The Chazz

If both Jeffy and Hoges play, it will be hard to peel Jeffy away from Hoges' ankles. Could kick a handful this week if he's 100%, Jeffy. Midfield match-ups this week are going to be very interesting. Does Melksham go to Gibbs? Does Vince go to Murphy? Who plays on Cripps? Will they tag Oliver, and if they do, who will Gawn feed the ball to? Big week for our backline coming up.

Reports coming out that he is being investigated by police. Who knows how this will play out, but will hopefully clean up all levels of the game.

Rubbish. Houli and his cronies, in the first instance, attacked his case a lot differently and bloody near got away with it. As I said, if there's an opportunity to get the sentenced reduced, or in some cases thrown out, the legal eagles know how to do it. They didn't have a leg to stand on with Bugg. I can't help you if you don't understand or acknowledge that.

I wonder if the AFL will appeal the severity? (Clearly I'm joking)

I look forward to your next post when you will claim he suffers from tourettes, or a Neeld-like twitch. How about the fact that he was charged, by the MRP, with intentional striking. The fact that Bugg had a lawyer representing him, who would've used his professional judgement when supporting Bugg''s guilty plea. These lawyers are good. If they can see any remote possibility of a sentence reduction and/or the case being thrown out due to an incorrect charge, they feast off it with brilliance. The fact they didn't in this case clearly shows that the charge, and wording of it, was 100% accurate. To dumb it down, which is clearly what needs to happen here, Bugg pleaded guilty of intentionally striking the kid. That means your view that it wasn't intentional or deliberate is totally wrong. But keep believing that the MRP is corrupt, or that Bugg is following a company line, or whatever other fantasy yout dream up.

If "lashing out" wasn't intentional or deliberate, then what was it? I'm intrigued as to what else it could have been.

Wow.

Thanks, DC, will do. I'm sure making tongue-in-cheek racist remarks is a much more entertaining anyway.

This is the thing, Jaded. What Bugg did, if he did in the street, is also assault.

My apologies. Not really room for misinterpretation, but I was meaning incident as opposed to the actual him, as correctly explained by Little Goffy above. And yes, there is a different between the "hit" and the "incident", as I have explained many times previously. Maybe "situation" would've been a better choice of words than "incident"?

This is where your confusion is. Not once have I said the hit was worse. I'm talking about the incident. But continue to make things up if you wish, it's just that that's when I lose interest in speaking to you.

Straw clutching? It's my opinion, clearly you and many others disagree, I don't really care. But not once have I said I think king hits matter less in country footy. I actually called for a 12 month ban for what he did, and a 6-8 week ban for Bugg. Clearly that shows my thoughts on the 2 incidents in isolation.

IN SOME WAYS. FFS. I've stated previously that Fahour''s act was a bigger act of thuggery. Read the full conversation instead of cheering from the bleachers.

- 80m off the ball, when the ball was actually dead (compared to running 30m in to an all in brawl where there are other punches being thrown) - Unsuspecting victim due to the environment/professionalism that is or should be shown by AFL level players (compared to the other victim who was standing right in the middle of a country footy all in brawl, who had just been dragged off a different opponent. Anyone that has ever played footy where there has been an all in would know that if you are standing in the middle of it, you're going to be targeted from all angles, especially if you've been seen getting dragged off an opponent). - This incident being watched by 500k+ viewers, many of which are children, in a time slot that can generate extra revenue for the club (as opposed to amateur filming that someone would've sold to news outlets, which if it wasn't because of the Houli farce, this wouldn't have been brought to our attention, as proven by the fact "new" footage of previous games has been shown on Channel 7 tonight). I understand that many won't agree, I can live with that. But at this stage, I'm yet to see an argument that has made me change my mind.

Why's that Ethan?

I was the main (perhap's only) one that said this, so I will reply. Anyone that rates someone punching someone in the head, 80m away from the ball, with sufficient enough force to knock the bloke out, who would absolutely have been unsuspecting, if they rate that "better" than a bloke who runs 30m in to an all in brawl and punches a bloke that was also unsuspecting, then I would equally say that they need to check their own value system. Both are acts of thuggery, which I have previously said. What Fahour did, sadly, happens most weekends at various levels. We are only hearing about this case because of who did it. If it wasn't him, this would have no air play whatsoever, like the umpteen other incidents like it each weekend. What Bugg did belongs in low grade stuff. Actually, like Fahour''s, it doesn't belong there either. That's why I think, IN SOME WAYS, the Bugg incident is worse.

A "terrible post"? Interesting. As terrible as purposely leaving out parts of my words to make your argument sound stronger? And then to shoot down my comment about there not being a huge difference between the two incidents, then in the next breath you are actually showing there wasn't much difference; - Fahour ran 25m and "coward punched" a bloke who was up to his ears in the middle of a melee, vs - Bugg punching an unsuspecting Mills 80m off the ball, which hadn't actually been brought back in to play. Yeah, I'm sure when Mills "bumped and pushed" Bugg that he was expecting a punch on the jaw that would knock him out. FMD. Actually, thanks for confirming my point that Bugg's incident, IN SOME WAYS (<-- the bit you conveniently left out of my original statement), would be worse. There would be no AFL level player expecting to be punched in the manner that Bugg did to Mills. On the flip side, if you are in the middle of a local level all-in-brawl, and having just been in a physical altercation with one opponent yourself, you're an idiot if you weren't expecting someone to come at you. (Nb. this in NO WAY means that I am agreeing with Fahour's incident). Point 2 - I do believe I said that I thought he would be sacked. Thanks for agreeing. I'm happy to continue to discuss this with you, but if you're use the "terrible post" line because my opinion is different to yours, then don't bother replying. Cheers.

There are 2 issues here, one being the suspension from his league tribunal, the other about his employment status. In terms of suspension, I think this week, the AFL has a great opportunity to make a stand against this thing. Cheap shots, like that of Bugg's, 6-8 weeks at any level (Bugg will be out of pocket between $30k-$40k from loss of match fees). Thug acts, like that of Fahour's, 12 months. It has to be a blanket rule, so that all players at all levels understand the consequences. It won't take long to get this out of the game at any level. Realistically, they were both "thug acts", just different levels of thuggery. The employment aspect is a can of worms in my opinion. No-one, other than a % of Melbourne supporters, are calling for Bugg to be sacked. There's an expectation that 6-8 weeks is the appropriate punishment. It could be argued that AFL players do more in the community, and are bigger role models, than what Fahour does. There's not a huge different between what Bugg did to what Fahour did. In some ways, Bugg's incident was worse given a majority of 4-14 year olds would have never heard of Fahour, and that it was a televised game at the top level vs amateur footage at a local level. In terms of Fahour's employment, if 12 months suspension from playing impacts his ability to do his job, then yup, the AFL can terminate his employment. If he keeps his job, having to attend community activities where he can educate younger players about the consequences of bad onfield decisions, it may actually have a positive effect. FWIW, I do think the AFL will sack him, especially with the way the media have jumped on it.

If everyone that threw one of those punches at local level were sacked, Victorian unemployment rate would be around 20%, if not higher.

So, you are endorsing that, for the educated, it is fair game to "have a go at" those that are uneducated?

I wonder if JKH could be brought in to play a shutdown role on Mills. If not, I'd be sending ANB to him. Either way, shutting him down goes along way to us winning.

List wise, we need to be in a position to win 4 of the last 5 games. In that time, we need to be seeing all of our best 18 reaching top fitness. The likes of; * Gawn - continue to increase his game time, so that by Round 16/17, he's back to pre-injury minutes and impact * Hogan - if he returns this week or next, he too can use the next 2-3 weeks building his match fitness, so that by Round 17, he's also cheery ripe * Jones - he hasn't missed as much as the big guys, but a return in Round 17-ish, will see him reaching his peak in Round 19-ish * Salem - 4 weeks out now, will see him returning Round 19. His base fitness won't be as compromised as the above given the shorter lay-off, so him slotting in to the Round 19 team will see him quite close to full peak. * Watts & Gartlett - hopefully won't miss much footy at all (both are a chance to play this week). That said, I'd imagine Misson considering resting Jeffy this week for the reasons above. Watts' inclusion this week will definitely help us, but if Hogan gets up this week, I could potentially see Watts having this week off too. (Hard to comment specifically on Watts and Jeffy due to the unknown degree of their soreness). The above is half a dozen of our best team that, with the right management, could be hitting their straps for those last 5 games that I speak of (except for Salem who might be a week or two behind that). It's why I am continually stressing the importance of this week's game. We "pinch" this one, then back it up against Carlton the following week, we are in quite a situation to push for a top 4 spot. If we drop this Friday, it does put a bit more pressure on those last 5 games.

Another piece of useless information, which is right at home on this thread, is that there have only been 3 top 8 teams that have won after their bye. Us, GWS (who played Brisbane) and West Coast (they played Geelong, who were both in the top 8 at the time). With the bye leading in to the first final, this could work in our favour. It could also mean SFA (unless we play Geelong first up, who have an awful record after a bye).

We lose this week, the worst we can drop, regardless of other results, is 6th. It's likely we will stay 5th. It will mean we are on equal points as the 8th team, and only 1 game ahead of 9th-11th. I don't think the issue is about us winning 4 more games as a minimum. The problem is that we can't control how many games those 6 teams under us winning. Some of them, especially those currently outside the 8, have quite a soft draw (Bulldogs for example), or have great momentum (Sydney). I expect that we will win 4 of the games you mentioned, which may just get us in. I still think we will need to beat one of Sydney, Adelaide or Port to get us in the middle of the 8. We win all 5 of those games you mentioned, as well as one of Syd/Adel/Port, then we could sneak 4th or 5th. That's why I think this Friday is HUGE.