Remove this Banner Ad

Curfews

  • Thread starter Thread starter AAMI
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

NikkiNoo said:
because Norwood didn't play last weekend, they had the bye therefore Darren's suspension starts this weekend.
Click to expand...

If that's correct Nikki, it is absolutely stupid. :thumbsd:

Pfeiffer was in the running for selection by the Crows against Geelong based on some excellent SANFL form. He was suspended and therefore became ineligible for selection.

The club said he was ineligible for selection last week, not me.

If he is suspended again this week, it will be the SECOND week that he is ineligible for selection by the Crows.

if that is the club's decision, it is garbage and typical of the whole stuff-up of the curfew as imposed by Craig and his merry men.
 
macca23 said:
If that's correct Nikki, it is absolutely stupid. :thumbsd:

Pfeiffer was in the running for selection by the Crows against Geelong based on some excellent SANFL form. He was suspended and therefore became ineligible for selection.

The club said he was ineligible for selection last week, not me.

If he is suspended again this week, it will be the SECOND week that he is ineligible for selection by the Crows.

if that is the club's decision, it is garbage and typical of the whole stuff-up of the curfew as imposed by Craig and his merry men.
Click to expand...
I am FURIOUS and this is absolutely disgraceful. As you said he is effectively missing his second week due to suspension. :thumbsd:
 
macca23 said:
If that's correct Nikki, it is absolutely stupid. :thumbsd:

Pfeiffer was in the running for selection by the Crows against Geelong based on some excellent SANFL form. He was suspended and therefore became ineligible for selection.

The club said he was ineligible for selection last week, not me.

If he is suspended again this week, it will be the SECOND week that he is ineligible for selection by the Crows.

if that is the club's decision, it is garbage and typical of the whole stuff-up of the curfew as imposed by Craig and his merry men.
Click to expand...
With all due respects, we have been saying that just about all year long yet he struggled to get to the emergency list let alone any further.

His form is good but his non selection into the team sheets suggests that there are other issues the club is not happy with and as a result he is not close to selection. The kid has been burning it up for Norwood but he doesn't appear close to a game if we are fair dinkum. A good indications of whether or not someone is close to a game is to look at the emergency lists every week. How many times has Pfeiffer been an emergency?! once or twice and thats despite his great form.

He wasn't in line for selection and probably want be for the rest of the year. I am not sure anyone knows the reasons why because it sure as hell isn't form.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Drummond said:
I am FURIOUS and this is absolutely disgraceful. As you said he is effectively missing his second week due to suspension. :thumbsd:
Click to expand...

Is that confirmed? I think that's pretty rough if that's the case, to make him miss another.

I don't have a problem with the curfew itself, but I think the way it's been presented and the way it's been handled has been very ordinary.

It should've been confidential within the Club, and I don't understand why the misinformation regarding whose idea it was to implement the curfew.

I also don't understand why we have it; we're considered one of the most professional Clubs in the League, why do we need to babysit our players?

Surely a big part of player empowerment is trusting them and having faith in themselves to do the right thing.
 
Drummond said:
I am FURIOUS and this is absolutely disgraceful. As you said he is effectively missing his second week due to suspension. :thumbsd:
Click to expand...

It doesn't strike me as being fair either. I mean....he's listed for the Crows, and they did not have a bye on the weekend. So WTF, who the hell cares if his SANFL side did? Bullshit AFC, bullshit. :thumbsd: :thumbsd:
 
Stiffy_18 said:
Except that Graham "I am god's gift to the earth" Cornes forgets that Craig has the power to veto any punishment recommended by the leadership group.

I don't see what the big problem is here. The coach has the final say and he decided to enforce the rules set in place by the leadership group. For months people have been saying how Craig is soft on his players yet he had the cajones not to veto the decision to suspend his only experienced ruckman, a leader in clearences, hard ball gets and hitouts.

John Reid said the curfew was brought in because the club wasn't happy with some of the discipline by some players down at the club. Craig raised this issue with the playing group asking them to come up with ways to erradicate that. They went away and came up with the idea of curfew. The players signed off on it, the coach signed off on it and CEO signed off on it.

What is the problem here?! Do we allow players to run amok just so we can have a slightly better chance of winning one game?! Do we keep sweeping these indisgressions under the carpet and eventually go down the path of West Coast or Fremantle, or do we try and nip it in the bud and get players to realise that they were good last 2 years because they made the sacrifices.

Curfew wouldn't have been brought in at all if there weren't concerns about the things that were happening this year.
Click to expand...

having a veto is not the same as having a decision making mechanism in the right hands.

I don't think this should be a players thing. I care less about the decision, and more who is making it.

craig may have veto, but he knows he has to be very, very careful in undermining the decisions of the playing group - once he has given it to them. I think that is a mistake.
 
I think Stiffy makes the best argument for this. Such a harsh penalty, you can guarantee that it won't happen again! Tough way for Pfeiffer to learn a lesson and of course there's was no guarantee he'd be picked for the Crows anyways. His team had a bye which means he couldn't fulfil his one game suspension. I am assuming Vince missed a game with his SANFL team? Pfeiffer should be no different.
 
NikkiNoo said:
because Norwood didn't play last weekend, they had the bye therefore Darren's suspension starts this weekend.
Click to expand...

I think this is a stupid rule as well.

I am reminded of rnd 14 when Mattner was droped from the crows. Marty didn't play rnd 14 because Sturt had a bye. Rnd 15 he played. Round 14 doesn't count as Mattner playing a game which could mean if he ends up only playing one more game for sturt he misses out in qualifying for SANFL finals :mad:.

Just heard rumor from relable source that Marty has qualified to play finals. :thumbsu::)
 
CrowMagnum said:
Anyone still think the curfew was a good idea?
Click to expand...
For Sure. Do you seriously think that Ben Hudson is wanting out because he was disciplined for one breaking of a curfew!
If that was the case get rid of him. I hold Ben Hudson in high esteem.That is not his caper. We still have not seen the last of Ben at the Crows IMO.
 
CrowMagnum said:
Anyone still think the curfew was a good idea?
Click to expand...

We're establishing 2 key elements within our playing group known as winning culture and responsibility for your own actions. You either abide by these two key rules or get bent.

Thanks for Nothing Ben
 

Remove this Banner Ad

brown30 said:
We're establishing 2 key elements within our playing group known as winning culture and responsibility for your own actions. You either abide by these two key rules or get bent.

Thanks for Nothing Ben
Click to expand...
Shaun Rehn - washes the coach's car for whatever reason. Leaves.

Ben Hudson - misses a game for coming home an hour late. Leaves.

Public humiliation of people is a good way of compensating for a small d!ck, but it's no way to manage workers or run a football club.
 
CrowMagnum said:
Shaun Rehn - washes the coach's car for whatever reason. Leaves.

Ben Hudson - misses a game for coming home an hour late. Leaves.

Public humiliation of people is a good way of compensating for a small d!ck, but it's no way to manage workers or run a football club.
Click to expand...

Shaun Rehn wasn't humiliated by Neil Craig. Ben Hudson was hardly humiliated, he broke a team rule.

We sure mismanaged Huddo :rolleyes:
 
Yep - still a good idea and if this is part of the reason for Ben wanting to leave then it says more about his character than the club as a whole.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Yep let's stick to our guns, use the sledgehammer and lose players, that'll bring success.

I'm not defending Hudson either, he's being a prima donna here but some AFL footballers think their rock stars. You can manage that or not. Everyone wants low maintenance players but the reality is that some of them won't be. If they're hacks you get rid of them, but if they're valuable to the team do you piss them off as well?
 
CrowMagnum said:
Yep let's stick to our guns, use the sledgehammer and lose players, that'll bring success.

I'm not defending Hudson either, he's being a prima donna here but some AFL footballers think their rock stars. You can manage that or not. Everyone wants low maintenance players but the reality is that some of them won't be. If they're hacks you get rid of them, but if they're valuable to the team do you piss them off as well?
Click to expand...

Yes, unless you want the culture of St Kilda. ;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom