Search results for query: *

Was wondering if i was missing an obvious joke ?

Use of the word is whats homophobic, doesnt matter who its aimed at. Not really hard to comprehend, the word is a gay slur.

At least Maynard was playing the ball in his supposed offence

Just have a think as to what that word means to teens/kids coming to terms with who they are. Its not about the gay community adults , not all take offense, like myself. Its more so those teens trying to come to terms with coming out and if its accepted of who they are. Words/slurs are pretty...

Point totally lost, it shouldnt be said. If 3 weeks deters and changes the attitude of using this word, Then the AFL is correct Owning up to the use of it is on the person, just dont say it though ? The 3 weeks is pretty valid. Just remember kids pick up on things and carry on with it like...

Gosh this almost comes across as an inferiority complex with the vic bias. Unsure what the correct suspension time is , but something was warranted to stamp it out. So many grey areas. Homophobic , Racism. Any malicious type slurs should be heavy handed. Profanity, unsure ? How far do we go.

Wow this post is so emotional. Wipe off the cheeto dust off your keyboard, fingers and lips and go outside for a walk for 10 minutes. Youll feel better trust me. To be this riled up is pretty odd behaviour

All the Maynard haters want this inmtroduced in the AFL

What did the player from hawthorn get for front on contact and no eyes for the ball that injured Naicos leading up to finals ?

I suppose you thought the smother that snapped Nathan Browns leg was reportable also

Why do you think Daicos is out atm ? Front on contact no suspension , but thats ok hey? As thats only his leg , that doesnt matter yeah? You need to stop watching the incident in slow motion. Have you admitted he spoiled the ball now ? You did have a problem with that before , you didnt think...

Off topic , this will answer a lot of things Did you think Hird did anything wrong during the peds incident ?

What part of it was stated in the evidence he touched the ball and there is clear footage of it , go have a look

So who is wrong then , you or them ? Theres no middle ground

Happy to disagree, footy experts have called it no charge , just accept it

When you have muppets like Tom Elliott on 3aw now saying he is bewildered by the no charge , says enough

Answer this , because everyone against Maynard cant answer it . Is it reasonable for Maynard to smother the ball with an oncoming player coming towards him ? What other option do you want him to take ,if not jump to smother.

I dont see how you think bracing yourself after a footy act is a bump , lets agree to disagree, have a good day!

Have you actually seen the footage? It was even stated in the evidence

For the first five minutes , then they will each go missing for three quarters

When Nathan Brown snapped his leg from smothering , was that reportable ?

Do you think you sound smart quoting the ranking of his uni , lol wtf

Maynard wasnt initiating contact by any means like those two instances. Tackling and bumping is contact. Smothering isnt

Did you listen to the hearing yesterday and how long Maynard had to react? At what point is Brayshaw responsible for his own safety also ? Or is that just not necessary?

Go have a cry gertrude

Point proven

Get a grip Fiona , get the rollers out of your hair and go down and grab a Soy/Almond Latte and relax , you seem tense

When you make contact with something you dont expect , do you just open yourself up or brace? Maynard didnt expect that Brayshaw would keep running and veer off, he cant control his actions once in the air.

Do you think Maynards attempt to smother the ball was realistic? List the options you think he should have taken