SA Footy

DOC wrote:St Kilda beat North by 91 points.

North had a few players out with cricket finals and there was a wedding.

St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.

That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.

DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.

That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.

That article was written by Mitch Cleary not the Saints.

DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.

That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.

They have a lot of upside though. Definitely a lot more than the Crows

Bum Crack wrote:

DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.

That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.

They have a lot of upside though. Definitely a lot more than the Crows

Surely we couldn’t get any worse.

Brodlach wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:

DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.

That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.

They have a lot of upside though. Definitely a lot more than the Crows

Surely we couldn’t get any worse.

You're definitely not worse than North Melbourne that's for sure. Worst team in the AFL by a country mile.

Bum Crack wrote:

Brodlach wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:

DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.

That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.

They have a lot of upside though. Definitely a lot more than the Crows

Surely we couldn’t get any worse.

You're definitely not worse than North Melbourne that's for sure. Worst team in the AFL by a country mile.

You are forgetting about the swans

mots02 wrote:

DOC wrote:St Kilda described North as lacklustre on their website.

That is a fair slag for a trial game and not something that should be said about an opponent, trial match or not.

That article was written by Mitch Cleary not the Saints.

Thanks.

Geelong won by 2pts v Pies

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Melbourne beat Richmond by 11.

LOL, see the 50m Cox gave away for walking backwards off the mark today.
This rule is comedy GOLD!

And they said it wouldn't increase scoring

Bruce McAvaney has retired from calling AFL

He’s had a special career

Brodlach wrote:Bruce McAvaney has retired from calling AFL

He’s had a special career

In protest over this new rule

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Brodlach wrote:Bruce McAvaney has retired from calling AFL

He’s had a special career

TFFT

Wedgie wrote:LOL, see the 50m Cox gave away for walking backwards off the mark today.
This rule is comedy GOLD!

I seen it in the CDFC vs NAFC under 16's yesterday, it's a diabolical rule, it has little merit.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Wedgie wrote:LOL, see the 50m Cox gave away for walking backwards off the mark today.
This rule is comedy GOLD!

I seen it in the CDFC vs NAFC under 16's yesterday, it's a diabolical rule, it has little merit.

Huh? It's not being adopted in the SANFL this year. https://sanfl.com.au/league/news/more-space-for-defenders-under-sanfl-rule-change/

Maybe it was a protected area 50 m, Mate?

I think it has merit, but I think the example circulating on social media is an incorrect interpretation given he only turned around he didn't go off his mark

am Bays wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Wedgie wrote:LOL, see the 50m Cox gave away for walking backwards off the mark today.
This rule is comedy GOLD!

I seen it in the CDFC vs NAFC under 16's yesterday, it's a diabolical rule, it has little merit.

Huh? It's not being adopted in the SANFL this year. https://sanfl.com.au/league/news/more-space-for-defenders-under-sanfl-rule-change/

Maybe it was a protected area 50 m, Mate?

I think it has merit, but I think the example circulating on social media is an incorrect interpretation given he only turned around he didn't go off his mark

Well I'll be, it seemed as though one umpire was hot on it but the other two weren't, same as some rule about going down the ground to centre half forward to take a free kick?

am Bays wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Wedgie wrote:LOL, see the 50m Cox gave away for walking backwards off the mark today.
This rule is comedy GOLD!

I seen it in the CDFC vs NAFC under 16's yesterday, it's a diabolical rule, it has little merit.

Huh? It's not being adopted in the SANFL this year. https://sanfl.com.au/league/news/more-space-for-defenders-under-sanfl-rule-change/

Maybe it was a protected area 50 m, Mate?

I think it has merit, but I think the example circulating on social media is an incorrect interpretation given he only turned around he didn't go off his mark

I'm still failing to see what this adds to the game other than to further complicate the umpires' job and cause increased player and spectator dissatisfaction.

The AFL has a lot to answer for with the way it runs it's league and the downward effect it has on the vast majority.

The AFL's Executive Management Team was paid $10.6 million in salaries in 2019.. That is more than the Wesfarmers Executive Management Team were paid in salaries. The AFL is a $678 million entertainment business. Wesfarmers is a $27,920 million conglomerate.

Way overstaffed and grossly overpaid.

Stop **** around with the game. You don't own it.