Stupid Dutchy given FIVE weeks!

[Daicosian]

Hooray, someone with some balls! ^^^^^^

Funny, Holland's defence last night was pretty much verbatim as to how i explained how the incident occured. I also said he got the suspension he deserved because of the head high contact that was the end result.

So if you two fairies had the end result that there was no head high contact, and Holland made a legal bump where he broke his ribs or something taking him out of the game and intimidating the young bulldogs out of the game, would you be saying the same thing? It's not Auskick ladies.

BTW shirtlifters, i aint the only one that saw it how it was. Have a read of this thread and watch the video of it while you are at it. http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=267398

 

[ant22]

Hooray, someone with some balls! ^^^^^^

Funny, Holland's defence last night was pretty much verbatim as to how i explained how the incident occured. I also said he got the suspension he deserved because of the head high contact that was the end result.

So if you two fairies had the end result that there was no head high contact, and Holland made a legal bump where he broke his ribs or something taking him out of the game and intimidating the young bulldogs out of the game, would you be saying the same thing? It's not Auskick ladies.

BTW shirtlifters, i aint the only one that saw it how it was. Have a read of this thread and watch the video of it while you are at it. http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=267398

Now daics I think you may be starting to confuse yourself. Of course his defence was the same as what you said . IT WAS A DEFENCE. He was trying to have his suspsenion reduced. It does not mean you are right. When a murderer says he shot out of self defence it does not mean its true

It was either a dog act or there was nothing wrong with it . You can't have it both ways. Its no good saying it was a good bump but he just happened to get him a bit high therefore he deserved to get a few weeks. The fact is Brodie made a decision to line up a player who did not have the footy who was not even looking at him and a player that was barely moving and take him out. It was extremely reckless and very dangerous. IMO this does not take courage as anyone can do it.

You claim you are not trying to justify his actions and then you ramble on about this kind of stuff helping win games of footy. Talk about contridiction. To be honest I don't think you even know what you think. This kind of crap might win footy against Carlton but good teams dont get sucked in by it. The 5 goal burst had nothing to do with the incident because the dogs kicked 2 goals after the incident occurred. You use the Lions as an example of a team that used intimidation to win 3 gfs. Yes they did intimidate but they reason they won is because they had arguabley the best team in modern history and they put there head over the footy.

I have no problem with bumps, infact I love to see good fair bumps but I dont believe someone lining up a guy who does not even have the footy from 30 metres away and then taking him out front on when they don't even see you coming is very courageous nor do it think it is tough. I love watching hard tough footy but to me that means footy you head over the ball and winning the hard ball gets ala the swans.

So to answer your question. IT WAS NOT A LEGAL BUMP SO WHY BOTHER ASKING!!!!!

 

[dooza]

He did the crime, so he has to do the time.

 

[Daicosian]

You are a ****** ANT22. I was not justifying his action of head high in the bump, but if it was a little cleaner in the execution (there was no head contact) then i would have been all for it and cheered him on. I called it as I saw it before Brodie's defence was even raised stupid. As you say, "Brodie made a decision to line up a player",and "someone lining up a guy who does not even have the footy from 30 metres away", that is absolute rubbish, and i aren't the only one to say it, including non Collingwood supporters. He ran into the centre to get to the pack, and then changed course when he saw Swan had the ball. Answer the question, if he didn't get him high would you think it was ok? Read the thread link that i posted, your the delusional one saying Brodie had intent, unlike everyone else.
Actually, i'm over explaining it to you, you aint ever gonna get it.

 

[Lonie_from_50]

So me and ant are soft supporters of the game because we think the right verdict came about, even though you did too WTF?

I don't think we (or certainly I) said anything meaning the game was soft. It was simply that Brodie is a dumb kent for doing what he did.

Look through the other eye! FFS

BTW - Brodie's action was intentional. Only a couple people in the world can set the facts right, rather than opinions of the football public, and that is both the match review panel and tribunal, the people who set opinions into fact, and FACT is it was intentional. FOOL

Anyway, I'm over it,

 

[Daicosian]

You are right, you didn't say anything about the game being soft, i just realised that you are because you think Brodie was stupid and dumb for doing it.
Nothing to do with one-eyed you little dweeb, i would have said the same thing if it were done exactly the same by a Bulldog, or anyone else for that matter. Why is he dumb for doing it, because he made head contact? Stats show one small part of the game propellor head, and the rest you know nothing about. I bet several smashed you when you finally had a go you little faggggg.
So because the MRP and Tribunal say something, then it is FACT? Tell that to Wakelin who got his cheek bone smashed by Lynch intentionally, only for it not to even get called up. THAT was intentional.

 

[Lonie_from_50]

You are right, you didn't say anything about the game being soft, i just realised that you are because you think Brodie was stupid and dumb for doing it.
Nothing to do with one-eyed you little dweeb, i would have said the same thing if it were done exactly the same by a Bulldog, or anyone else for that matter. Why is he dumb for doing it, because he made head contact? Stats show one small part of the game propellor head, and the rest you know nothing about. I bet several smashed you when you finally had a go you little faggggg.
So because the MRP and Tribunal say something, then it is FACT? Tell that to Wakelin who got his cheek bone smashed by Lynch intentionally, only for it not to even get called up. THAT was intentional.

We like seeing tough football and winning the hard ball all day long etc. We as fans like seeing big hits etc. aswell, and I tell you, I loved Brodie's hit, it showed it was Finals footy, then again, it showed him being stupid by going overboard. It was in his head, and what he did was good, yes, but he deserved what he got, and I come on here saying that. It was dumb because it was just rough, and not tough. There are rules mate and what he did, may simply cost us 6 WINS IN 2007. Even though I don't like the bloke, but Robert Walls stated clearly in the WC Eagles match and then on On the Couch, that Brodie Holland was a major reason why the Pies lost 4 out of 5 games mid-season! He hit the nail on the head, Brodie's importance! Brodie did something dumb by a simple act of going a little too far, and our season may be over next year by May because of it.

Don't call me soft prick, I love the game for its toughness and hell, that's why I live and breath it and watch 150 games plus a season. Just because I enjoy doing what I love (sports statistics), doesn't mean I like the sports I love so much just because of them, man, I don't even follow dream team or supercoach, i just have a team to be involved. My knowledge of AFL is superior, even if my knowledge of the game, internally isn't. Yet, then again, I am on this forum to discuss AFL football, and not how to play or coach the f**king game, am I? If you looked at the size of me mate, you wouldn't want to come near me because I am a 'dweeb', think again fool. Even though I never have played the game other than school footy, I still am big, strong and hit people, and people feared me coming at full speed. I swear mate, me and you one on one, just seeing my name on the sheet would see brown on the back of your tight shorts.

And yes, if the MRP/Tribunal say something, it is fact you moron. In the AFL History/Record Books, it will say, B Holland, Guilty, 690 odd pts and it won't say, (in my opinion, it was fair, so this isn't exactly true!). . And to add to your point on the Wakes/Lynch incident, a) It was a terrible decision, yes, but b) It was a different criteria then, which may change something, huh!

 

[incubi]

You cant justify what he did in any way.
He went past the ball and cleaned monty up with a high, hard and intentional hit. Monty had stopped moving and was watching the ball.
I msut say im enjoying you guys try to praise someone who has a far worse record than say tony liberatore who i dont think you would ever try to defend.

 

[Fevalution]

I have figured out why he got 6 week! He got six as he got two for Didak [which should have been out] and 1 for bucks. So think urselves lucky as he is less a player then either buckey or Didak.

 

[Lonie_from_50]

People can think that Fev, but it is just stupid. There are 4 different processes in suspending a player.

1) MRP - Review incidents and decide if it is reportable or not.
2) MRP - CRITERIA USED
3) Points turn into weeks!
4) Tribunal - If a player pleads not guilty then it goes to the tribunal.

etc. I guess, but the 1st two is the most important. A MRP decides if it is reportable or not. If it is, then a criteria is used. There is no way any weeks can be added on to save their arses from cirtics.

 

[Daicosian]

People can think that Fev, but it is just stupid. There are 4 different processes in suspending a player.

1) MRP - Review incidents and decide if it is reportable or not.
2) MRP - CRITERIA USED
3) Points turn into weeks!
4) Tribunal - If a player pleads not guilty then it goes to the tribunal.

etc. I guess, but the 1st two is the most important. A MRP decides if it is reportable or not. If it is, then a criteria is used. There is no way any weeks can be added on to save their arses from cirtics.

For christ's sake, get out of your bedroom and away from your computer, and get a personality, fair chance Fevalution was taking the ****. I'm sure he is really appreciating you telling him how the the system works.

Oh, and don't get upset and angry with me either, i know your big, strong and hit people!

 

[Lonie_from_50]

For christ's sake, get out of your bedroom and away from your computer, and get a personality, fair chance Fevalution was taking the ****. I'm sure he is really appreciating you telling him how the the system works.

Oh, and don't get upset and angry with me either, i know your big, strong and hit people!

The fact that I was talking to Fev, a guy I actually know and see everyday, it shouldn't concern you.

Great contradiction as well mate. 1) Call me a little dweeb, then call me big strong, lmfao. 2) You want the Pies to win, however a 'smart' thing that Holland did, can simply see our season over within the first month

And you might actually learn something from what I write. You obviously don't know how the system works if you think what Holland did was fair and what should've been done.

 

[Daicosian]

Great contradiction as well mate. 1) Call me a little dweeb, then call me big strong, lmfao. Oh the irony, your just not aware of sarcasm are you? I have seen a pic of you, and the description of yourself and people being scared of you is a farce. Just be like those in 'Revenge of the Nerds', and realise what you are - life will be so much easier.

2) You want the Pies to win, however a 'smart' thing that Holland did, can simply see our season over within the first month

Oh the sky is falling, the sky is falling! If our season is gonna hinge on one player, we don't deserve to get anywhere in a season.

 

[Lonie_from_50]

Blah blah blah

Good call, n00b