Hee hawSo who should we blame for yours?
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.

Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Hee hawSo who should we blame for yours?
But they said he should. Really loudly too!But neither played in Morwell. So that doesn't help.
Do you understand the distinction between players at the club in 2012 and players not at the club? We know JD was not on the list in 2012, we also know he spent considerable time there during the season. So no-one's logic is suggesting Goddard has an IN. Haha omgHaha omg this is awesome. So by your logic it would also have meant that Goddard has an infraction. Herp
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
They didn't force him to play in Morwell. They forbade him from playing at Willy along with everyone else who was not a 2012 listed player. They couldn't make an exception for JD to play at Willy, or else they'd be breaking their commitment to anonymity to him. That is obvious.The AFL wouldn't be forcing Joe to play in Morwell, if he has an infraction notice.
Well that does set the cat amongst the pigeons doesn't it!! Given that the "mystery" support person is Dank, it means that this is in fact one of the most ham fisted theories yet! Maybe Dank DID sign for Daniher! Maybe Dank is Daniher' father. That might make this all work as you so desperately want!!Just to put the proverbial cat amongst pigeons. What if one of the mystery support staff that received an IN was a person signing a consent on behalf of another player (for whatever reason). Some pretty good weasel room for the club to then claim that player doesn't have an IN.
Yes. But do you think Hird said at those meetings it was wrong? Has he said since those meetings it was way beyond what could be considered acceptable, and if he has admitted it, how the hell did he keep his job.hence all the meetings the club had with the player's parents
They didn't force him to play in Morwell. They forbade him from playing at Willy along with everyone else who was not a 2012 listed player. They couldn't make an exception for JD to play at Willy, or else they'd be breaking their commitment to anonymity to him. That is obvious.
So, what point are you trying to make, because I'm getting dizzy hereThe AFL wouldn't be forcing Joe to play in Morwell, if he has an infraction notice.
Because if they didn't say this, they would be breaking their commitment to his anonymity. I don't think this is hard to understand.Ok so 'force' isn't the most apt word. The AFL insisted that JD, along with the Goddard and the rest, should be playing in the Morwell match instead. Why would the AFL insist this if the player has received an IN?
There were six players who were not on the list in 2012 who wanted to play in the match simulation. The AFL said they would have to play in Morwell. Does not imply an IN has or hasn't been issued.Ok so 'force' isn't the most apt word. The AFL insisted that JD, along with the Goddard and the rest, should be playing in the Morwell match instead. Why would the AFL insist this if the player has received an IN?
They said they can't play in the "match simulation". It's not that hard to follow.Why would the AFL insist that an infracted player participate in an NAB Challenge match? It doesn't make any sense.
Why are you sure that JD doesn't have an IN?Why would the AFL insist that an infracted player participate in an NAB Challenge match? It doesn't make any sense.
Haha omg this is awesome. So by your logic it would also have meant that Goddard has an infraction. Herp
They said they can't play in the "match simulation". It's not that hard to follow.
They AFL did not insist they play in the NAB. The AFL forbade them playing in Willy.Yes and the reason they couldn't play is the AFL insisted they should be playing in the NAB. If a player has an IN, the AFL wouldn't be insisting they play in the NAB. Not hard to follow.
No. Goddard was at stkilda in 2012 so I don't see it as a possibility he was getting injected by another club.
Daniher on the other hand is in a unique situation as he was involved in essendon in 2012 as a 17 year old. He is the only player on the list in this situation. If he was given an IN and essendon wanted to protect his identity they would need to make up excuses why he can't play in the practice matches
No. They said they couldn't play in the match simulation. They said if they were fit to play, then they would have to play in Morwell. They didn't insist they play in Morwell. The AFL wouldn't care if they play or not. It is the players who have chosen not to play pending the result of the tribunal. The six players they directed would have to participate in Morwell are the six non listed players who wanted to play the match simulation. Not hard to follow.Yes and the reason they couldn't play is the AFL insisted they should be playing in the NAB. If a player has an IN, the AFL wouldn't be insisting they play in the NAB. Not hard to follow.
I'm not saying it happened but I'm just saying why it's a possibility even though he was "banned" from the practice matchSo the would inject a 17 year old who was occasionally visiting the club, but not the 4 new players or rookies who played in Morell yesterday who were actually on the list....
nearly as many as the number of IN issued to EFC players!!
This is pure jibberishNo. Goddard was at stkilda in 2012 so I don't see it as a possibility he was getting injected by another club.
Daniher on the other hand is in a unique situation as he was involved in essendon in 2012 as a 17 year old. He is the only player on the list in this situation. If he was given an IN and essendon wanted to protect his identity they would need to make up excuses why he can't play in the practice matches
Because, well, just because we want it so much!!So the would inject a 17 year old who was occasionally visiting the club, but not the 4 new players or rookies who played in Morell yesterday who were actually on the list....