SA Footy

daysofourlives wrote:
Have to look at a bit different Jim, they are already financially viable as they bring the extra $$$ in TV rights

I understand the extra $$ in TV rights but wouldnt they get that no matter where the games are?
Does there come a point where it just costs too much?
The AFL wouldnt want to have to give hand outs to those two clubs for the next 100 years surely

Hannebery with no case to answer for his bump on Hurley. Thank god for that.

Adam Goodes has again been a victim of racial vilification, after a horrible string of words from a bombers member on friday night.

Bombers have confirmed they have identified the person and have voided their membership for 2014...

Well done to the bombers.

Honestly it's ridiculous that in this day and age people are still racist. Goodes at least has the guts and public profile to do something about it. A lot of others don't.

bennymacca wrote:Well done to the bombers.

Honestly it's ridiculous that in this day and age people are still racist. Goodes at least has the guts and public profile to do something about it. A lot of others don't.

Goodes didnt hear the comments.
The idiot fan made the comments early on in the game and several other Essendon supporters reported him to police who evicted the guy from the ground. Goodes wasnt aware of it until Essendon officials approached him after the game.
The guys membership has been terminated and a life ban could be issued by the club

Fair enough.

Great work by the other supporters and the club then.

Geelong fans are getting a bit Catty with Steve Johnson. Every time we play the Dockers Crowley, Ballantyne or both get right inside his head. He does stuff all and then gets reported in the bargain.

In the past Geelong used to be very good at sending the senior guys to the 'hall of mirrors'. Ablett was told to train harder as he could become 'our Chris Judd', Mooney was told to pull his head in and act like a senior player, Bartel was asked whether being a sometimes ressies player or full time league player was what he wanted to get out of his career. You know what? This shit worked and an enigmatic team turned into a powerhouse.

While I don't think we have the cattle of 2007 it seems that our standards are beginning to slip away along with our playing stocks. Johnson needs to be told to pull his head in just like Mooney was. You are a leader now Dog so bloody well act like it. We Geelong fans can grumble about the tribunal picking on us but the MRP has had a gutful of Steve Johnson and this attitude should be shown to him from within the club.

Tactically Scott hasn't got the answer to the Rossick Cube and mentally Johnson hasn't worked out a way to be an effective contributor. Scott needs to think about positional changes and Johnson needs to accept there will be games where he won't get zillions of possessions but still contribute. In other words, he needs to learn how beat a tag.

Having said that though I'm not real happy with Zac Clarke not getting any weeks for elbowing Johnson in the head.

regards,

REB

It's kind of amazing how someone like Stevie J can be so incredibly smart and dumb at the same time ...

Rik E Boy wrote:Geelong fans are getting a bit Catty with Steve Johnson. Every time we play the Dockers Crowley, Ballantyne or both get right inside his head. He does stuff all and then gets reported in the bargain.

In the past Geelong used to be very good at sending the senior guys to the 'hall of mirrors'. Ablett was told to train harder as he could become 'our Chris Judd', Mooney was told to pull his head in and act like a senior player, Bartel was asked whether being a sometimes ressies player or full time league player was what he wanted to get out of his career. You know what? This shit worked and an enigmatic team turned into a powerhouse.

While I don't think we have the cattle of 2007 it seems that our standards are beginning to slip away along with our playing stocks. Johnson needs to be told to pull his head in just like Mooney was. You are a leader now Dog so bloody well act like it. We Geelong fans can grumble about the tribunal picking on us but the MRP has had a gutful of Steve Johnson and this attitude should be shown to him from within the club.

Tactically Scott hasn't got the answer to the Rossick Cube and mentally Johnson hasn't worked out a way to be an effective contributor. Scott needs to think about positional changes and Johnson needs to accept there will be games where he won't get zillions of possessions but still contribute. In other words, he needs to learn how beat a tag.

Having said that though I'm not real happy with Zac Clarke not getting any weeks for elbowing Johnson in the head.

regards,

REB

pretty fair point there. although there wasnt much in what he did, it was completely uncalled for, so he deserves any penalty he gets.

and yeah, he does seem to get tagged out of games a bit too easily. I guess in the past if that happened he would just go forward, where a tagger wasnt really the right matchup for him, but now because he is basically the number 1 midfielder he cant do that. so he probably hasnt really learned to shake the tag like other midfielders of his calibre have, because he only really started playing full time mids in the past couple of years.

bennymacca wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:Geelong fans are getting a bit Catty with Steve Johnson. Every time we play the Dockers Crowley, Ballantyne or both get right inside his head. He does stuff all and then gets reported in the bargain.

In the past Geelong used to be very good at sending the senior guys to the 'hall of mirrors'. Ablett was told to train harder as he could become 'our Chris Judd', Mooney was told to pull his head in and act like a senior player, Bartel was asked whether being a sometimes ressies player or full time league player was what he wanted to get out of his career. You know what? This shit worked and an enigmatic team turned into a powerhouse.

While I don't think we have the cattle of 2007 it seems that our standards are beginning to slip away along with our playing stocks. Johnson needs to be told to pull his head in just like Mooney was. You are a leader now Dog so bloody well act like it. We Geelong fans can grumble about the tribunal picking on us but the MRP has had a gutful of Steve Johnson and this attitude should be shown to him from within the club.

Tactically Scott hasn't got the answer to the Rossick Cube and mentally Johnson hasn't worked out a way to be an effective contributor. Scott needs to think about positional changes and Johnson needs to accept there will be games where he won't get zillions of possessions but still contribute. In other words, he needs to learn how beat a tag.

Having said that though I'm not real happy with Zac Clarke not getting any weeks for elbowing Johnson in the head.

regards,

REB

pretty fair point there. although there wasnt much in what he did, it was completely uncalled for, so he deserves any penalty he gets.

and yeah, he does seem to get tagged out of games a bit too easily. I guess in the past if that happened he would just go forward, where a tagger wasnt really the right matchup for him, but now because he is basically the number 1 midfielder he cant do that. so he probably hasnt really learned to shake the tag like other midfielders of his calibre have, because he only really started playing full time mids in the past couple of years.

Stevie J has the tendancy to do some stupid stuff at times and must realise that the form he is in he will constantly get tagged. Having said that pretty soft to get a week, whilst Clarke can swing an elbow and connect with him and get off. MRP needs serious looking at and quickly,

Very soft.

Sent from my GT-I9197 using Tapatalk

Yeah don't disagree it was soft, but he has history which wouldn't have allowed him to take a reprimand. There was also absolutely no reason for him to do it, which takes all the excuses away imo

bennymacca wrote:Yeah don't disagree it was soft, but he has history which wouldn't have allowed him to take a reprimand. There was also absolutely no reason for him to do it, which takes all the excuses away imo

Mate, not saying I think it's wrong, but if Stevie get a week for that surely Clarke goes for a holiday too

They both had 1 week bans, stevie just couldn't reduce his to a reprand due to his poor record and previous carryover points.

They were both actually assessed the same. Reckless, low impact, high contact, 125 points.

Stevie's increases by 30% because of his bad record, and he also had 71 carryover points, which actually took it up to 2 matches, reduced to 1 with an early plea.

I actually like that part of the tribunal system, I think it works well. The big thing that doesn't work is just how many points rough conduct attracts. It that was 50% less it would solve a lot of problems because it means blokes would be getting 1 week instead of 2, or even a reprimand.

bennymacca wrote:They both had 1 week bans, stevie just couldn't reduce his to a reprand due to his poor record and previous carryover points.

They were both actually assessed the same. Reckless, low impact, high contact, 125 points.

Stevie's increases by 30% because of his bad record, and he also had 71 carryover points, which actually took it up to 2 matches, reduced to 1 with an early plea.

I actually like that part of the tribunal system, I think it works well. The big thing that doesn't work is just how many points rough conduct attracts. It that was 50% less it would solve a lot of problems because it means blokes would be getting 1 week instead of 2, or even a reprimand.

Are you serious, how many times has the MRP ****** up this year eg. Viney case (I've lost count). The players dont know what they cvan and cant do. The rules change every week, every game, every bloody contest. Lets just wear netball bibs

All of the contentious decisions have been about rough conduct charges, which is what I said above. That is the rule that needs looking at, not striking or misconduct.

BoundaryRider84 wrote:

bennymacca wrote:They both had 1 week bans, stevie just couldn't reduce his to a reprand due to his poor record and previous carryover points.

They were both actually assessed the same. Reckless, low impact, high contact, 125 points.

Stevie's increases by 30% because of his bad record, and he also had 71 carryover points, which actually took it up to 2 matches, reduced to 1 with an early plea.

I actually like that part of the tribunal system, I think it works well. The big thing that doesn't work is just how many points rough conduct attracts. It that was 50% less it would solve a lot of problems because it means blokes would be getting 1 week instead of 2, or even a reprimand.

Are you serious, how many times has the MRP ****** up this year eg. Viney case (I've lost count). The players dont know what they cvan and cant do. The rules change every week, every game, every bloody contest. Lets just wear netball bibs

Yes they have f****d up a lot this year, but that's because they have so many grey areas around what they are trying to enforce (head high contact, forceful, neglegent contact, accidental contact etc, etc). Every case is different but IMO they just need to set a base model and work from that.

Stevie J deserved 3 matches purely for the fact he fell for Crowley's tactics again. He really is his own worst enemy at times.

Sorry Dude wrote:

BoundaryRider84 wrote:

bennymacca wrote:They both had 1 week bans, stevie just couldn't reduce his to a reprand due to his poor record and previous carryover points.

They were both actually assessed the same. Reckless, low impact, high contact, 125 points.

Stevie's increases by 30% because of his bad record, and he also had 71 carryover points, which actually took it up to 2 matches, reduced to 1 with an early plea.

I actually like that part of the tribunal system, I think it works well. The big thing that doesn't work is just how many points rough conduct attracts. It that was 50% less it would solve a lot of problems because it means blokes would be getting 1 week instead of 2, or even a reprimand.

Are you serious, how many times has the MRP ****** up this year eg. Viney case (I've lost count). The players dont know what they cvan and cant do. The rules change every week, every game, every bloody contest. Lets just wear netball bibs

Yes they have f****d up a lot this year, but that's because they have so many grey areas around what they are trying to enforce (head high contact, forceful, neglegent contact, accidental contact etc, etc). Every case is different but IMO they just need to set a base model and work from that.

Stevie J deserved 3 matches purely for the fact he fell for Crowley's tactics again. He really is his own worst enemy at times.

are you sure? 3 games... if he deserved 3 then douglas deserved 6...

woodublieve12 wrote:

Sorry Dude wrote:

BoundaryRider84 wrote:

bennymacca wrote:They both had 1 week bans, stevie just couldn't reduce his to a reprand due to his poor record and previous carryover points.

They were both actually assessed the same. Reckless, low impact, high contact, 125 points.

Stevie's increases by 30% because of his bad record, and he also had 71 carryover points, which actually took it up to 2 matches, reduced to 1 with an early plea.

I actually like that part of the tribunal system, I think it works well. The big thing that doesn't work is just how many points rough conduct attracts. It that was 50% less it would solve a lot of problems because it means blokes would be getting 1 week instead of 2, or even a reprimand.

Are you serious, how many times has the MRP ****** up this year eg. Viney case (I've lost count). The players dont know what they cvan and cant do. The rules change every week, every game, every bloody contest. Lets just wear netball bibs

Yes they have f****d up a lot this year, but that's because they have so many grey areas around what they are trying to enforce (head high contact, forceful, neglegent contact, accidental contact etc, etc). Every case is different but IMO they just need to set a base model and work from that.

Stevie J deserved 3 matches purely for the fact he fell for Crowley's tactics again. He really is his own worst enemy at times.

are you sure? 3 games... if he deserved 3 then douglas deserved 6...

I was being facetious mate (maybe we need a sarcasm font??). I was stating that he was stupid for falling for Crowleys niggling tactics. And I don't agree with Douglas only getting 2 games anyway.

i think we do sometimes
fair point...