AFL round 13

[The Bedge]

Protected species.

Geelong skipper Joel Selwood was offered a $1000 fine for rough conduct on West Coast star Sam Mitchell.

Joke, AFL is such a compromised competition - all they care about is the $$!!

[MW]

Protected species.

Geelong skipper Joel Selwood was offered a $1000 fine for rough conduct on West Coast star Sam Mitchell.

Oh ffs

[Jim05]

Protected species.

Geelong skipper Joel Selwood was offered a $1000 fine for rough conduct on West Coast star Sam Mitchell.

Shouldn't of got anything, was nothing more than handbags at two paces

[daysofourlives]

Yep im the first to have a go at Selwood normally but there was nothing in his incident with Mitch, shouldnt even get a fine

[Wedgie]

Yep im the first to have a go at Selwood normally but there was nothing in his incident with Mitch, shouldnt even get a fine

Spot on.

[The Jack]

Annnd they've shown nothing in the 3rd quarter. Game been completely played on Melbourne's terms from the first bounce. I'm putting a line through the Dogs for the flag. Might be lucky to make the 8 at this rate. Wouldn't it be funny if the Swans ended up taking their spot! The hangover is DEFINITELY in. As it is in my world today just quietly. Dees on the other hand, who knows? Happy for them to do well, with a couple of ex-Bombers running around. I wish the talk pre-trade period last year re Salem being keen on coming to us came to something. Looks a player.

The premiership hangover tag with the dogs is interesting, because they won from 7th last year. I dont think anyone would argue that overall they were the best team - they just played the best footy at the end of the year. of course thats when it counts, but sydney's slow start to the year was much more significant given they finished top after the minor round last year.

its entirely possible that the dogs just arent that good and just had a purple patch in the finals last year.

Agree with most of that, but the fact remains they did win it last year, and if they were ever going to be a show of winning it this year, I thought yesterday's game was where they had to show something. After the Swans had their way with them the week before, a reigning premier that had designs on this year, would've offered more than 0.1 in the first quarter. I think the signs have been there from the start of this campaign with some premiership players having to go back to the VFL, and just generally playing in patches. They are supposed to be of an age where they should still be improving as a list. It must be frustrating for Murphy and others who missed out last year. And for Bevo especially. You can't really coach hunger. Anyway, I picked Melbourne as I had my doubts about the Dogs, and they more than confirmed them for me. I don't think it's a lack of talent holding them back, injuries notwithstanding. Maybe I've just become accustomed to premiership sides contending strongly the year after, a la Brisbane, Geelong and Hawthorn. The evenness of the competition the last two years really has opened up the flag to whichever team is the hungriest. Last year it was the Dogs.

[bennymacca]

He's certainly tried to coach hunger with the amount of good players he has dropped.

[carey]

Protected species.

Geelong skipper Joel Selwood was offered a $1000 fine for rough conduct on West Coast star Sam Mitchell.

Baffling decisions from the MRP. But are we surprised? Surely not.

Hawkings gives a pathetic tap gets a week, Selwood throws an elbow to the back of a blokes head on the ground who simply has no chance at all to protect himself and gets off! I really like Selwod but that was a dog act of the highest order.

[Wedgie]

Hawkings gives a pathetic tap gets a week

images (8).jpg (33.62 KiB) Viewed 523 times

[Dogmatic]

I thought Scott Thompson should have got a game for throwing a an elbow with force into Riewoldt well off the ball and Riewoldt for throwing a hard punch into the back of Thompson. Do they want someone to get kidney damage before they decide to penalise it?

[cracka]

The differing opinions on here about what punishment Sellwood should or shouldn't have got actually makes me understand how the MRP is so inconsistent

[MW]

The difference being the MRP need to look at it without prejudice as opposed to a forum punter

[Booney]

The difference being the MRP need to look at it without prejudice as opposed to a forum punter

I'm sure Jimmy Bartel would have been very harsh on the Selwood incident.

[woodublieve12]

Good to see common sense prevail in the buddy case. Nothing in it

[Spargo]

Good to see common sense prevail in the buddy case. Nothing in it

Chance to tackle, chose to bump opponent in the head instead.
This goes against everything the AFL is trying to stamp out.
Truly baffling.

[woodublieve12]

Good to see common sense prevail in the buddy case. Nothing in it

Chance to tackle, chose to bump opponent in the head instead.
This goes against everything the AFL is trying to stamp out.
Truly baffling.

Never touched his head. Got him in the shoulder. Play on

[MW]

The difference being the MRP need to look at it without prejudice as opposed to a forum punter

I'm sure Jimmy Bartel would have been very harsh on the Selwood incident.

Not getting an argument out of me on this one

[Spargo]

Never touched his head. Got him in the shoulder.

Incorrect. C'mon wubbsy, you're no fool. Go back & have a look at it from all angles. Did you watch 360 last night?

[woodublieve12]

Never touched his head. Got him in the shoulder.

Incorrect. C'mon wubbsy, you're no fool. Go back & have a look at it from all angles. Did you watch 360 last night?

I did not. Just saw it live and the replay. Looked shoulder to me. It did help the Richmond player said it too.

[Feenix]

Yep im the first to have a go at Selwood normally but there was nothing in his incident with Mitch, shouldnt even get a fine

Thats only because he's in your supercoach side