send it straight upstairs to the tribunal.

article (follow link) has now removed all mention of gus and jacko - lol

hmm, that sounds like a necktie

more ham and fist, ds

65,876

re ginnivan decision: having re-watched many times and read/considered the comments here..... ....i'm gonna backtrack at little and now believe it was a 50:50 decision

1. yes, but only if it can be seen to be deliberate. a bit hard most times. 2. no 3. yes

well that avoided a few heart attacks now let's bring his bro home

straight swap for gus's bro bring him home

he should read the jeremy howe story coaches decide where someone plays, not players

65,862

i'd imagine because he was young and still a kid your question would be better directed at his management who would be clearly the one holding the reins

and yes that will be a good thing........depending of course on the consistency and skill of the umpires.....and the afl not changing their mind again. btw i don't object to players trying to evade a tackle legitimately by dodging and weaving, as long as the intention is to evade and not milk. I suppose too there will always be grey areas, but that can't be helped in a 360 degree game. so does that mean you agree there was a free kick at time of previous frame?

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