Remove this Banner Ad

Stupid Dutchy given FIVE weeks!

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

5 is a bit harsh. Why the hell would he line Monty up anyway. There are far more damaging players - West, Cooney, Griffen or Cross would have been heaps better candidates.
 
Dazman said:
5 is a bit harsh. Why the hell would he line Monty up anyway. There are far more damaging players - West, Cooney, Griffen or Cross would have been heaps better candidates.
Click to expand...
Like any final its as simple as showing the upper hand at the opening bounce. Try and get the opposition doughting themselves. Dutchy lined him up and most definately didnt plan on knocking him out. He knocked himselof out when he hit the ground with his head it had nothing to do with the bump. Why would he try and knock him out, if we win he misses the rest of the finals not something you play all year for.
 
The thing that annoys me most about this is that it must have been a direct instruction from the coach's or Brodie decided that he was going to line somebody up at the start of the match.

If so, why couldn't he take out someone more important to Footscray than Montgomery? Why not line up Cooney / West / Griffen ??

To anyone who points out that Montgomery kicked 4 goals - he got 3 of them when suffering from concussion, and I doubt that if he wasn't concussed he would have gotten them.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

guess_who said:
Word is that he only actually got two weeks, but they decided to add on what Didak should have goten.
Click to expand...


Am I the only one confused by the tribunal decisions?

We have a bloke who has been suspended this year for a record fourth time. He comes out with a total of 5 matches from those four apperances, how does that work?

Didak had his elbow up and it was deemed as accidental. I thought he was gone.

Daniel Chick does exactly the same as Holland and gets of scott free.:confused:

To say Brodie deserves 5 matches is just stupid. His elbow was down and he hit Montgomery's head with his shoulder. Shouldn't that have been the one ruled accidental?

If we are going to suport the removing of the shirt-front from the game, footy will be worse for it. This is a contact sport after all.
 
dumesny1 said:
Am I the only one confused by the tribunal decisions?

Didak had his elbow up and it was deemed as accidental. I thought he was gone.

Daniel Chick does exactly the same as Holland and gets of scott free.:confused:

To say Brodie deserves 5 matches is just stupid. His elbow was down and he hit Montgomery's head with his shoulder. Shouldn't that have been the one ruled accidental?
Click to expand...

1. Sometimes but not this week.

2. Didak's elbow was not up.

3. Chicks was hardly the same as Holland. Holland got his head and Monty was never going to get the ball, Whoever Chick got it might have been late but it wasnt high and only warrented a down-field free.

4. He got 3 matches (Or 4?). Regardless the rest is his own fault.
 
Stakerz said:
i frkn loved it, the game needs more of it, he got up didn't he.. was best on ground.. why rub out it of the game? frkn netball... frk afl.
Click to expand...


Becuase courage is putting your head over the footy and winning it ala the judds , voss's and hirds of the world. Our blokes did not do this,hence we got pumped!

Im with you Lonie he deserved what he got . It was one of the dumbest acts I have seen in footy in a while.
 
What bulltish! I was in the AFL members section at ground level, and was purely focusing on Brodie to see what he would do. He charged in to the centre, and Monty was just unlucky to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Brodie's eyes were on the pack where the ball was when he first arrived, but you could clearly see that he looked to his left and saw Monty and then decided to lay the bump.

Montgomery also ran full tilt off the line to the centre pack, and maybe Brodie got him before he got one of ours. I can't undersatnd why a lot of you are saying it was stupid, especially in a final. I don't believe for a second that the end result was what he was after, more like him intending to shake the young Bulldogs up from the first bounce, which sort of had an effect in that first quarter. Didak's efforts a couple of weeks back changed to whole mood of the game, and maybe that was what Brodie was after.

He has got what he deserved from the outcome of head high contact, but don't hang him out to dry for it. We could do with a whole lot more of the tuff stuff in our side, remember being intimidated in 2002 & 2003?
 
People who are saying 5 weeks is too much have to realise something. The review panel are inconsistent, yes, but what they gave us is as fair as anything could be.

High Contact - Clearly
High Impact - Obviously
Intentional - Ofcourse
In play - " "

= 426 points = 3 weeks with a guilty plea! (-25%)
- So that is fair, everyone would agree.

But Dutchy is a nutcase. He has a bad record, 5 weeks in the last 3 years = plenty added on, coming to 5 weeks (without early plea), and then he got suspended for 1 week earlier this year (was 90 odd points) so that is once again, added onto the already added on total, hence 6 weeks, bought down to 5 (which is being appealed and may result in 7 for all we know)

So, think about it before you say it shouldn't be 5-6!
 
Daicosian said:
What bulltish! I was in the AFL members section at ground level, and was purely focusing on Brodie to see what he would do. He charged in to the centre, and Monty was just unlucky to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Brodie's eyes were on the pack where the ball was when he first arrived, but you could clearly see that he looked to his left and saw Monty and then decided to lay the bump.

Montgomery also ran full tilt off the line to the centre pack, and maybe Brodie got him before he got one of ours. I can't undersatnd why a lot of you are saying it was stupid, especially in a final. I don't believe for a second that the end result was what he was after, more like him intending to shake the young Bulldogs up from the first bounce, which sort of had an effect in that first quarter. Didak's efforts a couple of weeks back changed to whole mood of the game, and maybe that was what Brodie was after.

He has got what he deserved from the outcome of head high contact, but don't hang him out to dry for it. We could do with a whole lot more of the tuff stuff in our side, remember being intimidated in 2002 & 2003?
Click to expand...

Holland needs lessons on how to bump. Burns on Brown in the GF years back...huge and fair! Hollands was just plain dumb!
 
Whatever propellor head. You still playing footy, or has mum and dad shut it down again because it's too rough. You starting to believe their hype?

Grow TFU, and realise this a contact sport, and often sheisen happens. I personally am sick of our club being soft front runners, and its overdue for our club to get hard and tough, at the man and the ball, and dominate the timid. Back in the day of our many premierships, it was regular practice to belt a few, get the opposition into fight mode and minds off the game, and then run free with ball and score in rapid succession. Similar to how we threw Carlton off their game 3 weeks ago. Look at the success Brisbane got out of this uncompromising attitude - i know what i'd rather.
 
AFL is a contact sport, hell yeah. It is still the biggest hard hitting sport in the world. But then again, there are rules, and a criteria that could see you get suspended nuff nuff. The ruling was, Holland's hit was stupid and reportable. It was looked at on tapes, and a decision was made that this was a stupid act and therefore will be consequences. Therefore...because of that, we see the criteria used hence the final result. Then again, you don't care. Your just looking out of one eye (no doubt).

The tribunal is inconsistent...not soft. The sport is not soft, it is rough, it is just that the men in whatever fruity coloured uniform give away soft frees because there are rules to abide, and they thought it was too much in favour of the rules than not.

There is no sport to be played if there was no rules. Players have to abide by them or they suffer the consequences. I think ou'll love the movie Rollerball if you are still thinking the afl is soft mate.

Collingwood aren't exactly softer than Brisbane Lions, the Lions were just more intimidating and use their brains more, ie. they were fair in every sense. There is a big big difference between tough and rough.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Daicosian said:
What bulltish! I was in the AFL members section at ground level, and was purely focusing on Brodie to see what he would do. He charged in to the centre, and Monty was just unlucky to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Brodie's eyes were on the pack where the ball was when he first arrived, but you could clearly see that he looked to his left and saw Monty and then decided to lay the bump.

Montgomery also ran full tilt off the line to the centre pack, and maybe Brodie got him before he got one of ours. I can't undersatnd why a lot of you are saying it was stupid, especially in a final. I don't believe for a second that the end result was what he was after, more like him intending to shake the young Bulldogs up from the first bounce, which sort of had an effect in that first quarter. Didak's efforts a couple of weeks back changed to whole mood of the game, and maybe that was what Brodie was after.

He has got what he deserved from the outcome of head high contact, but don't hang him out to dry for it. We could do with a whole lot more of the tuff stuff in our side, remember being intimidated in 2002 & 2003?
Click to expand...

Geez no wonder other supporters get stuck into us for being the most biased supporters in the comp with peanuts like yourself. Take off your rose coloured glasses and have a good look at it . The camera does not lie buddy. He had 1 intention and that was to take out monty. You talk about us doing the tuff stuff and yet sunday was one of the softest displays I have seen in a long time, what did brodies hit acheive?? It aint tough to take someone out who isnt looking, anyone can do that . It was the bulldogs who put there head over the footy and that is the most courageous thing you can do in this great game of ours. I love our team and I like the way brodie plays(most times) but I am one who is prepard to take of the rose coloured glasses and call it as it happens. Fortunately there are a few others on this topic who are doing the same.
 
Lonie_from_50 said:
AFL is a contact sport, hell yeah. It is still the biggest hard hitting sport in the world. But then again, there are rules, and a criteria that could see you get suspended nuff nuff. The ruling was, Holland's hit was stupid and reportable. It was looked at on tapes, and a decision was made that this was a stupid act and therefore will be consequences. Therefore...because of that, we see the criteria used hence the final result. Then again, you don't care. Your just looking out of one eye (no doubt).
And how is me thinking that it is not a stupid act one eyed? I have already stated that he was rightfully suspended because the end result was high contact. So the ruling handed down was "stupid and reportable" was it - who's the nuff nuff here? You must be gay to be so precious about what he did.

The tribunal is inconsistent...not soft. The sport is not soft, it is rough, it is just that the men in whatever fruity coloured uniform give away soft frees because there are rules to abide, and they thought it was too much in favour of the rules than not.

There is no sport to be played if there was no rules. Players have to abide by them or they suffer the consequences. I think ou'll love the movie Rollerball if you are still thinking the afl is soft mate.
Wow, your so intelligent, did the kids at school pick on you because you are such a propellor head and tried to explain to them the blatently obvious? We all know your type stats man.

Collingwood aren't exactly softer than Brisbane Lions, the Lions were just more intimidating and use their brains more, ie. they were fair in every sense. There is a big big difference between tough and rough.
Click to expand...
They intimidated us because they were hard, tough and generally smashed us physically. So Lynch smashed Wakelin's cheek bone and got off because he "used his brains more and was fair in every way". Too many like you at our club would explain why it's 1 in 50.
 
Also Daicosian,

You were at a final and for the first bounce you only had eyes for Brodie hHolland to see what he would do, is this correct?? It seems strange that someone would focus on Brodie Holland rather than watch who is actually going to get the footy.
 
ant22 said:
Geez no wonder other supporters get stuck into us for being the most biased supporters in the comp with peanuts like yourself. Take off your rose coloured glasses and have a good look at it . The camera does not lie buddy. He had 1 intention and that was to take out monty. You talk about us doing the tuff stuff and yet sunday was one of the softest displays I have seen in a long time, what did brodies hit acheive?? It aint tough to take someone out who isnt looking, anyone can do that . It was the bulldogs who put there head over the footy and that is the most courageous thing you can do in this great game of ours. I love our team and I like the way brodie plays(most times) but I am one who is prepard to take of the rose coloured glasses and call it as it happens. Fortunately there are a few others on this topic who are doing the same.
Click to expand...

Bring it on clown, where did i say his suspension was wrong and how then am i looking through rose coloured glasses? I also said that i am sick of our club being soft front runners, not unlike yourself saying that Sunday was one of the softest. Moron of the highest order. :o
 
ant22 said:
Also Daicosian,

You were at a final and for the first bounce you only had eyes for Brodie hHolland to see what he would do, is this correct?? It seems strange that someone would focus on Brodie Holland rather than watch who is actually going to get the footy.
Click to expand...

If you were there, you would have noticed the niggle with him before the bounce, and the fact that he was right in front of me.
 
Daicosian said:
Bring it on clown, where did i say his suspension was wrong and how then am i looking through rose coloured glasses? I also said that i am sick of our club being soft front runners, not unlike yourself saying that Sunday was one of the softest. Moron of the highest order. :o
Click to expand...


You were trying to justify his actions peanut. This is why I said you have rose coloured glasses. I thought that would have been easy to figure out. Anyone who believes taking blokes out off the footy is going to help win a game of footy has no idea and to me it certainly sounds like this is what you are trying to say.

So why were you watching brodie at the start , do you love him??
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

ant22 said:
You were trying to justify his actions peanut. This is why I said you have rose coloured glasses. I thought that would have been easy to figure out. Anyone who believes taking blokes out off the footy is going to help win a game of footy has no idea and to me it certainly sounds like this is what you are trying to say.

So why were you watching brodie at the start , do you love him??
Click to expand...
How old are you? :rolleyes:

Here you go moron "but you could clearly see that he looked to his left and saw Monty and then decided to lay the bump." So tell me, where is this justification you speak of simpleton? So what was Montgomery doing there already? Was he in the middle to start? He was not off the footy, i believe it was deemed "in play". 13 Permierships before 1990, and how we played the game says otherwise about winning games of footy. My local team has an under 16 mob that would be harder, tougher, more aggressive and more confident in their abilities than what Collingwood are at the moment.
 
Daicosian said:
Whatever propellor head. You still playing footy, or has mum and dad shut it down again because it's too rough. You starting to believe their hype?

Grow TFU, and realise this a contact sport, and often sheisen happens. I personally am sick of our club being soft front runners, and its overdue for our club to get hard and tough, at the man and the ball, and dominate the timid. Back in the day of our many premierships, it was regular practice to belt a few, get the opposition into fight mode and minds off the game, and then run free with ball and score in rapid succession. Similar to how we threw Carlton off their game 3 weeks ago. Look at the success Brisbane got out of this uncompromising attitude - i know what i'd rather.
Click to expand...

You just woken up from a 50 year coma? Holland's hit did nothing to the psyche of the Bulldogs hence was a bad ploy on all counts.

ps. He has just copped 6 for being a tool.
 
Daicosian said:
How old are you? :rolleyes:

Here you go moron "but you could clearly see that he looked to his left and saw Monty and then decided to lay the bump." So tell me, where is this justification you speak of simpleton? So what was Montgomery doing there already? Was he in the middle to start? He was not off the footy, i believe it was deemed "in play". 13 Permierships before 1990, and how we played the game says otherwise about winning games of footy. My local team has an under 16 mob that would be harder, tougher, more aggressive and more confident in their abilities than what Collingwood are at the moment.]]
Click to expand...


What bulltish! I was in the AFL members section at ground level, and was purely focusing on Brodie to see what he would do. He charged in to the centre, and Monty was just unlucky to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Brodie's eyes were on the pack where the ball was when he first arrived, but you could clearly see that he looked to his left and saw Monty and then decided to lay the bump.

Montgomery also ran full tilt off the line to the centre pack, and maybe Brodie got him before he got one of ours. I can't undersatnd why a lot of you are saying it was stupid, especially in a final. I don't believe for a second that the end result was what he was after, more like him intending to shake the young Bulldogs up from the first bounce, which sort of had an effect in that first quarter. Didak's efforts a couple of weeks back changed to whole mood of the game, and maybe that was what Brodie was after.

The justifaction is right here in back and white for everyone to see. See when you put the last sentence of the 1st paragraph in isolation it does not look like justifaction but add the other sentences and its a different story.

One minute you say
"I can't undersatnd why a lot of you are saying it was stupid, especially in a final" and then you try and say you are not justifying his actions.

And you reckon i'm the simpleton

The only thing we agree on is that our blokes didn't put our head over the footy. You seem to think it is ok to take blokes out if it can result in a win whereas I reckon its gutless.
 
Holland gets SIX weeks

And Daicosian, your passionate, which is great, but your also a bitter old man who doesn't realise there are 15 other clubs in the AFL with the same intention as us. Get over it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom