binman
Life Member
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by binman
-
-
-
-
-
-
Before he came to the dees, i always thought he was super over rated. Don't get me wrong he's solid ruck, got tap work and he is a fit bugger. But he is dead slow and short for a ruck. Now that he has left, normal transmission can resume He's plodder. The idea that this an even battle is ridiculous. Max will school him.
-
-
-
-
-
A terrific band. Funny you should mention the bass player, one of things i loved about them was their rumbling, swampy bass lines. The vid i posted, Passenger Blues, is a great example. Listening to it now on Spotify - they have 74 monthly listens , so plenty of scope for rediscovery! The Deadly Hume was also a great name for an indy band in the 80s given the indy rock circuit basically consisted of Melbourne and Sydney bands driving up and down the Hume in dodgy vans and old station wagons. And a tragically prescient name too. One of my all time favorite bands, and one that i really think was destined for greatness and huge popularity, particularly with the Nirvana lead grunge explosion on the horizon, was Eastern Dark (which i have little doubt you know well hardtack). Around for little more than year, they crashed their van on the Hume on the way down to play gigs in Melbourne (one of which i was going to, and a mate's band was supporting). Tragically their lead singer, James Darroch (ex Celibate Rifles - such a great, funny name for a post punk rock band) died, and the other two band members were seriously hurt. They had not long finished recording an EP, produced by Rob Younger of Radio Birdman fame (a brilliant producer) called Long Live the New Flesh. Realized posthumously, it is 16 minutes of simply fantastic power Ramones inspired power pop. Great, clean sound and mix too. One of the great Australian records. Best of health HT - positive vibes coming your way.
-
He had the right to brace for contact? Yep, that's exactly what he argued. A ridiculous argument. Because, one he initiated contact. Two, since when is bracing for contact defined as turning your body and bumping an opponent with your shoulder to their head? In fact to brace for contact in a situation where you are falling is defined in the Collins dictionary as: 'If you brace yourself against something or brace part of your body against it, you press against something in order to steady your body or to avoid falling' A definition difficult to apply to Maynard's decision to bump. And easy to apply to the logical way of bracing for contact when falling towards someone - putting both hands out to brace the fall. Why did the AFL not challenge Maynard's defence he was bracing for contact by choosing to bump rather than the way 95 people out of 100 would do in such circumstances if the aim was to protect himself? Again, try this experiment. Stand and fall face first to the ground. What is your INSTINCTIVE reaction to brace for the inevitable contact with the ground and protect yourself from harm? I'm not sure about you, but for the vast majority of people it ain't turning your body and smashing your shoulder into the ground. And (getting into the territory of whether this was in fact an unavoidable incidental football act, as opposed to the reckless act it so clearly was - as evidenced by the sickening impact) Gus was not really the 'ball carrier' as such. It's interesting you raise the viney example. IIRC he braced for contact, by turning his shoulder, when a player with the ball ran at him. He did so to protect himself from a danger HE DIDN'T INITIATE. And further, he wasn't moving towards his opponent, his opponent was moving - at speed- towards him In such circumstances, his decision to get into a ball to protect himself was completely reasonable. And unlike Maynard's decision to bump to brace for contact, is EXACTLY what most people would do to protect themselves in such circumstances. Unlike Viney, Maynard initiated contact. And critically, very much unlike the Viney incident, the ball had left the area. Remember, his argument was he merely attempting to smother. Well he got nowhere near doing so. The ball was 20 metres away by the time of contact. And finally, why did the AFL not drill down on the defence it was a football act? The obvious rebuttal to that spurious defence was that, sure a smother is a football act, but was that really a smother as it is generally understood? Running full tilt at someone who is running at you, jumping 10 foot in the air and completely missing the ball? That's a smother? A smother is generally understood to mean diving at the foot of the kicking player, hoping to literally smother the ball as it leaves the boot. So the person smothering has to be pretty damned close to the kicker - not 30 metres away. Besides, if it really was a 'football act' why is that first time (as far as I'm aware of) that a scenario like that has ever happened, where a player knocks out an opponent when attempting to smother?
-
-
And don't forget another ex pie didn't even consider it worthy of being looked at!
No, it's not that. It's just that he plays a critical role as a defender. Riv's run and carry from the back half is key to our transition game. And there is no obvious replacement, certainly not one with his skill set and/or could play the role to his level. By contrast we have langdon, Windsor, Hunter, Billings, nibbla, Laurie, howes and spargs who could all conceivably play on the wing.
But he DID bump. That's the point. That was never in question Choose to bump. Pay the price - that's the rule whether it occurs during a careless or incidental contact or not. Or a 'football act'. They didn't debate he bumped Gus. They argued he was merely protecting himself whilst engaged in a football act. A reasonable choice to make in the circumstances A shepperd is unarguably a football act. But CHOOSE to bump and you knock.a player out you are gone. Just as Maynard should have copped weeks when he CHOSE to bump rather than, say, just putting both hands out to Gus's chest to minimise the potential for harm for BOTH of them. If in that latter scenario he accidentally hit Gus in the head and knocked him out, yes that would not be reportable. BUT HE DIDN'T - HE CHOSE TO BUMP. Maynard owed Gus a duty of care once he chose to bump - and did not meet that duty of care when he hit him flush to the head.
Surely Laurie gets the gig. But spargo plays the same role as Laurie (high half forward) and chin plays closer to goal, so it feels as if we would be a small forward short if Chandler doesn't start. Perhaps the short, narrow SCG makes that less an issue than it would be at the g with all that space inside 50.
This is a big slider:
Amazing what a practice match win does for the vibe! Those numbers might change of we lose tomorrow night. (by the way I'm not particularly superstitious, and it's plain crazy to think me writing the above might have an impact on the result tomorrow night - but out of an abundance of caution, footy gods please note i was JOKING!)
