daisycutter

actually the more sensible logic the family is in melb

that's my understanding though take into account front-loading and year 5 (&4?) may be conditional and therefore actually a contract extension

44,079

and he tries to kick the ball too hard and fast. needs better rhythm in his kicking

haha they're thinking of renaming werribee biffoland

how come essendrugs can get a special and exclusive review of umpiring just another "clarko breakfast with gill" occasion

doubt it. i'm sticking with 44,444 ?

i'll bet you still have csr golden syrup on your weet bix (or did you prefer the treacle)

and a tablespoon of cod liver oil for you, od

all the new rules seem to get expanded and then interpreted too technically in a way that defies common sense and any feel for the game. additionally many players start to exploit new rules in ways never originally intended so a new rule brought in for possibly a good reason (though sometimes just an over-reaction) ends up impacting in many ways not intended. umpires need to given more rein to use common sense in order to ignore the inconsequential technical breeches. e.g. the reserved zone, the third man up joke etc and a simple solution to the 30 sec rule is to not have one and just stop the clock until the kick is taken (no running down the clock). if a player is wasting time (not clock time) then ump has the power to say '5 seconds', 'move it on' or 'play on' if ignored

think he must be playing injured

we've got bradtke next year - all 205cm

he's free as an rfa being a log-time dees supporter he will probably take $500 - lol no idea actually but over $650 i'd guess

1Andrew Gaff 22 19 41 6 0 0 0 3 2 0 146 gettim

19 in his first game - turned 20 on 5th july (about 14 games in?)

yes, ernie. i'm waiting for some ****** to sue a bloke for holding the door open

well ernie, being a sensitive new age bloke i was trying to avoid sexist terms like female and women edit: damn. just realised there is a he in sheila.......it just too hard, ernie

well haydon bunton senior had 2 brownlows in his first 40 games

three, red. the sheilas won too

just forget the stupid rules and their even more stupid interpretations..... just what do you think the decision should have been (in the spirit of the game)? I reckon the priorities would be (in this sequence) 1. play on - probably this as contact was inconsequential (feel for the game) 2. free against hogan for dangerous contact - a real possibility, he had choices, and clearly 2nd to the ball, but the freo guy did go to ground, but probably just to protect himself 3. free for hogan for having his legs taken out - stupid, the guy was in the motion of picking up the ball and clearly first to the ball. he didn't dive at the ball.

sheer looxury

yes, but why do they always leave their spectacles in the change rooms?

was a very frustrating day, od

between the railway cutting and the oval there is firstly a parallel strip of grass, then a parallel (i.e. east-west) pathway with an avenue of large trees either side. i might be wrong but i would expect this avenue to be retained (do you agree?) therefore, there is quite a distance from the railway cutting to the oval (40--50m???) and the (double) avenue of large trees would obscure (to some extent) the view of the ground from buildings over the railway cutting at least this seemed to be my opinion when i went and walked the area on the day of the saints game. what do you think cbd? or have i got it wrong?