monoccular
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Currently
Viewing Topic: Wade Derksen
Everything posted by monoccular
-
GAMEDAY: Rd 22 vs Adelaide
Needs to pull his finger out - would be the logical out for TMc . Already behind VDB medical sub in DT points -3.
-
GAMEDAY: Rd 22 vs Adelaide
Jackson is such a smart footballer - that kick to BBB was so imaginative.
-
GAMEDAY: Rd 22 vs Adelaide
BBB - score review. What was the call? Cant see evidence of touch. P1ssweak technology AFL. Just do something about it Gil you prancing polo pony
-
GAMEDAY: Rd 22 vs Adelaide
2 posters
-
GAMEDAY: Rd 22 vs Adelaide
Dropping the ball in that Brown tackle
-
GAMEDAY: Rd 22 vs Adelaide
Couple of good things Smith. Looking as flat as last time
-
GAMEDAY: Rd 22 vs Adelaide
Deja vu all over again.
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
If one really thinks more about it in an evolutionary way, maggots metamorphosise into blowflies, which have compound eyes, so possibly not quite so far fetched as first appears. On the Hawkins issue, I can’t remember which case but the MRO and or tribunals have very clearly said, if you pin the arms and the head hits the ground you are guilty. I guess they will do a Donut Dan on this one - “don’t remember”
-
AFL TRADE NEWS AND RUMOURS
Inside or outside?
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
The MRO is not a lottery, which is an exercise in random numbers. The MRO has very predictable numbers and were it sold as a lottery would quickly go broke.
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
He may love the outcome but only if he is told to. So predictable that a Geelong star will be freed. Dangerfield was, as has a recently used term, a footy action, whereas Hawkins was undue force. Certainly far far worse than Viney.
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Some like it, some love it, but I cannot see the sense as it so much (more even than usual) depends on umpires interpretation and diligence, and the penalty can be absurd. Hate to say it but looks innocent (that said, ANB would get 3-4) Any footage of the Hawkins one?
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Both will get off under the “Innocent Cat veteran” rule.
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Don’t we all know that?
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Hasn’t been told yet whether to look at it or not.
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
I don’t recall that there are degrees of tenuousness. Most importantly, did ch 7 make a judgement? If not Christian won’t even look at it.
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Trealor seems to have learned the art of the Bulldog throw.
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Only watched Q4 - is it too much a mixed metaphor to say frost seems on fire?
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Maybe the cheque bounced?
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Haven’t watched. Is he giving Frosty a rest?
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
FFS. Sick of this. win the next 5 games = flag. Stuff the others.
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Tends to happen when one finishes top 4. (Fortunately for us given our record v 14-17th).
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Some raw stats are just so misleading
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
But it is counterintuitive nonetheless Geriatric Geelong will find it harder than most - maybe Scott 😮will use it to try to “justify” a home final at KP. As I said after they beat us, when we were off the boil, they have been gifted an enormous talent base, and continue to do so through one sided selective academy zoning.
-
NON MFC: Rd 22 2021
Regardless of outcome and who gets it - this statue on the mark rule is just so absolutely counterintuitive. I know some like it but a 50 penalty for running backwards or a step sideways is just such an overkill.