Dappa Dan

Oh for God's sake. Defending Schofield? I don't even know who he is. And condemning Clarrie? What are you on? So a Western Australian Newspaper quoted a player and we're using that as fodder here? You feel free. I'm not gonna even dignify that with a response. Don't go presuming you know why someone on Demonland does or does not agree or disagree with the direction the AFL takes. I'm a one eyed parochial demons supporter. I'm also intelligent and thoughtful. If you think the rules that apply to the rest of the league don't apply to Clarry, both in tribunals or the court of public opinion, then I don't have the inclination to argue with you. If you believe all of our players are innocent and don't do anything wrong, then I assume you thought Hogan was dealt with unfairly when he clocked Rowe earlier this year? In fact... stuff that. If you think that believing Clarry didn't put some Mayo on this contact, then you're flat out a moron. I support my club fairly and down the line. I don't follow Collingwood.

SO WHAT?!!!! What's this 5 times now?!! You said the word hope. Then you claimed I'm saying the exact same thing as you. Which I proved isn't the case. Jesus Fing Christ. We don't agree. Now brush your teeth and go to bed.

Yeah definitely. Same with any contact sport. A kid watching footy then tackling someone in the street is the act of an unbalanced, unwell, or simply criminal person. I don't think it's too much to ask of public that they look at a boxing match and say, well yeah, they're boxing... look at the gloves and shorts... I've never been one to make that connection. Though I should offer that I don't have kids, so I don't claim the knowledge that others have.

Who said that? Wasn't me... This is like the fourth time. I'm done here.

Yes. It is. And yours isn't. Read it again. "hope" isn't something I brought to the conversation. That's the second time I've used inverted commas, and I hate that. Do you comprehend that? Yes I see the similarity. I don't care that they're similar. They're not the same. Which is what you said. "As it stands now it is none, so elbows up but don't go too hard." See... I don't read the word hope in there. So yes, I go with that. Elbows are everywhere in the game. Both in and out. If what you're looking for is to (very inarticulately) say that you want ALL elbows out of the game when it's off the ball... then sure. I reckon most people wouldn't miss them. But if you think it's even remotely possible in the next 10 years, then look... go nuts... but I'm not engaging with crazy people. the game has a lot of biff in it still, and until the older generation leave us, it's gonna stay... because ultimately... they want to protect that sort of thing. It's their game just as much.

Yeah that's been the change. Personally I like it generally. It offers more control over fairness. Not for everyone though, as you've made it clear.

Ugh. No. You said "hope." I didn't say anything about that. I still think they take account for the result. When it's harmful AND when it's negligible. What I think they want to let players know is... hurt a guy you're going down. Nearly hurt a guy and you might go down. Barely touch a guy, then yeah we're not playing netball, move on" Jesus this is boring.

Yeah. you're passionate. And it's not possible to argue with opinion. I disagree with you. And I haven't come across anyone aside from on here that agrees with you. Again... not that that makes anyone right or wrong. I'll say though, that there's a half a dozen things that are way worse than this in the AFL that I can't believe are allowed, and I let it go because I realise it's not MY game. It's everyone's. This is just politics doing what it does. I will call you to account for one thing. It's not a feeble argument. It's a perfectly sensible and rational one.

I'm like you there... but.... I reckon they try to control the thing by policiing the end result. I remember in all the footy progams and in public opinion, everyone cried out that if a player misses time cos of injury inflicted by another... then the inflicting player should go too. Then they put that in... and now everyone's arguing the other way, that it should just be the action. So if they change to that, then the first argument will be true again. I do worry that they go with popular opinion too much. Viney got off early in his career for that. That's a worrying precedent.

That's because you can't argue that. Bit like Houli. He claims publicly he was fending him off... and somehow he connexted with his face. I reckon that's true. It's completely daft to think that a professional AFL player who, I reckon you could go back over video and watch him do jumper punches, shoves etc to dozens of players in a season... who's shown a long pattern of behaviour... and then this one time, the tiniest of impacts on a guys chin who he's not making direct eye contact with and people are saying he "meant" to elbow him. it's the same stuff you see all year. Challenging intention in a flakey Tribunal isn't the same as the truth. Sure. What he did was make contact. Accidentally. Add a bit of spice cos it's off the ball and between quarters. Take a bit off cos it was incredibly light contact. FIne him. Done. If Jordie went out for similar, I'd be [censored] off. All I'm saying.

Sigh. No. They haven't. They've said elbow someone, make contact, and hurt him and it's an eye for an eye. They've been doing it all year. Everyone here needs to take their MFC goggles off. If it was the other way round, we'd all be singing the same tune as the Eagles supporters. Oh... and the rest of the league, for that matter. Ever wonder why it's only demons supporters crying foul? To each their own, TU. If you saw a deliberate attempt to elbow a guy on the chin, then that's where we disagree. I reckon it was the same type we see thousands of instances of. Remonstrating, getting in opposition players heads, trying to [censored] them off. Tried to elbow him high on the chest, as they all do.. literally dozens of times a game. This one made tiny contact with his chin, but I can't go with you that it was intentional. It was negligent, certainly. That's how the entire football world sees it that doesn't wear red and blue. Even some commentators that proudly wear red and blue will be pleased with this and tick it off. Not that that makes me right and you wrong. Like I said, to each their own.

Yeah. Well if you believe he threw his elbow at his jaw deliberately, then you're mad. Wasn't even looking directly at him. Players do it every week, before the ball has been bounced, and the opposition players' heads bounce around like boxers. So yes. They will. If what people want is for that stuff to get reported NOW then players will miss en masse. I've seen a half dozen demons push guys very high on the chest, miss, and collect a chin or neck this season. It's fine if it's your opinion. Noone on here really cares what anyone else thinks. Everyone's got an opinion. But it's not a "fact" that tiny force on a players' chin should constitute a suspension. That's never been true in the AFL ever. And I can tell you another thing. Could it be changed between seasons? Yes. Will it be? No.

Yes it is. They MRP and everyone else in the game takes force into account. Every week. If it was only contact, there's be 3-4 suspensions every week for every team. You can't pull that kind of action mid-season. They've already done it once with jumper punches. Like I said earlier, if they want to make it that the force doesn't matter, then the MRP has to be informed that force isn't on the MRP table anymore. In other words. Just saying "he touched him on the chin and should be suspended" is an oversimplification.

I think people get more upset if Schofield misses weeks. Oliver's been strong on it. "Was I hit? Yes. Was it forceful? No. I went down cos of the surprise. In other words... I didn't like it, but it wasn't something he should miss games for. I just don't want to be branded a faker." Fair enough to be furious.

Noone's disputing that though. Was about impact. Just claiming contact was made and that's enough is oversimplification. Can't argue with the last sentence. But at the same time, while it is, and while the contact is tiny, then man... players will be missing across every team for weeks. I reckon if they do want to make Schofield's action a 1-2 weeker, which is only 1 week less in result than Hogan's punch to the face miles off the ball, then you have to put out a release and say, right. This Schofield thing. Next time you're gone. you have been warned. I reckon anyone not a demons supporter thinks this is the right call. And that's parochiality included.

Lol. Spoken like a true MFC supporter. Do you reckon he should have gotten weeks? I reckon the fact he didn't go for weeks means Clarry's reputation has been spared.

Sanity reigns. I'd be as filthy as WC fans if he was guilty.

They obviously have plans for him. The trajectory of his year compared to others like Pedo and Kent... When he's played and why... They have him earmarked for sure. Now. Making it work is another thing entirely.

Or at least will be given every opportunity.

Ok. What the hell. I'm glad he's staying. But 1 year? Is it a "prove it" contract? Very interesting move from the club.

OK I'll take that on face value. Tim Smith is done for the year. Happened a couple of weeks ago from memory. Joel is free to play this week. Has been on the training track for the last couple of weeks doing what he does. I reckon Wags comes in, just cos he was the carryover last week who flew to Perth with us. And it's sort of like for like. Or as close as you get to a player like Salem. I like Wags in the air as well, and lord knows there's gonna be a lot of high ball. Look at last week.

Who do you think... Yeah I see what you mean. There's plenty of good reasons he doesn't play this week. Like everyone else though, I have concerns about durability for... well... everyone. That kind of 110% effort... man. At what point do we drop off? If I'm Goody I'm relieved Smith is there and I'm watching him veeeery closely at training. And yeah you're absolutely right. Defensive forwards, right now, are flat out the difference. Since the second quarter of round one, our success has been defined by whether or not our defensive forward stuff has clicked.

Has anyone mentioned Smith? Wags would be rightly filthy if he didn't get picked... But pretty soon, you'd think Smith might wander back in the side given what he brings, and he will be fresher than a lot of the troops. Maybe Salem on a HF flank or wing delivering inside fifty to fix us up there? Anybody?

Not gonna be a popular thread. But if not demonland, then where?! This year? No. In the media all they're saying is we "can" win the flag. Which they're saying for about 11 sides. We're the flavour of the month. Haven't done anything else yet. I think we're entitled to the excitement. We've been waiting ten years to have genuine cause for optimism.

I think if I did it again and again it wouldn't come up like that. there's that many hard to pick games. I've done it maybe 10 times over the last few weeks and 12 is always the team in 8th. Let's be honest, we're all picking blues, lions, pies to lose literally every game, and that's really not likely to happen. You think we don't have percentage? I didn't do margins just because it's hard enough to pick wins. But ours is pretty good isn't it?