2017 Non Crows AFL Discussion Thread - Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GameofSloanes

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Posts
3,632
Likes
5,318
Location
In a Galaxy Far, Far Away
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool
Great fixture for us IMO - gives us a 9 day break from the Sydney game.

We have two 6 day breaks coming up:

Sun: v Port
Sat: v Essendon
Fri: v Swans

9 days will be very timely by then.
Yes definitely.
If we finish top, we'll probably have our first final on the friday so it will be a 9 day break followed by a 12 day ie 6>6>9>12, as opposed to 6>6>7>14. Spreads it a bit more evenly
2 upcoming 6 day breaks makes this week even more important to win.
Also the twilight time means we can't get back to Adelaide that night, have to wait till Monday. FFS
 

OutofTownCrow

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Posts
9,422
Likes
16,196
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
New York Rangers, Dodgers, Redlegs
This whole Dangerfield suspension has me thinking Moggs Creek isn't perfect after all. It doesn't have any good character references.
Many of the boys and girls down on the Geelong board are ropeable that PD is suspended. The AFL has it in for them ... how's this gem:

Our player had his leg broken the other week off the ball, in an unnecessary action behind play.
MRP didn't seem to notice that one or they didn't seem worried about intent or duty of care or any of their buzzwords.
 

OutofTownCrow

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Posts
9,422
Likes
16,196
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
New York Rangers, Dodgers, Redlegs
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-01/it-was-a-careless-act-bartel-on-danger-tackle

"I think we all agreed, it wasn't intentional. It was a careless act."

The rest of the article he pretends he wasn't part of it, then slips up with this line.
Ummm interesting choice of editing there Vhaluus...

Bartel, who did not sit on the panel that decided Dangerfeld's penalty, said the Cats superstar's conduct was careless.

"That was probably the discussion the MRP had yesterday; was it a careless act and unreasonable?" Bartel told radio station RSN927 on Tuesday.

"As soon as they decided, well, maybe Danger had a duty of care and could have done a little bit better, then it comes onto the table.

"I think we all agreed, it wasn't intentional. It was a careless act."
I think the last line is just a general "we", not an MRP "we".
 

Roovolution

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 22, 2016
Posts
6,770
Likes
9,393
AFL Club
Adelaide
Oh cripes, Rowe also saying he didn't hear anyone suggesting Dangerfield would get off because he is the Brownlow favourite.

FFS. Why do I listen to this shit show?
Because the only alternative is to listen to Jars and his 'humour' and everything he says makes me want to shoot myself in the face.
 

Vhaluus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 13, 2016
Posts
10,275
Likes
11,007
AFL Club
Adelaide
Ummm interesting choice of editing there Vhaluus...

Bartel, who did not sit on the panel that decided Dangerfeld's penalty, said the Cats superstar's conduct was careless.

"That was probably the discussion the MRP had yesterday; was it a careless act and unreasonable?" Bartel told radio station RSN927 on Tuesday.

"As soon as they decided, well, maybe Danger had a duty of care and could have done a little bit better, then it comes onto the table.

"I think we all agreed, it wasn't intentional. It was a careless act."
I think the last line is just a general "we", not an MRP "we".
Yeah as I said, he spends the rest of the article talking about how he wasn't there. then he said WE agreed it wasn't intentional. So he was clearly part of the decision making.

You don't accidentally include yourself in something you weren't part of. You do accidentally admit you're part of something you're pretending you're not however.
 

OutofTownCrow

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Posts
9,422
Likes
16,196
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
New York Rangers, Dodgers, Redlegs
Yeah as I said, he spends the rest of the article talking about how he wasn't there. then he said WE agreed it wasn't intentional. So he was clearly part of the decision making.

You don't accidentally include yourself in something you weren't part of. You do accidentally admit you're part of something you're pretending you're not however.
Maybe ... I see your angle now.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Roovolution

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 22, 2016
Posts
6,770
Likes
9,393
AFL Club
Adelaide
A lot of Americans believe the NFL and NBA are rigged. Watching that makes me think the AFL is rigged too. Clubs should take the AFL to court over this stuff because when they don't the AFL just keep serving up this crap. Mark my words this'll happen to us too and if you don't believe it then go and watch the 2012 Prelim Final. I hate Sydney but that just makes me mad.
 

arrowman

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
9,717
Likes
8,654
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Many of the boys and girls down on the Geelong board are ropeable that PD is suspended. The AFL has it in for them ... how's this gem:

Our player had his leg broken the other week off the ball, in an unnecessary action behind play.
MRP didn't seem to notice that one or they didn't seem worried about intent or duty of care or any of their buzzwords.
OK so they're not referring to Sloane's smother as "an unnecessary action behind play" then. Because that would be stupid. Someone else have a broken leg in that game?

Or have I got this all wrong?
 

Vhaluus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 13, 2016
Posts
10,275
Likes
11,007
AFL Club
Adelaide

Vhaluus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 13, 2016
Posts
10,275
Likes
11,007
AFL Club
Adelaide
OK so they're not referring to Sloane's smother as "an unnecessary action behind play" then. Because that would be stupid. Someone else have a broken leg in that game?

Or have I got this all wrong?
It wasn't a smother. It's when Sloane is being scragged off the ball at a center bounce and takes the player down with him.
 

NikkiNoo

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Posts
17,476
Likes
22,977
Location
in a happy place
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
panthers, ukraine & broncos
OK so they're not referring to Sloane's smother as "an unnecessary action behind play" then. Because that would be stupid. Someone else have a broken leg in that game?

Or have I got this all wrong?
It was the tackle where Blicavs shepherded Sloane away from the ball and Sloane took the opportunity to pull his tagger down, in Alan Richardson's own words, as the moment he can be a little physical back at a tagger in a game. They tangled legs and Blicavs' ankle twisted and ended up with some small fractures in it.
 

Vhaluus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 13, 2016
Posts
10,275
Likes
11,007
AFL Club
Adelaide
It was the tackle where Blicavs shepherded Sloane away from the ball and Sloane took the opportunity to pull his tagger down, in Alan Richardson's own words, as the moment he can be a little physical back at a tagger in a game. They tangled legs and Blicavs' ankle twisted and ended up with some small fractures in it.
What Sloane did was probably worth a free kick if rules were strictly interpreted, but he didn't at any point breach his duty of care.

But if we're going to pay that free kick against Sloane by a strict interpretation, if we applied that same interpretation to the actions taken against Sloane in a given game he'd set a world record for frees he receives. The amount of illegal off the ball shit Sloane deals with is outrageous.
 

NikkiNoo

Premium Platinum
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Posts
17,476
Likes
22,977
Location
in a happy place
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
panthers, ukraine & broncos
Am I right in thinking that Hodge challenging and winning his appeal would doubly piss off Cats supporters this week?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-01/live-luke-hodge-fronts-the-tribunal
This is an interesting point
"The Hawks camp haven't called on Tom Papley to give evidence, despite asserting the impact of Hodge's strike was negligible. Under Tribunal guidelines he should be given the chance to defend himself, given the accusation he has gone to ground with insufficient force."

Also apparently the Hawks have 'steel arms' meaning they are expected to whack opponents running past otherwise they get yelled at by Clarkson. "If a player is running past and can impact the game, they use a strong and braced arm to try and impede the opponent's path."
 

Vhaluus

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 13, 2016
Posts
10,275
Likes
11,007
AFL Club
Adelaide
This is an interesting point
"The Hawks camp haven't called on Tom Papley to give evidence, despite asserting the impact of Hodge's strike was negligible. Under Tribunal guidelines he should be given the chance to defend himself, given the accusation he has gone to ground with insufficient force."

Also apparently the Hawks have 'steel arms' meaning they are expected to whack opponents running past otherwise they get yelled at by Clarkson. "If a player is running past and can impact the game, they use a strong and braced arm to try and impede the opponent's path."
Hawks being dodgy? never would have suspected.
 

GreyCrow

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Posts
44,477
Likes
63,763
Location
Down South Corvus Tristis
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt, Redskins , White Sox
Thread starter #8,122
This is an interesting point
"The Hawks camp haven't called on Tom Papley to give evidence, despite asserting the impact of Hodge's strike was negligible. Under Tribunal guidelines he should be given the chance to defend himself, given the accusation he has gone to ground with insufficient force."

Also apparently the Hawks have 'steel arms' meaning they are expected to whack opponents running past otherwise they get yelled at by Clarkson. "If a player is running past and can impact the game, they use a strong and braced arm to try and impede the opponent's path."
Maybe Clarkson should take the week off then
 

Godallblighty

Premiership Player
Joined
May 17, 2010
Posts
3,302
Likes
5,225
Location
Hanging Rock
AFL Club
Adelaide
Yeah as I said, he spends the rest of the article talking about how he wasn't there. then he said WE agreed it wasn't intentional. So he was clearly part of the decision making.
Not clearly at all, really. Like OutofTownCrow suggested, it could be a general 'we in the football community'. He could even be saying 'we' in reference to the MRP which he is still a part of without suggesting he was involved in that particular decision - in the same way that Jake Lever could say 'we fought hard to get a draw on the weekend'.

I think you're trying a bit too hard to verbal him.
 

Shaz2012

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Posts
6,827
Likes
7,064
AFL Club
Adelaide
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom