nutbean

Mən google çox etibarlı tərcümə tapmaq (azerbaijani)

On Tyson - he is polarising that is for sure. He absolutely has his limitations and weaknesses. He is absolutely overrated by some. But by the same token, he is absolutely underrated by others. I did go back over the three word analysis for the year and most positive comment about Tyson is "prolific but wasteful". There is a particular bias against Tyson but hey - it's a forum and everyone's got an opinion.

I have often been labelling the perfect dud.

I think it shows how truly bizarre and "sensational" politics overseas has become when almost 2 months has passed since anyone has commented on our domestic scene.

This is just too funny...

I had fish for dinner last night. Does that mean I don't like meat ? What is true is that if you look at areas where we do need more talent or competition for positions, it is key defensive posts and an extra ruckman

You bend the rules as far as they will bent. All the stuff you mentioned is free kick material that umpires should pick up. I have no problem with us playing on the edge. Push-shove-push-shove-punch - there is only once of these incidents that will get you weeks and that is punch. Provocation is one thing - punching is another. Bernie when he was tagging bent the rules - lately he has gone too far over the line and has got rubbed out. I don't mind a few frees being given away for bending the rules but you don't punch in the head as that will get suspended - it is that simple.

I don't like players letting out their love or dislike for a coach. He is the coach period. I would suggest that a forward would enjoy the more attacking focus of Goodwin than defense first mentality of Roos. I understand why we needed such a focus on defense as we were bleeding goals prior to Roos but it does appear that Goodwin does allow a little more free flowing footy.

2 - he dropped 2. ( but there were 8 other marks he did take). I have no problem with him being left out of the votes purely based on there being better players on the day but he was very influential in the last quarter when the game had to be won. I thought Hogan provided a contest all day but he also dropped a lot of marks that he got clean hands to.

I'll buy in on the "humor". Trump is the most bizarre person ever to hold the high office of POTUS. He is a walking comedy routine. You can debate what Obama did and didn't do in office, you can debate the criminality of the Clintons but there is no doubting that Trump is comedy gold.

Again - only going of a quote on here ( which is third hand reporting ) - "words were not minced". Interpreting what was said on FC the language in the report was not ambiguous and inferred. ( big disclaimer - without seeing the reports we will never know).

I will repeat also - hit a bloke in the head and you suffer the consequences. The industry is such high stakes you just need the appearance of complete impartiality. Whilst obviously there is a huge amount of fact behind medicine, at the end of the day a lot is about opinion and probabilities. There are countless episodes of footballers being cleared to play ( in retrospect) too early. Greg Inglas played out a whole game limping with a bad knee and now is out for the year needing a reco. Did playing for the rest of the game make it worse ? Who knows. Medicine is not black and white- The MRP are going off reports that are reporting opinion - Little doubt there is concussion and a fractured jaw but you can write that up countless different ways. Dolores Umbrage rocks.....

You can take all the umbrage you like - ( obviously you didn't read my last line which said I take the Carlton reports at face value ). Whilst I did not see the episode of FC ( only reports on here) you may want to take umbrage with Caroline Wilson " Caro just said on FC that the Carlton medical report 'did not mince words' and 'did Melbourne no favours'. She said Carlton are angry about the 2 incidence and Melbourne are angry about the medical reports. She said there is 'bad blood' between the two clubs. ( quote from Lucifer's hero). I am not suggesting for a second that a doctor document something incorrectly but language is very important and there are absolute ways to say the same thing with force and say something with feathers. Also you can go to three doctors and get three different opinions. Far too cynical a statement to be taken seriously ? hmmm.. you really learned nothing from the Essendon doping saga ? How about this one (http://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/03/20/13/19/nrl-to-breach-clubs-who-break-concussion-guidelines) - who is conducting their medical tests ? cynical you say ? To repeat - I am taking Carlton at face value - put all reporting in impartial medico's hands and I believe on occasions you will get either different result or at least different emphasis.

Because he had "delayed" symptoms. It does amaze me how many "expert doctors" there are on here. A simple google of delayed concussion symptoms came up with ( and there is a plethora of information on this very subject) Because the brain is very complex, every brain injury is different. Some symptoms may appear right away, while others may not show up for days or weeks after the concussion. Sometimes the injury makes it hard for people to recognize or to admit that they are having problems. The signs of concussion can be subtle. I will take both Cripps and Rowe at their word. My issue is that an independent panel is taking medical evidence from a non impartial medico. If the MRP is going to rely on medical reports to hand down fines then they need to come up with a system where impartial medico's are providing the report. Footy is a multi million dollar industry. With or without a MRP citing both Cripps and Rowe were reviewed by the Carlton medical team. The simple solution for me is that a single MRP member needs to review each game almost in real time and come up with as many incidents as he likes to review - whether they go further or not and get cited is immaterial. He gives the list of "offended" players to the teams and the clubs ascertain whether there is a medical review warranted ( ie - how are you feeling ? No problems Then no further examination required) . If there is a medical intervention required as was the case with Cripps and Rowe then an AFL appointed medico must be in on the examination/report from the get go. At least then there is a semblance of impartiality. However, how would it be if Cripps was coming back from a broken jaw ( and has been looked after by his Carlton medical team) and a love tap from an opponent has ill effect - how would the Carlton doctors write up that report ? How would they write a report about someone like Byron Pickett who constantly demolished opponents - would the report be unbiased ? To repeat we need impartial medico's involved in the process. Having said that - I take the medical reports at face value from Carlton and also - don't hit a bloke in the head and you probably don't get 3 weeks.

I thought Roos nicely put the kybosh on this conversation permanently by saying at the time we would not have taken Kelly anyway and offered no clue as to who we would take - that makes comparisons rather hard. Very happy with Tyson and Salem - we got what we needed.

this.... In isolation it is what it is. However when you see other incidents that are not cited or penalties that are paltry in comparison ( the Thompson elbow) you are just left absolutely scratching your head. The inconsistency in application is so dizzying that I can't even begin to guess what the MRP will and won't do. This is not woe is me as I believe in "do the crime do the time" but we do seem to end up with the rough end of the pineapple.

So according to the Cripps report he has a hairline fracture of the jaw and Rowe is suffering from concussion, headaches and nausea ..geez I wouldn't like to see what you consider high impact. As an aside, if the MRP are relying on medical reports, the MRP then has a responsibility to review all games within a very short time frame and ascertain if there is a charge to answer. If there is then the players and their club must allow independent corroboration of the medical report. Rowe and Cripps should have had a follow up latest Monday morning by an independent medico. It may not have helped with Rowe but it would certainly would with Cripps to determine the exact extent of his injury. Who knows if the reports are "doctored" but certainly when it gets to the pointy end of the season and finals there is definitely an incentive to make a report more damning that it actually is. Language used can be persuasive. Imagine a scenario where Lewis had carry over penalty's ( which he had in this instance) and he is playing in the first non elimination final - Lewis is reported - there is an incentive for a team to be "blunter" in its medico assessment as there is a possibility that the team may meet Melbourne further into the finals series and there is a chance to have one of the better players removed. I don't really believe that the medical reports are "doctored" but the problem is that the MRP relies on them. Therefore the MRP leaves itself open to criticism that medical reports may be harsher or more exaggerated than they need be either through the other team being peeved ( as some are claiming Carlton are) or possibly being advantaged in a finals series scenario.

what girds my loins is it is not 2 - it is 3 down to 2...it ain't a 3 week incident....

Again - trying to get comparisons between non related games ( even the same game) will do your head in.

And you know it's not ? We know that the MRP do get a report from the club after incidents to see what impact it had if any. I suspect that the report is saying a fracture and it was caused by this incident Are you suggesting that Carlton lied in a medical report to the AFL ? I think I prefer the alternative - the medical report says there is a hairline fracture caused by the incident. It does appear to make just a little more sense.

- dumb - do the crime do the time: however - the penalties do appear to be harsh - everyone has got to stop comparing incidents - we know there is zero consistency on what gets cited by the MRP and how they calculate a penalty. - taking a dive and acting classes ? really ? they both got whacked in the head and posters tell them stop acting ?

Do you think a club doctor would dodgy up a report to get an opposition player weeks ? I'm all for a good conspiracy but not sure I buy that one.

Of all our backline players, he is the one I feel most relaxed with when the ball is in his hands. Played the loose for a lot of the game and looked very safe getting to the right spots to take uncontested marks. Plays on when he can or holds it up if he has to.

Trying to compare the impact of most see as comparable reports or trying to make sense of what even gets to the MRP and what doesn't will just do your head in.

Hogan did NOT respond in kind - that's the problem - Whether it was open hand or fist - Hogan responded to the head.