hardtack

Well, I liked this... funniest thing I've seen on this site in a long time.

Or, if you really want to be pedantic, as it is a single word, it should probably be neither "Ht" nor "ht", but "h" And HT, I actually find AFL360 to be a little too opinionated to be a good source of analysis - not to mention that fact that I find Robbo a little unsettling, as I continually find myself waiting for him to start weeping as he becomes all reflective about what a great game AFL is etc etc.

I hope that "H" isn't a reference to me... last time I looked, McClure's not on AFL Teams either

They are in a position where they take a much broader view and do not have the blinkers on that many of us do - I do not dismiss their comments summarily simply because they are "Fox commentators" - I'm not saying you do this, but I find it funny that often people in these forums (Demonland and Demonology) will respect their views when they are positive or supportive of the MFC, yet as soon as they make a criticism, they are suddenly all idiots who have no clue. In this particular instance, what drew my attention to their comment was the fact that they were all in agreement, which is a very rare thing.

Put this is the wrong thread earlier: "Look Out!! There's Danger-afield!"

Sorry, I should have been more specific and repeated my earlier comment on the first page... it was the entire panel of the AFL Teams show on Foxtel.

Banner could read: "Look Out!! There's Danger-a-field!"

Yep... eyesight plus the fact that bate seems to be the whipping boy, so my perception monitor was out of whack (I took it to be a reference to Bate's worth as a tackler) - my apologies :-)

Perhaps then you can explain for me why the media pundits unanimously expressed surprise it his omission, stating he was one of the main reasons we had so many entries into the forward line. And please don't use the old "what would they know?" chestnut.

It's funny hearing all of the anti-Bate sentiment here, particularly as the panel on Fox's AFL Teams show were unanimous in their disbelief that he could be dropped as he was responsible in a large part for our successful forward thrusts and pressure. Obviously they are seeing something that no-one here seems to be seeing, but it is interesting none-the-less. And as for all of this putting of the boot into Bennell... I still think he offers a lot to this team... I really do not understand why so many have it in for him.

Is that $20 on top of the usual members free admission, or on top of a paid reserved ticket?

No, as stated elsewhere, he already received the maximum for the charge.

I'm another who is going to his first QB bash! Booked my flight from Sydney and hotel in the city two days ago... can't wait! Last saw them in Shanghai, but it's been a few seasons since I have had the chance to see them play here in Sydney.

Maybe if he overrides the decision as a nod towards the media and general football public response, he will go down in history as "Vlad the Impala - man of good grace".

The way things work when we play, all of that has us winning by a clear margin.

Just love a good conspiracy theory... shame this is a less than ordinary one.

I would think this will secure a spot in the side for Juice and Gawn may get a run (even as a sub possibly?)

Just announced on On the Couch :-(

Well, let's hope you are right AllenIsLord13... but I still get the feeling he is gone regardless. One thing though, I think this querying of the medical report simply because it was a club doctor's report doesn't hold much water. These people are qualified practitioners and stand to lose a lot if they are found to be "tampering" - if a doctor's report based on a player's condition at that time cannot be trusted, then what other options are available?

You get no argument from me on that point... but let's face it, since when has the MRP ever been consistent in it's application of "justice"? I would make the same argument about intent... if a player goes in with a swinging arm intentionally and misses, then I believe that player should get the same penalty they would have received if they had connected - if you are going to eradicate certain "behaviour", then intent and actual contact should be regarded equally (but that is a whole different kettle of fish).

The tackled player is not moving and a tackle could equally well have been made without slinging the player to the ground in that manner; when head injuries and concussion are very prominent issues at the moment, do you seriously believe the MRP is going to overlook that?

I'm not saying it warrants 2 or 3 weeks, but that was a dangerous tackle in anyone's language... and to say that Dangerfield had an arm free to save himself with is an absolute joke; get someone to tackle you at that speed and with the same ferocity and see how you go protecting yourself. Most of the people making all of the noise here would probably be making even more noise if instead of Dangerfield it had been one of our players who was tackled and the tackler got off scott free. I would be very surprised if the club appeals as I'm sure they will realise it is better to lose him for 2 rather than 3 weeks - no point in making a "statement" when it is essentially a lost cause.

Rogue... that was how I read it... ok? My sincerest apologies

No, the poster was stating what is generally considered to be a minimum expectation based around performance improvement; that is not necessarily his opinion. However, he was stating that that did not necessarily translate to not making the finals equating to a fail. As for Roos and malthouse being uncontracted next year... Roos has quite publicly stated he is not interested in coaching and Malthouse, to the best of my knowledge, has said nothing.

I agree. There is far too much "black and white" vision in this place with regards to this issue. Bailey, like most of the playing group, is relatively new to this level, so he is still proving his ability and like the players, will experience ups and downs. Now that the players have had a taste of the kind of commitment and effort it takes to inflict a sound thrashing on a team that many were touting as finalists earlier this year, we WILL win a minimum of 10 games (I think 12) and the odds are that we will play finals footy this year. Judging by the comments coming from both players and admin, Bailey has great support (although I know the same people calling for his head here will claim that is just a public facade), so I see things starting to move ahead. There is no way I would want Roos or Malthouse as coach as I can only see that unsettling our development rather than hastening it. But hey, that's just my opinion and I have about as much of a clue as those who want Bailey gone. One last thing though... where has it categorically been stated that Roos or Malthouse will be available or that they are even the slightest bit interested? Heresay, rumour and wishful thinking are one thing, but facts are something completely different - so, what are the facts?.