hardtack

Based on Brad Miller's review of Dom Barry's game on Garlett on the weekend, I would love to see him given another chance to impress at the top level... Dom Barry: Dom had 19 disposals, two tackles, zero missed tackles and zero fumbles. He had the job on Jeff Garlett and played all over the ground, starting on the half-back line. Dom also played a little bit on the wing, inside mid and back-pocket, as the Blues moved Garlett around to try and get an advantage. Playing on a known AFL player, we were really pleased with Dom’s effort, and his ability to limit Garlett’s influence on the game. The only time Garlett looked dangerous was when Dom had minor concentration errors around traffic and stoppages. One resulted in a shot on goal, but for the majority of the day, Dom beat Garlett in any position they played. A great aspect of Dom’s game this week, as well as playing on and beating a good player, was his ability to win his share of the ball, which has been the area lacking in previous weeks. He had it 20-odd times and rarely makes an error by foot. He was also really clean at ground level and gave the ball to a teammate in a better position. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-08-05/vfl-player-review-round-17

That is it in a nutshell. It is NOT a conspiracy against the MFC, it was NOT an act of thuggery by Merrett, it is NOT a corrupt MRP... it is simply an inept MRP who apparently do not keep track of past decisions and hence have no standards in place.

That was never my argument. My argument was about those who are claiming it was intentional and about the fact that there are many here who seem to believe there is a massive conspiracy against the club. I don't believe that I mentioned anywhere that he should have gotten off scott free.

I have watched the video numerous times. He came across Pedersen wth both arms stretched out in an attempt to get at the ball and it is his elbow that connects...there was no intent to strike him in the head... that was just a consequence of how they were both travellng.

I'm not particularly concerned over what people think of my argument. I base it purely on the speed at which both players were travelling when the collision occurred, and despite what others might think, I still stand by my belief that neither could have avoided the contact. Regardless... whatever any of us think, we have no influence.

The only problem with that photo is that it doesn't show the speed at which both players were closing in on the ball. I honestly could not see Merrett pulling up (or out of) that contest at all. Just an unfortunate incident.

Agree... Conca's hit to my mind was far worse than Vickery's and potentially more dangerous. He should have been given the rest of the season on the sidelines at least.

Fair enough Chook, but the way people are reacting on here, you could be forgiven for thinking that Merret had gone at Pedersens head with his elbow cocked and no other intent than to take his man out, which is complete and utter BS. And that's not to mention the fact that many on here seem to be labouring under the illusion that there's a major conspiracy against the MFC.

This will no doubt bring howls of outrage, but at the time it happened and in numerous replays, I saw no malice or intent in that incident... it was simply two blokes going at full tilt from different directions with eyes on the ball. Merret's arm was straight (not bent at the elbow) and it appeared he was trying to intercept the ball. In simple terms, it was a footballing incident.

Kevin Bacon? Wouldn't that be 6 degrees of speck-ulation?

I wish he played for us.

Why bother with any award?... it's simply recognition for what the winner has achieved or excelled at in their particular field. Can't say it means a lot to me, but I'm happy to see him recognised for his efforts.

Exactly... in fact, go to the Australian of the Year website and you will see precisely why he was given the gong.

It is an award, not a job... from the Wiki page on the award: "Nothing comes with this office except an inscribed chunk of green glass. There's no title; no stipend; no uniform; no official residence; nothing to pin in the lapel; and only the haziest of duties. What the winners are given is a voice." Sure it might be nice if he were to comment on the shooting down of MH17, but it is NOT his responsibility to do so.

Ask you a couple of questions and you think I'm stalking you? If you don't want people questioning you, don't post... simple. Anyway, why was Goodes nominated and made Australian of the year? Do you think it may have had something to do with his stance on racism? As a result, don't you think he may have a "mandate" to represent his people? And what exactly has he been "banging on about"? I can't say I've noticed him much in the news.

What exactly is he supposed to do in the role he has been given?

Loved that "mini opera"

I would only be happy for Frawley to move on if we were definitely going to get Malceski (sp?) on-board.

I suppose we all see what we want to see... I saw him as a trier and you didn't. This is a thread acknowledging his retirement and time at the club... it is hardly the type of thread that should be used as a platform for criticising the guy... there have been plenty of those in the past.

And that's his fault is it? He was one of the most maligned players on our list who gave it a real crack everytime he took the field. It is hardly his fault that he was firstly recruited and secondly given games. I have nothing but respect for the guy and wish him well in whatever he does next.

It's funny (maybe), but I still remember one of the questions in my Social Studies matriculation exam in 1969 was something along the lines of "Do we really need the Senate anymore, or is it a thing of the past?". The more things change, the more it would seem, that things stay the same ;-)

Great movie.

Hey, don't lose your head over it. ;-)

If the source is not accurate then this is pure speculation... and as it is very apparent who is being discussed, then your post could be considered defamatory and probably should not be here.

Says it all really... sweeping generalisations are the refuge of those who have no reasonable arguments to back themselves up.