ca wrote: - I do believe that if Phillips had stayed out there we would have won which is why it was such a good bump.
You honestly believe that. hahahahahaha!!!!!
two weeks on and you Norwood fans are still making me laugh, thanks.
Bear in mind that the Dogs only won by one straight kick and Phillips is known for his goal-scoring talents. It's not out of the realms of possibility and a fair thought.
Perhaps the word "may" should replace the word "would". He "may" also have not touched the ball in the last quarter replicating his performace of one of his quarters, and 18 minutes of the third. Ifs and maybes.
'People are not stupid. They know when they are being conned. And two reserves teams operating in a League competition will reduce it to a farce, a competition without a soul.'
sjt wrote:Perhaps the word "may" should replace the word "would". He "may" also have not touched the ball in the last quarter replicating his performace of one of his quarters, and 18 minutes of the third. Ifs and maybes.
Callinan doesn't take Phillips out and Norwood might have won the game, Phillips takes Callinan out and Norwood would have won.
Callinan was the difference between the two teams on the day, he probably had direct involvement in about two thirds of Central's goals.
'People are not stupid. They know when they are being conned. And two reserves teams operating in a League competition will reduce it to a farce, a competition without a soul.'
sjt wrote:Perhaps the word "may" should replace the word "would". He "may" also have not touched the ball in the last quarter replicating his performace of one of his quarters, and 18 minutes of the third. Ifs and maybes.
Callinan doesn't take Phillips out and Norwood might have won the game, Phillips takes Callinan out and Norwood would have won.
Callinan was the difference between the two teams on the day, he probably had direct involvement in about two thirds of Central's goals.
Now that is good constructive comment oops, sorry I have moved on.
sjt wrote:Perhaps the word "may" should replace the word "would". He "may" also have not touched the ball in the last quarter replicating his performace of one of his quarters, and 18 minutes of the third. Ifs and maybes.
Callinan doesn't take Phillips out and Norwood might have won the game, Phillips takes Callinan out and Norwood would have won.
Callinan was the difference between the two teams on the day, he probably had direct involvement in about two thirds of Central's goals.
If Callinan wasn't playing, another player would have come in and the teams would have different match ups ... and if Todd Grima had come to Centrals instead of Glenelg he could have let us down instead of them and we could have bombed out in straight sets ... and if the SACA was not so unyielding towards the SANFL we would have played the match at Adelaide Oval and the match would not have been played in such windy conditions and who knows what effect that would have had .... and if the Japanese had invaded we might be watching weird game shows instead of footy ....
sjt wrote:Perhaps the word "may" should replace the word "would". He "may" also have not touched the ball in the last quarter replicating his performace of one of his quarters, and 18 minutes of the third. Ifs and maybes.
Callinan doesn't take Phillips out and Norwood might have won the game, Phillips takes Callinan out and Norwood would have won.
Callinan was the difference between the two teams on the day, he probably had direct involvement in about two thirds of Central's goals.
If Callinan wasn't playing, another player would have come in and the teams would have different match ups ... and if Todd Grima had come to Centrals instead of Glenelg he could have let us down instead of them and we could have bombed out in straight sets ... and if the SACA was not so unyielding towards the SANFL we would have played the match at Adelaide Oval and the match would not have been played in such windy conditions and who knows what effect that would have had .... and if the Japanese had invaded we might be watching weird game shows instead of footy ....
And if there weren't so many paranoid opposition fans we'd have nothing to talk about either. Lol.
I think if you talk to the umpires including the reserve umpire they will state if the scenario was played over again they would have at least paid a free kick for high contact and possibly off the ball illegal shepherd. Umpire's observers all noted the mistake which was a error of law by umpire's and they were marked down for this on their after match reviews. If you get away with it { the contact } good luck, but talk to most umpires they would have paid a free kick. Callinan goes on and basically wins the match for Centrals and becomes a cult hero, Phillips gets a badly broken jaw and an AFL contract. Will be an interesting match next season between these clubs which hopefully is under lights at Coopers. " Pay back " time who knows ?
bulldogproud2 wrote: It was a very solid bump but there was certainly nothing illegal in the action.
Do you have to scalp someone to get a high tackle free kick these days, breaking someones jaw isnt enough?
There is a difference between an infringement from which a free kick should be paid and an illegal action which should result in a suspension. As the tribunal evidenced, there was nothing illegal in the action. Wingnut was found NOT GUILTY of any illegal action. A free kick should have been paid though.
bulldogproud2 wrote: It was a very solid bump but there was certainly nothing illegal in the action.
Do you have to scalp someone to get a high tackle free kick these days, breaking someones jaw isnt enough?
There is a difference between an infringement from which a free kick should be paid and an illegal action which should result in a suspension. As the tribunal evidenced, there was nothing illegal in the action. Wingnut was found NOT GUILTY of any illegal action. A free kick should have been paid though.
The bump was high, which is illegal in our game. You have contradicted yourself.
It was an infringement but was certainly not illegal. Illegal actions are those which result in a Guilty verdict from a tribunal. Wingnut was found NOT GUILTY of any illegal action. I think someone needs to learn the difference between rules and laws. Case closed.
whufc wrote:We won the premiership so my statement was FACT.
Incorrect but I'll let you continue to spout your normal gibberish. Sunshine.
'People are not stupid. They know when they are being conned. And two reserves teams operating in a League competition will reduce it to a farce, a competition without a soul.'
bulldogproud2 wrote:It was an infringement but was certainly not illegal. Illegal actions are those which result in a Guilty verdict from a tribunal. Wingnut was found NOT GUILTY of any illegal action. I think someone needs to learn the difference between rules and laws. Case closed.
Im not sure why Im arguing this but seriously.
Laws of the game include high contact, surely if you break a law of the game its illegal?
