View Full Version : Colbert charge
sabre_ac
11 Jun 2001, 01:21
6 foot plus young ruckman with his head down going for the ball.Is struck with a shirt front by when the ball has cleared the area.Striker had not intention to gain possesion of the ball.
Now normally this would warrent a striking charge where hte offender would get 1 or 2 weeks.At the very least the young ruckman would get a free kick.
But when the offender is Colbert from the Roos and the victum is a young up and coming ruckman from Freo called Longmuir. They rules seem to change.
Cowardly act by colbert should be punished.But then again a player that deserts his club, when he has the captaincy isnt the most ethical player going around.
Now I'm not going to say the umpires cost us the game - North would have beaten us anyway.
But yesterdays umpiring of the Dockers v North game was appalling. Any one new to AFL watching this game would have found it confusing because there was clearly two sets of rules - one for north and one for freo.
Just one example - Mckernan clearly pushes McManus in the back as he kicks, I mean blatantly pushes him in the back out on the wing. Soryy freo, only North gets free kicks for that rule.
Bollocks to them. If the AFL wants the game to succeed beyond a the "VFL plus a couple of foreigners" league they had better start cleaning crap like this up!
You guys are pack of whingers.
Grow up and take a good hard look at your club!!!!
Go the ROOS!!!!
Speaking of whinging - I went down to watch the Bulldogs take on East Perth on Saturday. You guessed it - Bulldogs got absolutely trounced at home. The irony was not lost on me.
Bugger!
dockerbabe
13 Jun 2001, 16:51
Originally posted by shack
You guys are pack of whingers.
Grow up and take a good hard look at your club!!!!
Go the ROOS!!!!
did u actually watch the game i mean u r over in the usa
i watched bits of it and i was pretty annoyed with the fact mods lost out again
he got an over the shoulder thingy got nuthing for it but 5 seconds later a roos player got an over the shoulder thingy and well he got the free kick
all we want is consistency
and i'd say that colonial is the worst ground to play on for the players
we had 2 stretchered off and 2 others brought off because they hit their heads hard on the ground
colonial has been a bad ground from the start
the grass has never been rite and now players are being knocked out because they are playing on cement with grass on top
They really messed up with Colonial didn't they. Has anyone got anything positive to say about Colonial at all.....anyone?
Shinboners
13 Jun 2001, 23:14
It's actually a pretty good stadium to watch the football. If you can get onto level 2, it seems like you're sitting right above the players.
Another odd thing is that if any of the cheersquads get going with their chants, you'll find that they'll start stamping their feet on the floor and that seems to reverberate around the stadium.
Nonetheless, it doesn't quite have the same magic as a game at the MCG.
freo_fan
14 Jun 2001, 16:55
As I havent been to Colonial before, I cant really bag the place, but with the roof an all/most of the time I believe that it is like a fantasy game...the conditions are perfect, no sun, no rain, no wind.What is with that? It is not real footy and I believe the roof should ONLY be on in extreme conditions, like hail, thunder and 40 degree heat.
What do you think?
Shinboners
14 Jun 2001, 21:01
That's why I prefer the MCG....you get the elements involved.
It is very strange watching a game under a closed roof....I'm still not quite used to it. But I agree with you....leave the roof open and if it rains, it rains.