binman

Ridiculous. The tigers still had a chance of making the finals. 30 mins ago.

Takes a lot out of teams trying to go with the dees. And in the tigers case tonight, a five day break compounds that (short breaks really do have a massive impact - which makes our early season form even more impressive given how many we had of them)

Doesn't change the fact freo paid way overs, particularly given it might end up result in Darcy leaving, but not in their worst nightmares would have they expected to be giving up early first and second rounders.

Yeah, nah

He was completely gassed in the last quarter. Maybe they know he couldn't back up and would be a liability in terms of not being able to cover ground. With the way the tigers are playing- up and down the ground, fast transition and ball in motion they can't afford to plonk dusty in the goal square and be down a runner. Same goes for cotchin

Digesting now.......

Yes, well, I'm talking through my hip pocket on bonus bets!

No to banning bonus bets. A big element of my selection and staking strategy when betting on the ponies ($50 back for 2-3rd, goes into the bank, and essentially is the same as cash, and makes the win bet much, much better value, and is basicallyan each way bet- its amazing how many places you can rack up). Yes to legalising ganja and psychedelics.

Of course the Roos fans i was quoting didn't know that - being a dees fan, i did of course

That (thoroughbred) horse (stabled at my Red Hill winery weekender) has well and truly bolted.

I'm a punter. I have been since i was 15. I love it - particularly the ponies. I enjoy betting on footy, and not really because of the money, more the challenge of applying my analysis of how games might play out and hopefully getting it right. And i do better on footy that the ponies (there's way less variables, and almost all my footy bets are even money line bets). And so i have no problems with bookies - how could i? But if i had a magic wand, i'd ban (or super limited) sports betting advertising in a heart beat - particularly during or adjacent (eg footy shows') to any sporting event. Even though i'm a potential client, those ads aren't targeted at me - as you suggest their target audience is kids, hence the silliness, and teenage boys/young men (hence their blokey, get around them vibe). Win them over and you have life long client. But i don't blame the bookies - they are profit making enterprises. Of course they are going to look to grow their client base. I blame government, as it is responsible for setting the framework for how and when any product that has risks associated with it can be advertised. Slapping a gamble responsibly warning at the end of an ad is laughable. By the by, i also believe alcohol advertising should be banned.

'They could care less about how to contain larkey, they're too busy arguing about Japanese whiskey v Scottish whiskey, and whether the 2003 range rover could be considered a classic'

On the roos equivalent of dl, there's probably a very meta thread about the what they are saying arden st thread on dl that has devolved into a thread about high end whiskey, which as they rightly suggest could only happen on mfc related forum.

Alright. Let's compromise. A draw for the lions. And Port get smashed by the cats and the 75% of the footy media air time is absorbed with questions like how much impact did the Allir stuff have, are port unravelling, will Kenny now nor get resigned, etc etc.

Yes, well, the million dollar question. West Coast are not going to want say, and without being too disrespectful to him,a player at Dunstan's level. They need a player like jj, who is close to best 22 in our team, is young and would walk straight into their midfield. And probably gets a bigger and longer contact than we can give him But that's where my lack of knowledge about drafting and trading comes in. Maybe pick 4, 15 and jj is too much?

Because he looks so good? I'm clueless about all the draft and trading machinations, but one advantage we might have is the suggestion he has told the Eagles he will do a Horne Francis if they draft him (which apparently his manager has flatly denied) The Eagles have pick one and of course will want him. But if they are worried he might bail after two seasons, then perhaps they might figure a couple of first rounders, say pick 4 and 15, and a decent player might be of more value to them - particularly because they will be in a rebuild phase and they need to be bring in multiple quality players (which is where we landed when we decided to go with Hunt and Salo rather Josh Kelly)

Just heard that Farrell and Dixon are both out from their selected side. Four of their best 22 out from last week will make it hard for Port.

I'm torn on that front, in the sense that i'm of the view that wherever possible any penalties should be clear prior to the infraction, not post the event. Sometimes that may not be possible if the infraction is totally random or impossible to predict it might occur. Can't really think of an example, but this is 100% not one of them. Players being allowed to come back on after being concussed because the club doc okays it has been a risk that has been discussed ad infinitum ever since the concussion protocols came in. That is at the heart of the discussion about taking it out of the club's hands and have an AFL doc make the call. So there should have been clear schedule of penalties in place PRIOR to the Allir incident. That way they have the investigation and apply the appropriate penalty - just as is the case with the MRO. And in my opinion the ONLY penalty that will have any deterrent effect is loss of premiership points. Using the Alir example that might have been worth a loss of 4 points, with 4 points suspended to add to any future infractions (for say 5 years). Does anyone seriously believe if such a penalty was in place that Port wouldn't have 100% made sure a SCATT test was done? I'm not shocked that the AFL hasn't come out and said NOW, going forward any such infraction will cost premiership points. Why? because their governance of the game is all over the shop. A question for the AFL. What happens if a very similar scenario happens this weekend? Let's say a team on the bubble of making the finals doesn't do a test on a player that gets a glancing head knock, that player comes back on and later it become clear that player had been concussed. Is the penalty 100k (with half in the soft cap) because that is what Port copped? Would any other penalty be fair? Given making finals might mean at least 100k in additional revenue, is a 100k fine actually a deterrent in that scenario?

Blimey. I thought he was a forward? Looks like the bont with his skills in the middle.

Nah, we will win our last four and pass lions the lions on percentage - even if they beat Freo and happen to beat the pies at Marvel (which i think they may well do). What we need is a high scoring bruising, niggly encounter that the lions win by a point. Though i'd take a draw. And i wouldn't mind Zorko getting weeks for hitting however tags Neale out of the game and/or gets into his face all game about being a loud mouthed, whining thug. The Freo Lions game is late Sunday arvo in Perth, which means a late flight out of Perth for the the lions and players back in their own beds at 3am on the Monday. The Lions play the crows at the gabba on the following Saturday, so a six day break. They are favs for that game, but the Crows, who have a 7 day break, won't be easy to beat.

Personally, i'm not a big fan of copping them!

And where will 50k be cut? Not in an area they think had a direct bearing on winning and losing. At footy clubs it will be in areas like player welfare. Or comms. So the players and fans wear The brunt of the fine. Typical

Trump logic is not to stick with anyone.

So did I.

I think mick mcguane misunderstood the loading memo