Search results for query: *

That report also lacks context as it only shows contentious umpiring that favours the Bulldogs and they are NOT all incorrect. It doesn't show a few the other way and they did occur. From memory Naismith lashed out at Johannisen with a mid-air boot in quarter 1 and GOT THE FREE. Parker in Q2...

Here is a Port Adelaide supporter labelling Dogs fans as Bogan. A Port fan, who apparently knows nothing about paragraphs and also believes capitals are random characters to be smattered through his posts. Irony is rampant.

Good to see you are not bitter:cool:

We are the only team to have won 4 finals under the current final 8 system. 2 of those wins were interstate. Not sure why an alleged Adelaide supporter should even care that much.

We know it won't change their minds, because that would require a reasoned look back at the game. Meanwhile we can replay it from time to time and just enjoy the achievement and include the other 3 finals as well. While ever threads like this exist, they just remind us of that beautiful day in...

I am quite capable of seeing with my eyes open. Amazed that it is the decision that everyone suggests should have been paid when the contact was Wood's body to Hannebery's thigh. Why is there no questioning of Morris on Papley in the third. That is the one that could have been paid. It is...

You keep saying this, but the only quote I have seen is a newspaper report alleging it. If you can't produce an actual verified quote that this was said don't keep relying on it. Even that quote from Luke Ball (who never umpired a game) is not definitive.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. It is amazing that 5 years on you are still unable to see that Wood made contact above the knee of Hannebery. The problem for Hannebery is that he had planted his foot across Wood and had nowhere to go when Wood came in hard for the ball. Try...

So you highlight that the Bulldogs play a disciplined game with respect for the rules and how they are currently interpreted. Perhaps other teams could actually look at that as a tactical approach, rather than being careless with the rules.

The problem is that it wasn't an incorrect decision. If you go and look at it again the contact from Wood was actually above the knee of Hannebery.

This is the greatest myth from that game. The rule (Lindsay Thomas Rule) was introduced to prevent sliding in and then got adapted to contact below the knees. In the incident with Hannebery, Wood DID NOT slide in Wood DID NOT make contact below the knee Fact is that Hannebery stepped across...

Why did Sydney get the one ..must have been completely unjustified. :cool:

Really great foresight by the AFL to arrange the pre-final bye in the schedule that year. They obviously knew in advance that the Bulldogs were going to have those injury concerns and they set it up just so they could get up for it. I just can't understand why they gave them the shortest break...

Why shouldn't he be given another chance in society. The purpose of a prison sentence "should be" rehabilitation. Garlett desereves the opportunity to show he has learned his lesson. If we are not to give him a chance, why is Freo recruit Shane Yarran allowed to play?