Jump to content

Discussion on recent allegations about the use of illicit drugs in football is forbidden


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


sue last won the day on September 9 2018

sue had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

11,458 profile views

sue's Achievements


Trident (5/10)



  1. The AFL will weigh up the pros and cons of these 5 day breaks (3 games in 11 days!!). The AFL will balance the public's loss of interest in one-sided matches and the commercial loss that that causes against whatever commerical advantage the short breaks bring (Thurs night/Gather/whatever). And then make a decision whether to continue it. What they won't do is consider making a fair competition.
  2. Could he do this to prove to the world that he is not biased in favour of his old club and is therefore the perfect commentator. No, can't be that stupid.
  3. Looks like it is self-perpetuating. If they let you off in the past, then that is an argument for letting you off in future. It's blindingly obvious that the MRO is corrupt. But what can you expect when we have an entertainment corporate business rather than a sporting body.
  4. There's no hope with the AFL and intent. For years we had deliberate out of bounds (ie intent) which although difficult to know a players real intent, was usually interpreted by the umpires reasonably, taking into account pressue and the possibility of skills errors. But now we have insufficient intent frees given when a player under pressure in a pack kicks it off the side of their boot and it goes out 50m away after bouncing at right angles.
  5. Sorry corrected typo. Wce Now up by 14
  6. Doesn’t seem so -wce leads by 10 points
  7. It seems you are more likely to get off if you knock them dead than if you brush against an opponent's head.
  8. I agree with all of that Binman except the sentence: I don't think that was his sole aim.
  9. Typical of the AFL. The goal umpires 'frustrated' by being mocked for the tsunami of reviews, had to lean on the AFL to admit it was an AFL policy. Why couldn't they announce that upfront. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/goal-umpires-following-afl-directive-in-requesting-more-score-reviews-20240409-p5fihb.html
  10. Leaving aside the silly way they have tied it to “medium" rather than just stating it gets an immediate minum 1 week ban, what I wonder qualifies as not " usually" in the sentence above? Since the club has challenged, maybe they know.
  11. A number of people have said this is the AFL's policy. But seriously, how can they come up with such a patent absurdity. If you want to make a rule that in circumstances A, B or C, an impact with the head is punishable with X, do so and I'd support it. But don't torture the English language by calling clearly a low impact, medium.
  12. OK, as one having said in a recent post that he never intended to smother, I retract that. That may be his original intention but once he'd gone past the ball he lined Gus up. He did not brace for the collision to protect himself as there were other ways to do that - he has arms for example. He decided to clobber Gus instead. And it's not just one-eyed Demons supporters who saw it that way. A lot of supporters from each team that has played C'wood this year have booed him.
  13. First, MFC said nothing at the time as far as I can recall, so we're not in danger of appearing hypocritic in front of that bastion of integrity the MRO. Second, I don't think we need make the same arguments about 'football act' etc that C'wood did. Obviously we can compare to Fogarty and say impact was much lower. Our only difficulty will be the contorted definition of impact the AFL has conjured up. But worth a go in my view. They only made clowns of themselves in the eyes of MFC supporters. No one in the media gave a stuff which is what counts (even though some supporters of other teams did as evidenced by the booing Maynard gets).
  • Create New...