sue

But you don't desist. You keep saying the same thing - obviously a very deep thinker.

The grounds will be 'he doesn't play for Melbourne'. (Am I bitter and twisted? Yes.)

Unfortunately the original isn't saved in the Wayback machine (aka archive.org)

Just watched that. Good to see that unlike the Ch7 mob some in the media have half a brain (possibly because they DIDN'T play footy themselves). At one point Caro made a reference to some people having said Brayshaw should have been off for concussion review before he was hit by Maynard. What are they referring to? (In any case, surely that line of argument is the ugliest grasping at straws.)

Those turkeys are the ones needding suspension.

They'll find the grounds if need be. Just wheel in a lawyer to find some obscure legalistic point. They've done it before. But maybe, just maybe, this time the AFL will stomp on that for the good of the game. Surely sonmeone at AFL house can see through the [censored] coming from those commentators.

True, but all you need do is look at the final scoreline to see which team was most affected by misses.

Absolutely. The response of the old men in the commentariat is so disgusting. Tracc's comments also here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-10/afl-finals-angus-brayshaw-update-as-demons-prepare-for-blues/102837384

Someone posted "break glass in emergency" or something similar. Spot on. Grundy is the only fire hose left. We have to include him somehow.

I know we are not playing as well as we'd like and starting games too slowly (though that is hardly a manifistation of complacency as some have written). But heck, we almost beat the flag "favourites" despite that and a forward line consisting of last men standing, and the loss of one of our most important players for most of the match. We must be doing something right in all the things we are doing wrong. We are up against it, but some hope remains.

I’d be very embarrassed.

I'm amazed Binman that you found multiple GWS supporters. Oh I see you said people, sorry

I know you didn't really mean that it was Gus' fault. But you should stick to arguing Maynard's case, not saying if Gus had done this or that it wouldn't have happened. It's not as if Gus changed direction etc. As to Maynard's intentions - IMO his intention was to smother and run through Gus if the opportunity arose. Evidence is in the vision and in the fact that this does not happen regularly with front-on smothers. Maynard's history doesn't help either.

Sure, doubtless there would be one-eyed supporters on here that might react differently if a MFC player did what Maynard did. So what. It does not excuse Maynard's actions. He didn't just mistime it - if so they'd be a few such mistimed smothers each round. But there are not. Hence it is not so "rich" to infer devilish behaviour in this case. Not so devilish to automatically assume he meant to knock him out, but devilish enough.

If the Saints wanted to respect his privacy, all they need have said is 'he is not well and can't play'. Instead they said: "Membrey is currently receiving appropriate care and treatment due to a personal health matter," St Kilda said in a statement. "Tim's health and wellbeing is our primary concern and the club asks that Tim and the Membrey family's privacy is respected at this time." I don't think the fact that apparently the AFL had to give special permission changes that. If the AFL has a policy on when they are prepared to do that, it should be published and framed in a way that is so broad that it gives no extra fuel to speculation yet prevents club's from breaking the normal rules about selection.

So it's Gus' fault for daring to kick a ball with the wrong foot. FMD. Explain why players don't frequently get cleaned up like that in front-on spoil attempts. The answer is: because almost all the time their aim is to smother, not annihilate.

Hardly an overwhelming list. I'm not across those 2 cases, but I doubt you can say there was no impediment to us getting them other than the failure of our coach to want them?

Please list all the established forwards that were available to us in the last 2 years and consider why we didn't land them.

It's partly wearing thin because every time we find a forward they get injured. Frisch out for many games, Petty out just as he shows he's a forward after coming back from injury, Melksham just as he shows he still a forward to be reckoned with. And to top it off our two old blokes, Brown and Tmac, who maybe just had a bit more in them ended up injured for most of the year. And now JVR out. How much of this is Goodwin's fault? You need a lot of things to win a premiership. Luck is one of them.

But it is reasonable to argue penalities should be bigger in finals. The stakes are high in AFL finals especially where a team may meet the same team twice. For example, when it was clear we were going to lose to C'wood, but could meet them in the GF, why not get some second tier player (little Bill?) to knock the daylight out of the C'wood player we feared most in a GF?

Carlton doc's will say grogginess is a symptom of sore ribs

I'm totally staggered at the commenators (and others) - when was the last time anyone saw a smother that turned into a shirt front? If the AFL accepts this or let's it off on some mumbo jumbo legal technicality then I can only assume that those who run the AFL assume they will be well and ruly retired before the lawsuits destroy Australian footy.

Simple. His actions should make it clear his aim was solely to smother the ball, not take out his opponent.

FMD. I've seen plenty of attempted spoils that miss the footy by a couple of cms. But not seen what happened next. (Again, leaving aside the concussion, just the action.)

This rubbish about it being simply an attempted spoil with an unfortunate accidental outcome. I have never seen a spoil with that outcome before. I don't mean the concussion, I mean the front on contact with the player.