daisycutter

I say we trade Hangon to TalkingCarlton we could even pass the hat around and toss in a few dollars to sweeten the deal

yep, nothing untoward there............thanks for clip tricky

the disappearance of Tex Bars the disappearance of Polly Waffles the disappearance of Harold Holt

the meaning of life the abolition of slavery the holocaust the inquisition christianity the fall of the roman empire communism the dalai lama and a few other minor things

bad hair days bad threads bad posters anything bad actually

Looking at the video again in slo-mo Thomas came in from the side so the angle between them was about 90deg at contact point. He then swung his body around 90deg more whilst hitting the turf so his legs faced Rohan with his body shielding the ball. It was quite an athletic move and he didn't dive feet first from front on (although the end position of his feet was the same) He put himself in some danger and I thought his intention was just for the ball and not malicious or reckless He also didn't have a long slide and he got to the ball first (but only by going to ground) I also think he had other options than going in head first as he was coming in from the side and could have tried to knock the ball forward whilst protecting his head by turning his shoulder Given the current rules the tribunal made the correct decision and the result to rohan was accidental But I wouldn't object to a rule change

Well macca i think we both agree that there is an element of danger (to both players actually) and it is something that doesn't add to the game and that a simple rule change could be implemented. I don't agree with the soccer comparison as soccer is a non contact sport (basically) so it is obviously illegal. Not so obvious in AFL as rules currently stand. But I take your point re the danger As for the feet first + studs up, I don't know why the emphasis on studs up. Feet first is feet first, the studs will always be pointing horizontally and fortunately football studs these days are not what they used to be. In my playing days they still allowed aluminium stops and leather stops with nails through them....ouch There is two possible rule changes here 1] diving feet first at (or near) opponents legs. Relatively easy to define/police. Free kick. If consequences reported 2] headfirst diving. A bit harder to define but maybe, treat similar to player ducking head and don't reward with free. Should make it less attractive. Problem though is that opponent may see head dive and not take due care so this can be difficult. Rule would need to take consideration of both players actions i.e. due care exercised by both players. I need to think more on this.

The difference here is that Thomas got to the ball FIRST In cases like this the umpires usually would pay a free to Thomas for "too high" or "in the back" Now I don't agree with this, but the point I make is that they need a rule change and it needs to be a simple clear rule Its also a problem with players diving head first at a players legs when the ball is between the two. This inevitably draws a free to the "diver" I don't agree with players using their head to draw a free either, it is just fostering a very dangerous practice

No, I think IF the AFL are worried they will need to bring in a clear B&W law change (along with cute DVD footage) Without that, Thomas getting off IS the precedent

couldn't see anything wrong with that purely a possession attempt with no intent or malice to rohan sort of thing you see many times in a game just an unfortunate accident

might have just the man for you if it is pivotal circa 2012

double penalty Free is given to sideA then sideA infringes and sideB gets the free Correct decision should be a cancellation not a reversal -> ball up Otherwise it is effectively a DOUBLE penalty Infringement off play Play on half back. Infringement on half forward. Free taken at Half Forward - should be at point of play Effectively a free kick plus 100 metres Same with 2nd shot on goal with infringement after goal scored - should be taken at centre etc etc

lighten up robbie, i though Buzzy's post was funny and just added to it don't worry, JW will be ok but he does need to tighten up on a few aspects e.g. concentration, fitness, aggression

I think a cigarette lighter to the testicles would do the trick nicely?

Slipper to be No1 ticket holder?

blaming long time loyal supporters is just rubbish dl winning more games will attract more 'grand-stander' type supporters but will not increase the 'quality' of supporters the problems with the mfc (and there has/is been many) need to be sorted out by the mfc and not the supporters in general it's a pointless argument that will lead you nowhere

talk for yourself dee-luded (and the good doc) leave me and robbie out of your "we" thankyou in advance

I once played in a winning premiership because of a draw We started the season of badly losing early games. Then we had a draw (coming from behind) and from then on went on a winning streak If we had lost the drawn game we wouldn't have made the finals. It was a real turning point in our season

If you like a full ground press rugby style game then yes It was certainly tough and uncompromising, but as a game of football I found it lacking But such is football circa 2012, alas

Why on earth were they shouting anti-semitic insults? What was the connection?

looks like BP didn't do a good job on his competitive player analysis today.....blue's match-ups got smashed Hmmmm maybe not so pivotal....such is life I suppose He'd better get it right for year end FA time...the clock is ticking.....hope they didn't head-hunt the wrong man (sob)

or "GS"

don't feed the troll wyl

that was a reference to Neale "Sisyphus" Daniher

that'd be Henley's brother?