mighty_tiger_79 wrote:On twitter the great source of everything true. Reports that Carlton played an unqualified player - setterfield?
If true what a bunch of dickheads. Surely not at this level.
False. He played 6 VFL games which is allowed, but 'played' 13 AFL games which is not allowed but one of them he was a sub that didnt go on which does not count so all good.
I like that an AFL game counts when you sit on the bench the entire time but doesn't count when you play VFL finals. Great logic again by the powers that be.
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:On twitter the great source of everything true. Reports that Carlton played an unqualified player - setterfield?
If true what a bunch of dickheads. Surely not at this level.
False. He played 6 VFL games which is allowed, but 'played' 13 AFL games which is not allowed but one of them he was a sub that didnt go on which does not count so all good.
I like that an AFL game counts when you sit on the bench the entire time but doesn't count when you play VFL finals. Great logic again by the powers that be.
Some players back in the 70's - 80's would have never played a game if this were not the case
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:On twitter the great source of everything true. Reports that Carlton played an unqualified player - setterfield?
If true what a bunch of dickheads. Surely not at this level.
False. He played 6 VFL games which is allowed, but 'played' 13 AFL games which is not allowed but one of them he was a sub that didnt go on which does not count so all good.
I think the confusion arose because even though the unused sub doesn’t count for a AFL game, if you then play VFL that weekend that game also doesn’t count for VFL qualification
Not sure it deserved 3 weeks but my god it was stupid. I thought Port traded him out due to some off field issues, maybe he's just closing the loop on that one.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
stan wrote:Not sure it deserved 3 weeks but my god it was stupid. I thought Port traded him out due to some off field issues, maybe he's just closing the loop on that one.
19 year old kid he barraged, would have to have at least 25 kilos on him too.
I would've bopped him on the gonk if it was my son he spazzed out on.
stan wrote:Not sure it deserved 3 weeks but my god it was stupid. I thought Port traded him out due to some off field issues, maybe he's just closing the loop on that one.
I thought it was easily worth 3 weeks - just for sheer stupidity alone.
Dolphin Treasure wrote:Your an attention seeking embarsement..
stan wrote:Not sure it deserved 3 weeks but my god it was stupid. I thought Port traded him out due to some off field issues, maybe he's just closing the loop on that one.
19 year old kid he barraged, would have to have at least 25 kilos on him too.
I would've bopped him on the gonk if it was my son he spazzed out on.
The age factor doesn't come into it for mine. Was hard to see from the video I saw whether he got him high, was the opponent injured or concussed? If not then I reckon 3's too many (albeit it was unnecessary and fairly stupid).
JK wrote:The age factor doesn't come into it for mine. Was hard to see from the video I saw whether he got him high, was the opponent injured or concussed? If not then I reckon 3's too many (albeit it was unnecessary and fairly stupid).
It was high, player did not return to the game. Not only high, but it was ridiculously late and a metre over the boundary line.
JK wrote:The age factor doesn't come into it for mine. Was hard to see from the video I saw whether he got him high, was the opponent injured or concussed? If not then I reckon 3's too many (albeit it was unnecessary and fairly stupid).
It was high, player did not return to the game. Not only high, but it was ridiculously late and a metre over the boundary line.
JK wrote:The age factor doesn't come into it for mine. Was hard to see from the video I saw whether he got him high, was the opponent injured or concussed? If not then I reckon 3's too many (albeit it was unnecessary and fairly stupid).
It was high, player did not return to the game. Not only high, but it was ridiculously late and a metre over the boundary line.
JK wrote:The age factor doesn't come into it for mine. Was hard to see from the video I saw whether he got him high, was the opponent injured or concussed? If not then I reckon 3's too many (albeit it was unnecessary and fairly stupid).
It was high, player did not return to the game. Not only high, but it was ridiculously late and a metre over the boundary line.
Certainly looked like he wanted a real piece of him for whatever reason. Kid didn't look too flash when he was on the deck. Brainfart of the highest order.
tigerpie wrote:Certainly looked like he wanted a real piece of him for whatever reason. Kid didn't look too flash when he was on the deck. Brainfart of the highest order.