rjay

Meaning to post this one since last week but when Hawthorn lost Mitchell and Lake last week Hamish McLaughlin says "Hawthorn are down to 17 men." ummm....even in the days of 19th & 20th man that would still make 18 I would think. I hope his bro is a bit better with his maths when he's trying to sort out the food prices.

Still reckon the slide will come into focus sometime this weekend, there just wasn't any tonight.

We've got Fitzy who doesn't cost us much either, he comes with the 2nd worst ball drop in the game. Butcher has that covered easily. I think Fitz offers more as depth than Butcher.

Watching Kennedy tonight, I can see why Roos got Tyson. Both not overly quick but very strong in close and good hands.

John Butcher is a worse kick than Cloke without the pluses that he brings. No thanks. Tom Bell, goes hard but not sure he brings much more than his size. Bird is a handy player but has good players around him. Clarke is worth a shot.

Forget Gaff, at the moment nothing more than an over rated Nahas...

You sure he wasn't in the country party???

If he's in the media you would hope that at least his opinion is an informed one. In this case it wasn't and in the Tyson (I've never seen him play) case it wasn't either.

Looks like it was a very strong draft.

Ian Collins cost Chris Grant a Brownlow for one, there have been others where the AFL have stepped in when not happy about a decision.

It's been done before.

It's not the draft number in this case, it's Wines performance.

lol

No I think you will find that was for another incident in the same game, he got off scott free from the Murphy incident.

Of course you are right 'Pennant', I've been sucked in on this one and his rubbish about Tyson. He really doesn't offer anything of value so rather than boycott I just don't watch the rubbish shows, time to give his trolling away as well.

Quoting Barrett, "From now, realise that the "good old days", whatever and whenever they were, are no longer and that "good, old-fashioned shirtfronts" that accidentally involve the head will be acted on." Yes Damien, you are correct but what does it have to do with the Jack Viney case. Absolutely nothing you condescending oh-so-predictable frothing-at-the-mouth FW. I must have missed something but where was the "good old-fashioned shirtfront" from Viney, when did he pick some unsuspecting player off behind the play. What a waste of space.

Simple really, the club should not have to deal with this. The AFL must step in. Time to earn your money Mark Evans lets see if you are a man or a politician.

They call it the soft box at the AFL, the word hard has been removed.

Agree 'master', Joel Bowden slipped out of that one. Very average and a distinct lack of courage to make a decision. This didn't need to go to the tribunal in the first place, there was no bump, there was no case.

Conflict of interest that Dunne heard the appeal?? Where was Neitz for the Viney case. No, the AFL stand for integrity.

Pity then that it wasn't him prosecuting the case.

Very well summed up 'titan', and I also think we should appeal.

Of course he is...

Brilliant 'Clint'.

If Dunn can hear the case against Delidio then Neitz should have heard the case against Viney. So much for Gillan's new open, honest, integrity drive.