- May 1, 2016
- 28,832
- 56,201
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #1,726
What does this mean? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN!!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What does this mean? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN!!!
It's not even Ed getting rubbed out that pisses me off the most, it's May in China
What does this mean? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN!!!
...Matchbox 20.
I can't understand why Eddie needs to commentate.....wears so many hats...he is particularly bad
link
What show/ radio station?
What does this mean? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN!!!
I understood the other post better.What that means is that Thy had a double espresso and what should have meant ample time to post something straight after a post instead of quoting ended up a further 5 posts down the page.
Then I couldn’t delete it....
So I quoted the post I wanted to comment on and placed my point about Michael Clarke being a terrible sharer and removed as best as possible what would have been a double post.
Moral of the story, when you see Thy on a Tourette’s posting binge quote....then post
It's not even Ed getting rubbed out that pisses me off the most, it's May in China
This thread fmd
What pisses me off is that everything points to Hocking appealing the decisions because Whateley chucked a hissy fit. I would be very confident in suggesting that Whateley actually directly contacted Hocking, Geelong man to Geelong man, stating that the initial tribunal outcome cannot be allowed to stand given the Hawkins suspension.It's not even Ed getting rubbed out that pisses me off the most, it's May in China
I totally agree. Hawkins needed to be given a 3 week holiday not the slap on the wrist he was given.
I could handle the decision suspending Ed Curnow....if Hocking also appealed the Stephen May decision.
Because he didn't, he has opened the AFL up to be branded as hypocrites.
I don't think hocking needed whateley to tell him what most already knew. Most here were also surprised when Ed got off with a fine.What pisses me off is that everything points to Hocking appealing the decisions because Whateley chucked a hissy fit. I would be very confident in suggesting that Whateley actually directly contacted Hocking, Geelong man to Geelong man, stating that the initial tribunal outcome cannot be allowed to stand given the Hawkins suspension.
Whateley is drinking so much of his own bathwater that he cannot be taken seriously as a footy commentator.
That's fine. But to not appeal the May decision?I don't think hocking needed whateley to tell him what most already knew. Most here were also surprised when Ed got off with a fine.
What pisses me off is that everything points to Hocking appealing the decisions because Whateley chucked a hissy fit. I would be very confident in suggesting that Whateley actually directly contacted Hocking, Geelong man to Geelong man, stating that the initial tribunal outcome cannot be allowed to stand given the Hawkins suspension.
Whateley is drinking so much of his own bathwater that he cannot be taken seriously as a footy commentator.
I think the tribunal this week really took its toll on us....Don't you mean China in May ??
I think the AFL has pretty much said they have no interest in what umpires have to say about the incidents. Gleeson was clever to say that their views shoudl be disregarded because of the good will they would display. Clarke was remiss in not responding that Gleeson therefore is positing that any umpire who does complain - is therefore by definition showing 'bad will' towards players.
Umps have been treated very badly by the AFL in this matter.