daisycutter

i remember waverley park was supposedly near the centre, then it moved closer to casey it's all rubbish and irrelevant, except maybe to those who live close to whatever suburb is the new flavour of the month centre-of-something. port melbourne/fisherman's bend is a bee's nest of indecision when it comes to development and is over infested with nimbys, could take decades to unravel.

disagree. an overpriced contract with a guaranteed long contract term is a potential disincentive especially for a player who has a poor consistency record (even if he has potential)

at $800k he would have zero incentive to perform how about a 100% incentive based contract and yeah, 800k was real funny

uncanny to a T

ronnie's love child? get him as a f/s?

when he gets to 34 we can switch him to full fwd to play the tom hawkins role. he can stay inside the 50m all game.

69k looking a lot closer 68,446

probably. jvr should have jumped in front of him as if attempting a mark but just make sure he "misses"" the ball. otoh, not being paid a free against just compensates for the free not paid to him having his legs clearly taken out when he was just in range on the 50m line on boundary. tough shot i know, but he could have nailed it or got in a short pass.

but he's his own client in reality (even if he hires a barrister, he's still running the show)

or let me put it another way 3 choices - 1. definitely touched 2. maybe touched 3. definitely not touched what should the soft call be for 2.? if it is 1. then why bother going to arc unless it is to check if over the line. In this case obviously not .

but he doesn't have to be "persuaded", just has to be thinking hmm it was close maybe it was touched, player is appealing. says to ump "it might have been touched but i'm not totally sure, we need to check it." ump says to arc "check to see if ball touched, goal umpire thinks it may have been" i.e. soft decision is touched even though he is unsure

lawyers doing what lawyers do, red

and the afl's continual meddling with the rules and failure to better define the rules i've been playing and following footy for longer than you'd care to know and i still don't understand the basic holding the ball/incorrect disposal/illegal tackle rules, let alone the ruck infringement rules. and that's just some of the basic rules.

that was pretty hard to watch no connection, an undisciplined rabble

your medal is in the mail

after zorko, there was no love left

chug, chug, chug 68,174

i thought he was attending the hellfire club annual convention as a guest speaker

hmm ... looked like false teeth to me ... too perfect

you're under the pump now red but we're sticking fat with you caulfield or bust

well, he can ...

in which case any filth player is welcome to my 100 yo mother-in-law's tendons

he's as far away as the length of a piece of string simple answer: it's too early to say

caulfield can't build 2 ovals on gosch's