daisycutter

it's in the banana state

simply outrageous ?

i'm familiar with the cafe snack version (sweet). do you have any more info on this other version (links, etc)?

in many parts of the world they grow "cooking" banana variants (not sweet) which are used more as a vegetable than a fruit. In fact in some countries these variants predominate (e.g. South America i believe)

face it, there's nothing that bananas can't do, uncle

this thread is probably racist based on latest definitions

well that will be the death of umpires making on-field reports

toss a coin for result

so if jones hadn't intervened would lockhart have taken his kick in the goal square where the ball was????

ok, wasn't clear on that, but after the free was awarded to us, so kick-in now negated and 2nd infringement was then after and a separate event. does this mean that we would have got the free and a 50m (i'm confused over crazy rules), if so this means the penalty was 200m (50m + kick to us, 50m + kick to them). seems way, way over the top how often do you see someone penalised for a cheap head knock get some treatment and the umpires ignore the treatment? what was worse, the head butt or the retaliatory hip and shoulder? the proportionality doesn't stack up. anway it really pizzes me off, in case you couldn't tell

the jones reversal cost us 150m and it's just crazy and not right, lost 50m free to us, 50m free to freo plus 50m penalty = 150m or 3 kicks in effect a ball-up (i.e. one cancelling the other) would make more common sense and who ever heard of an automatic 50 just in one section of the field in one certain play? more afl interference, if true. ...... and it wasn't an indiscretion during a kick-in, that was the walter's one, this was well after the kick-in, but it seems the umpire can't work that out for himself

lots of impatience and short memories on here chook. I reckon even superman would take a bollicking from some posters.

yes i found it very odd with three freo players delightedly undressing viney i'll have to ask uncle bitters for his psychoanalysis, seems very freudian

again......

if he did touch it and it was a bad thrown in then common sense says ump should just order a new throw in. yeah i know common sense is a strange concept to the afl

well i was only tossing up the idea Surrey park is actually right on the border of Box hill, Box Hill South, Surrey Hills and Mont Albert - hardly a wasteland https://www.google.com/maps/@-37.8273064,145.1134505,16z MCC already have a lease there and it is close to freeway and train stations and is a very pleasant sporting and recreation precinct

i don't think the panthers need to be kicked out. the baseballers would be of course

yes, that's probably/possibly true. haven't gone back and replayed it intensely to check talking of a free being reversed for an opposite free, i've always thought that the second free should just cancel the original free, resulting in a ball-up. otherwise it is effectively a double penalty. i even have a recollection back in my dim history that this was how it was adjudicated (i.e. a ball-up) but i probably just dreamt that

probably is council owned but at least we have a leg in there and it is a sporting precinct which we could add great (shared) value to

i worked out you could fit a full oval in (just I think) and the odd shapes left over could fit buildings. the parking i referred to is the existing parking including both panther and aquatic centre parking. the panthers have two ovals and i'm sure we could do some sort of deal with both them and the aquatic centre for mutual benefit anyway it was just a thought....

mcc currently has a big block of land in Box Hill (at Surrey Park) currently the home of the mcc baseball club (and part of an extended sporting precinct) . big enough for a mcg sized oval plus buildings with adjacent car parking. approx 13-14 km from cbd with eastern freeway not far away. of course you'd need to also find a new baseball home somewhere else

i wish oscar was more of an elephant, unfortunately he qualifies more as a giraffe ?

banana republic?

yes. far better to provide both figures btw, i think the afl stated averages are somewhat manipulated. the figures don't add if you take the average and multiply it by the total list or the list minus rookies. i suspect it excludes rookies (all types) and new drafted players on the standard 2 year afl contract. just more afl manipulation of stats without explaining qualifications.

the worst thing we could do now is to put the cue in the rack need a decent base to kick off 2020