John Crow Batty

It's all been ducking dodging, weaving and face saving stuff from Tom, his management and the club. I firmly believe the rumours are true. He has made some sort of binding agreement with GWS or others perhaps not directly but through proxies and even if he changed his mind he's likely got no "Outs". This is something that the final answer is going to be black or white and I'm not going to sit on the fence just in case I might be wrong.

After following the Dee's for 47 years it becomes clearer all the time that the Swooper years have been an aberration. Sadly we defaulted back to type in his final couple of years.

Fully agree with your sentiments.

And sack all the angry fans. They are all ingrates who lust for power.

What happened? I'm afraid to say not much since they were around. And poor Flower. Wilted on the vine he did.

I'm sure he is putting a 100% effort towards his rehabilitation. Will take time but by October I have no doubts he will be a fighting 100% fit.

To move a player from a winning dominant position to fill a relief role would have to rank as an incredibly stupid tactical blunder. Dunn relieved for Jamar against the Crows and did OK for a reliever. I didn't notice them gaining any traction from it. We lost the best advantage we had at that stage of the game and got absolutely zero value with Newton in the ruck.

Why should the culture change when overrated players have been paid big bucks for doing not much for over a decade. Theres been a passing parade of them like White, Yze, Robertson, Neitz, Bruce, Johnstone, etc and now Davey, Rivers and Green. The tradition continues.

I agree, you rarely see the likes of Barry Hall or other power forwards who are monstering the opposition defence moved into the ruck just because their side was 5 goals up. I thought Newton played it like the brute he should be until he got moved. Then he became his usual dithering self for the reminder of the game. Should have saved his energy for leads and busting packs. Dunn should have filled in for Martin quite adequately.

This variation is more applicable for us. "When the going gets tough, its tough luck for us"

Has anyone considered that the type of shyte thats been dished out to the likes of Watts is perhaps linked to why Tom Scully is leaving?

Homework for this sick week. Re-read the Scully statement below a 100 times. When you are finished tell us how many "ins" and how many "outs" there are to find. http://www.velocitysports.com.au/default.asp?PageID=1585

The best altitude training is sitting on top of the ladder. The other has merits but for the off season only.

I hope we can channel all the anger into a thorough smashing of North and take the 4 points for the Jacks and Mark.

I still reckon we just pelt the ground with marshmallows.

IMO this Trengove controversy highlights a major problem the AFL have created for themselves. They for the sake of promoting non stop entertainment have created a monster which could have serious consequences for the game in the future.The rule changes to make the game faster, more intense and thus more entertaining have created ever increasing dangerous situation for the welfare of the players. It is understandable that they are concerned about serious head injuries and what happened to Daniel Bell is an example. But now we have a ludicrous situation where an accident caused by a robust tackle is a major reason to punish and besmirch a player for doing what he was told to do and done within the rules with absolutely no malice just because someone got hurt. It appears that now mandatory robust tackling is OK so long as someone does not get hurt in the head to their way of thinking. Any other broken and shattered body parts sustained in tackles appear to be OK even if they do destroy careers. One could perhaps count dozens of similar tackles over the past weekend and all of them deemed as fair because no one else hit their head on the ground. And now it also appears the AFL are more tolerant of unsportsmanlike behaviours by weight of punishment that would have serious criminal consequences if they happened outside the playing field. Their way of dealing with head injuries caused by tackles is to bury their heads in the sand and take the easy option in punishing the player who played within the rules just because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If a Trengove like tackle is deemed to be dangerous then the umpires should police it with a free kick every time. Not let it ride and then take action only when someone gets hurt. If they don't address these issues pronto it wont be long before body padding and helmets will become the only viable alternative.

I would be more comfortable defining excessive force as applying force to deliberately try to injure. Also I hope the club scrutinises to what happened prior to see if Dangerfield had copped other knocks to the head earlier in the game. If he did there is a possibility of a cumulative effect in causing his concussion.

I hate all this quiet and waiting. I hope to hell its not going to be more than 4 weeks.

I hope the club takes the attitude this is not over. I can't remember who but someone posted that Dangerfield was off the ground prior to this incident for being shook up by a possible crunching encounter. Can anyone elaborate?

That wasn't the case a few weeks ago.

When did she say this?

Lets see what we got for a ticker. No need to worry about jocks creeping up our backsides anymore. Jack and Jamar will be back soon. Bring on North.

Everyone bring along a bag of pink and white marshmallows and throw them on the field.

Arm the players with marshmallows and white feathers.

Appeal and get some proper legal brains to represent us. The club should fight this out till Jack is cleared or to the bitter end.