E
easy_tiger
Guest
Ridley said:
doesn't really matter if Essendon get first use.
Smith isnt there, and Sheil will just give it straight back.
I reckon we go with Higlet one out in the ruck.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Ivan Soldo
- Thread starter buenavista
- Start date
doesn't really matter if Essendon get first use.
Smith isnt there, and Sheil will just give it straight back.
I reckon we go with Higlet one out in the ruck.
Kermit makes SEN unlistenable. Smug wanker. I don't condone violence but he drives me mad. The most smashable face in footy.
His radio program is full of Geelong people with the same characteristics - Dangerfield (smug wanker), Blight (smug wanker).
Geez I want to win that Geelong game.
His radio program is full of Geelong people with the same characteristics - Dangerfield (smug wanker), Blight (smug wanker).
Geez I want to win that Geelong game.
easy said:
:hihi :hihi can always rely on your lateral thinking easy.
But seriously I know what you're getting at but we need to be competitive against Bellchambers. This is a game we really should win and we don't want to drop it. 7-3 with our injury list sets us up for top 4; even top 2. I was extremely confident before the Soldo farce; not as confident now.
E
easy_tiger
Guest
Ridley said:
I know what you mean.
But without looking at any stats, Im convinced Essendon are the worst users of the ball, particularly by hand (they are virtuosos of the 'you-deal-with-it' panic handball to a stationary bloke under pressure)
Our game will entirely dismantle and humiliate them.
Collingwood, Gws and Footscray are all very slick ball users. Essendon are dreadful users. woeful.
They play like their club doesn't own any footys
im not the least bit worried about this one.
I reckon we could rest Dusty and still win by 5 goals.
Im going to take the +60 margin
easy said:
Agree with most of that easy. But when punting take note that we don't win by big margins. Also take note of the Footscray game and how confident most were going into that game.
That said our recent record against the Dogs is terrible; against the Bombers it's excellent.
I've never seen a more ridiculous case than this. Clearly a case of automatic protection as an opponent instigated unexpected contact when the ball wasn't in play. And it was in slow motion and there was zero force and no damage. How that gets a week yet Gary Ablett can jump off the ground and connect to someone's head with a raised elbow not once but TWICE in two weeks and get off is beyond my comprehension. Didn't think Cox deserved suspension either, similar incident, they appeal he gets off. I just don't get it. I don't get how anyone in the media can argue that's worthy of a suspension either. Are they blind? Stupid? Or just biased?
E
easy_tiger
Guest
Ridley said:
last season we won by by >40 nine times.
including >70 over bombers
I reckon we punish poor disposal.
I think its why Pies have our measure ATM. They use the ball very very well.
Ridley said:
With complete bias illogical *smile*. Got ridiculous at one stage he sai Ivan got him from behind, robbo very agitated said crap he was in his face. GW mumbled something and changed the subject.
this may be a shock, but i reckon Christian decides the penalty then tick the boxes to make it fit.
he wants to give Soldo a week, call it off the ball, which makes it intentional- if he wanted to fine him he would have called it reckless, cos the Hawk initiated contact.
he wants to give him a week call it low impact. if he wanted to get him off call it whatever he called Mitchells last year, cos the hawk jumped straight up.
either of these calls would have been ok, but wouldnt have got the outcome he wanted.
Soldo getting a week for 'hitting' a bloke who got straight up, while Mumford gets off for putting a guy in hospital also highlights the contradiction in how the AFL treats head hits- which i dont disagree with- against body hits, and also the allowance guys get (sometimes) for hits "in play" (despite the ball being well gone.
Lynch's hit also highlights this. Lynch punched a guy with good force in his guts, miles off the ball. that should be a week. it is way worse than Soldo's hit. they couldnt suspend him though because they have let guys get away with all year.
he wants to give Soldo a week, call it off the ball, which makes it intentional- if he wanted to fine him he would have called it reckless, cos the Hawk initiated contact.
he wants to give him a week call it low impact. if he wanted to get him off call it whatever he called Mitchells last year, cos the hawk jumped straight up.
either of these calls would have been ok, but wouldnt have got the outcome he wanted.
Soldo getting a week for 'hitting' a bloke who got straight up, while Mumford gets off for putting a guy in hospital also highlights the contradiction in how the AFL treats head hits- which i dont disagree with- against body hits, and also the allowance guys get (sometimes) for hits "in play" (despite the ball being well gone.
Lynch's hit also highlights this. Lynch punched a guy with good force in his guts, miles off the ball. that should be a week. it is way worse than Soldo's hit. they couldnt suspend him though because they have let guys get away with all year.
Tim Watson noted that he saw the footage and contact was made to the shoulder. That the Hawks player initiated contact and Soldo merely protected himself. Kermit dismissed all that and said Richmond ran the wrong case. Simple.
How anyone can argue that Ablett's action was unintentional and Soldo's intentional is beyond me. Ablett struck the players in the head, Soldo in the Chest/shoulder. Ablett had free kicks paid against him did Soldo?
How anyone can argue that Ablett's action was unintentional and Soldo's intentional is beyond me. Ablett struck the players in the head, Soldo in the Chest/shoulder. Ablett had free kicks paid against him did Soldo?
MD Jazz said:
The other thing is that ABlett's second one and Fyfe's one were deemed to be insufficient force to warrant a report. Soldo's seemed no more forceful that those ones
