2017 Non Crows AFL Discussion Thread - Part III

[MatthewB]

Oh god, Rowe going over the top, saying this decision will "change the game". FFS.

Rowie going over the top, surely not

 

[JP Sauce]

So bartel didnt excuse himself from the mrp this week at all. Lying cheat.

What happened here?

 

[GameofSloanes]

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

 

[baldandbroke]

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.​

 

[jo172]

- So good

 

[Vhaluus]

What happened here?

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.

 

[baldandbroke]

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]

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]

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.

 

[baldandbroke]

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.

 

[baldandbroke]

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

 

[Roovolution]

- So good

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]

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]

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

I'm torn between my hatred of Hodge and my wish to see the Cats frothing mad as if they have ANYTHING to complain about.

 

[Vhaluus]

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.

 

[arrowman]

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.

OK then. I had seen it referred to as a smother. My bad.

 

[NikkiNoo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ftmch]

 

[GreyCrow]

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]

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.

 

[Runnin Blue]

- So good

Ha, awesome. I've thought about making a Toby Mclean highlights (ducking) video, but I'm too lazy. Does Youtube have an hours limit on length of video? It'd be a long one.

 

[Shaz2012]

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

Really hope he gets off. Piss Geelong off and hopefully they can beat the tigers and we beat the power and put some distance between us and 4th.