Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Thread X

[daz17]

He's just getting in more time for pre season. Such a dumb act.

 

[The Scales]

He's just getting in more time for pre season. Such a dog act.

EFA

 

[emblurr]

only himself to blame.

 

[Phone]

i cant believe the "it wasnt a strike it was an armbar" defence didnt work.

 

[Zach Package]

have they broken it down?

Ie: 3 for the throat, none for the throw? (or some combination thereof)

also, what a pinhead

 

[Donakebab]

lel inhale many phallus shaped objects Harvey and nørƒ.

****ed my SC though so hate him even more.

 

[Dave]

Has it?

Not that I'm comparing him directly, but Leigh Matthews regularly belted people in brutal fashion. Yet many people who bemoan his thuggery will readily call him the greatest player they've seen in the same breath.

Different era. You can't compare some of what Matthews did with that's acceptable today. Biffo bumps and brawlers had stuff in it that would see players banned for life today yet back then a lot of it didn't even warrant a free kick.

 

[Doss]

Different era. You can't compare some of what Matthews did with that's acceptable today. Biffo bumps and brawlers had stuff in it that would see players banned for life today yet back then a lot of it didn't even warrant a free kick.

I have BB&B. Great viewing if you're a bit bored every now and then.

Yibbidy yabbida, folks.

 

[DonsRule]

I have Bondage, Blindfolded and Bound. Great viewing if you're a bit bored every now and then.

Yibbidy yabbida, folks.

Not the thread for these kinds of things, Doss.


And, I'm not sure I see the relevance to Matthews era etc.

I think I better run now.

 

[Runk]

LOL

 

[monty1104]

A PP for Melbourne is sheer lunacy. Only 6 weeks ago, the media was lauding that they were 'much improved' etc etc.. then they have one disgusting loss and suddenly it is PP time?

Cant say I agree with this logic. At all. Melbourne have won 9 games in three years. Bear in mind, that these three years have also seen the introduction of 2 new clubs, which, logically, should've boosted Melbourne's win %. Under the old rule, they'd have received a priority pick at the end of 2012, 2013 and this year (assuming they don't win another). If there was ever a time where a club actually needs a priority pick, it is Melbourne, and it is now.

I mean we lost to Melbourne.. so maybe we need a PP too??

Reductio ad absurdum. You're not helping your cause.

 

[rines]

Cant say I agree with this logic. At all. Melbourne have won 9 games in three years. Bear in mind, that these three years have also seen the introduction of 2 new clubs, which, logically, should've boosted Melbourne's win %. Under the old rule, they'd have received a priority pick at the end of 2012, 2013 and this year (assuming they don't win another). If there was ever a time where a club actually needs a priority pick, it is Melbourne, and it is now.

Reductio ad absurdum. You're not helping your cause.

You really don't get humour.

 

[monty1104]

You really don't get humour.

Honestly, I don't think anyone laughed when they read your post. That's the point of humour right, to make people laugh.

See, I get it.

 

[Doss]

You really don't get humour.

Lies. I've seen O2J engage in many a bout of witty repartee.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Honestly, I don't think anyone laughed when they read your post. That's the point of humour right, to make people laugh.

See, I get it.

Ease up, it was clearly a joke...

 

[Phone]

Lies. I've seen O2J engage in many a bout of witty repartee.

the user name itself is a joke

 

[Ben the Gooner]

Paul Roos agrees to coach a third year, Melbourne suddenly gets a discussion about a PP, now Roos is saying he'll trade it. The Australian's blob of bile has written an article saying they deserve one.

We all know how the AFL works. Melbourne will get a PP which they'll agree to trade, probably as part of the negotiations to have Roos coach again. By the time it's announced, the media will have discussed it so much the public will be sick of it rather than outraged, and probably largely happy with the decision.

 

[Doss]

Paul Roos agrees to coach a third year, Melbourne suddenly gets a discussion about a PP, now Roos is saying he'll trade it. The Australian's blob of bile has written an article saying they deserve one.

We all know how the AFL works. Melbourne will get a PP which they'll agree to trade, probably as part of the negotiations to have Roos coach again. By the time it's announced, the media will have discussed it so much the public will be sick of it rather than outraged, and probably largely happy with the decision.

The Machiavellian ability to manipulate and control the narrative like the puppet masters that they are is largely predictable, yes.

 

[monty1104]

Paul Roos agrees to coach a third year, Melbourne suddenly gets a discussion about a PP, now Roos is saying he'll trade it. The Australian's blob of bile has written an article saying they deserve one.

We all know how the AFL works. Melbourne will get a PP which they'll agree to trade, probably as part of the negotiations to have Roos coach again. By the time it's announced, the media will have discussed it so much the public will be sick of it rather than outraged, and probably largely happy with the decision.

You say all of this as if it is a bad thing. Melbourne have been a joke on the football field for years. Certainly it was (mostly) their own doing, be it through bad drafting or bad player development, whichever side you want to take. I'm all for giving Melbourne a bit of a boost. They have been at the very bottom through the compromised drafts and the introduction of GWS and GC. They haven't received the draft picks they would have received in other years. Last year for example, they only won 2 games and received pick 2. That's unheard of. 2012 they had 4 wins and had pick 3. In previous years and under previous compensation rules, they would've been awarded pick 2 and 4 in 2013, and picks 3 and 6 in 2012, and that's best case scenario. 2 wins and 4 wins will usually end up finishing last, not second last or 3rd last.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

I have an issue with the totally arbitrary way they're assigned and the totally condescending way in which they condition people to accept whatever their decision of the week is.

 

[monty1104]

Unfortunately when they took away the 4 win limit to prevent tanking, they failed to implement a similarly transparent system and instead, went to an application submission, where they could hand it out by discretion. I don't agree with it either, but I believe Melbourne have shown they have been bad enough for long enough to warrant a pick.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

You say all of this as if it is a bad thing. Melbourne have been a joke on the football field for years. Certainly it was (mostly) their own doing, be it through bad drafting or bad player development, whichever side you want to take. I'm all for giving Melbourne a bit of a boost. They have been at the very bottom through the compromised drafts and the introduction of GWS and GC. They haven't received the draft picks they would have received in other years. Last year for example, they only won 2 games and received pick 2. That's unheard of. 2012 they had 4 wins and had pick 3. In previous years and under previous compensation rules, they would've been awarded pick 2 and 4 in 2013, and picks 3 and 6 in 2012, and that's best case scenario. 2 wins and 4 wins will usually end up finishing last, not second last or 3rd last.

Ben the Gooner may be against the pick being offered (I don't know), but I thought his post was mainly pointing out the AFL's slimy decision making pathway rather than the merits of giving Melbourne a PP.

I would prefer it if they just came out and said, uh, we think Melbourne is just shit, and they need a PP or three Stat. And we're giving it to them. Everybody may not agree with the outcome, but at least there's a degree of clarity and god forbid, honesty, about the decision.

Edit: Ben clarified while I was posting.

 

[monty1104]

Ben the Gooner may be against the pick being offered (I don't know), but I thought his post was mainly pointing out the AFL's slimy decision making pathway rather than the merits of giving Melbourne a PP.

I would prefer it if they just came out and said, uh, we think Melbourne is just shit, and they need a PP or three Stat. And we're giving it to them. Everybody may not agree with the outcome, but at least there's a degree of clarity and god forbid, honesty, about the decision.

Edit: Ben clarified while I was posting.

Yep I agree with this post.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

As I recall, the AFL were also fairly clear in suggesting that any future priority picks would be after-first-round at best. If that's what Melbourne are after (or get) I don't think it's too much of an issue.

 

[yaco55]

One or two instances per game of players being given a suplex like that?

No, there are not.

Do you think that Harvey actually meant to perform a suplex ? Players wrestle and grapple every game - Sometimes they end up on the ground and some interesting things happen. I don't think that Harvey's wrestle was any worse than the average.

I am more concerned that Wells committed two offences - One which was off the ball - And the off the ball incident was a touch worse than Goddard's - And ends up with one week - And in the second incident, the bumping incident, Higgins spent a few minutes on the bench. Wells got a discount on both offences because of an existing good record - Surely the first report on the day nullifies any good record discounts - Wells should not have got a discount for the second incident - It's an anomaly in the system - Over to you Phone.