News 2018 General AFL Discussion

[luca77]

No idea what that ellipsis means, but I'm going to assume it means you're not really joking

Wrong, in fact I'm mostly on BigFooty to joke around about footy. Go look at my other posts and see lame attempts at humour throughout.

because that's what it would usually be interpreted as.

By...you...? My ellipses mean all kinds of things. They're like little mystery dots. You have to kind of guess the meaning, good luck with that...

You're what's wrong with the world mate. So wrapped up in your partisan view of everything that all you can put out into the world is bile and insults. Nothing in real life is as black and white as you think it is, everything is grey. Seeing things as black and white means you'll spend your whole life fighting. That's bad for the world and bad for you.

You've come up with that conclusion about me based on a mini discussion about whether Mick Malthouse should have slandered the women's game while sitting next to Moana Hope at a Grand Final lunch.

Good heavens! You're truly amazing. And very special. Note the lack of ellipses here.
Mate you've gone from trying to sound like the rational in-betweener to just losing the plot completely. Bile and insults? Are you sure you're equipped to step outside each day, because if what I've said equates to bile and insults you're going to have a rough time with other people!

Have a good one mate!
Oh and Crusty, if you happen to be reading, I think you can come up with the answers to those questions yourself, but if I get a break at work today I'll reply.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I just want Trump to stop writing love letters to Kim Jong, and start on the Bergholt issue.

 

[luca77]

Still as incapable as ever of making a logical, dispassionate argument. You're all the same, when you can't outwit someone just resort to insults.

I'll give you another chance though. Exactly how is it different comparing how women play other sports as opppsed to men with how women play football as opposed to men?

Ok Crusty. Here's your quote. Now remember we're talking about the right of women to play football. Football is a sport that involves running, kicking, catching, tackling and bumping. Without those features, it's not football and I'll presume you can find a way to agree with that.

" We should also 'let' women play 5 sets instead of 3 at grand slams, tee off from the same point as men in golf, use the same weights in throwing events at the Olympics and run against Usain Bolt"

Tennis is tennis regardless of the length. This is why at regular pro tournaments men play the best of 3 sets. Women can play. Men can play.
The same goes for golf. Men can play off shorter tees, and so can women. In women's pro tournaments tees are selected based on desired yardage to give them a similar score to the men so we can just how well they play. The sport of golf doesn't change, men and women can both play it.
Same goes for throwing things. Somehow you're trying to, as Malthouse would put it, misconstrue us saying women should be allowed to play football as making out that we're saying women are as strong as men. I'm not sure if you crossing those wires was intentional or not, but you've done it.
Finally running against Usain Bolt. Again, somehow you've taken the discussion from what women should be able to do in a sport against each other into suggesting that we think women should have to run against men in a sprint event.

I'm not at all annoyed with you or Bergy. Any insults from me were honestly tongue in cheek, I enjoy trading a few barbs over a chat about something whether my ellipses suggest so or not. I'm a firm believer in women having the right to do whatever they want, and remembering that this is their chosen occupation - it's restraint of trade in a way to deny them that right. If you think they shouldn't because they might get hurt, that's your opinion and I assume it applies to women in other dangerous sports that I've mentioned along with female police officers, soldiers veterinarians of large hoofed animals e.t.c. Pretty sure all those women would laugh at your concern over their future ability to have children or not.

Anyway, I'm done with the topic. Am still pretty convinced, despite your efforts, that Malthouse is an arse of a bloke who should be wheeled away quietly with Sam Newman where they can look back fondly on the days when football really was a "man's game".

 

[Crusty Undies]

Ok Crusty. Here's your quote. Now remember we're talking about the right of women to play football. Football is a sport that involves running, kicking, catching, tackling and bumping. Without those features, it's not football and I'll presume you can find a way to agree with that.

" We should also 'let' women play 5 sets instead of 3 at grand slams, tee off from the same point as men in golf, use the same weights in throwing events at the Olympics and run against Usain Bolt"

Tennis is tennis regardless of the length. This is why at regular pro tournaments men play the best of 3 sets. Women can play. Men can play.
The same goes for golf. Men can play off shorter tees, and so can women. In women's pro tournaments tees are selected based on desired yardage to give them a similar score to the men so we can just how well they play. The sport of golf doesn't change, men and women can both play it.
Same goes for throwing things. Somehow you're trying to, as Malthouse would put it, misconstrue us saying women should be allowed to play football as making out that we're saying women are as strong as men. I'm not sure if you crossing those wires was intentional or not, but you've done it.
Finally running against Usain Bolt. Again, somehow you've taken the discussion from what women should be able to do in a sport against each other into suggesting that we think women should have to run against men in a sprint event.

I'm not at all annoyed with you or Bergy. Any insults from me were honestly tongue in cheek, I enjoy trading a few barbs over a chat about something whether my ellipses suggest so or not. I'm a firm believer in women having the right to do whatever they want, and remembering that this is their chosen occupation - it's restraint of trade in a way to deny them that right. If you think they shouldn't because they might get hurt, that's your opinion and I assume it applies to women in other dangerous sports that I've mentioned along with female police officers, soldiers veterinarians of large hoofed animals e.t.c. Pretty sure all those women would laugh at your concern over their future ability to have children or not.

Anyway, I'm done with the topic. Am still pretty convinced, despite your efforts, that Malthouse is an arse of a bloke who should be wheeled away quietly with Sam Newman where they can look back fondly on the days when football really was a "man's game".

I'll address the last bit first. I agree, I think generally Malthouse but especially Newman are outdated. In this instance I don't think Malthouse had bad intentions, that's all.

As for the other sports part though I disagree. Maybe I misconstrued what you were saying but it's probably because I've heard the "There's no difference between the genders" shit so many times recently I'm trained to see it. But tennis is a different variety of the same sport between the men and the women. Men hit harder with a lot more spin so there are more winners and more aces, women tend to get into rallies easier as a result too and obviously in Grand Slams men play 5 sets; the women don't because it's generally agreed it would be too taxing, golf they can't hit as far so they tee off at a shorter point, with weights they have lower muscle density so they throw less. The point I'm making is that the core of the sports don't change but the rules do. I'm not even advocating for them to not play AFL, I just think we should change some rules to make it a more interesting viewing experience and a more accommodating sport. Things I'm talking about are like shortening the 50 arcs to 35 or 40 arcs, making the square smaller, having 20 minute quarters without pausing the clock etc. Others have suggested making it more like touch footy which I can see arguments for both ways but I could definitely see some restrictions on types of tackling at least.

Anyway I think we found some common(-ish) ground so I'd call that a success

 

[bergholt]

By...you...? My ellipses mean all kinds of things. They're like little mystery dots. You have to kind of guess the meaning, good luck with that...

Probably not the most useful form of communication then, if you're making the audience guess what it means.

You've come up with that conclusion about me based on a mini discussion about whether Mick Malthouse should have slandered the women's game while sitting next to Moana Hope at a Grand Final lunch.

I've come up with that conclusion about you based on the way you've conducted yourself in this thread. A couple of reasonably rational and dispassionate people had some pretty civil discussions with you and you came out swinging. You can either take responsibility for that and accept that it might not be the most productive way to go out into the world, or go on as you are pushing negativity into the world.

Are you sure you're equipped to step outside each day, because if what I've said equates to bile and insults you're going to have a rough time with other people!

So your argument is that other people are campaigners so you can be a campaigner too? Again, you can either take responsibility for being overly aggressive and hyper-partisan or you concentrate on "winning" and pretend everyone else is at fault. It's really your choice. The only reason I'm arguing it is because I don't think your mode of operation is good for the world, and I'm very confident it's not good for you as a human.

 

[luca77]

Probably not the most useful form of communication then, if you're making the audience guess what it means.



I've come up with that conclusion about you based on the way you've conducted yourself in this thread. A couple of reasonably rational and dispassionate people had some pretty civil discussions with you and you came out swinging. You can either take responsibility for that and accept that it might not be the most productive way to go out into the world, or go on as you are pushing negativity into the world.



So your argument is that other people are campaigners so you can be a campaigner too? Again, you can either take responsibility for being overly aggressive and hyper-partisan or you concentrate on "winning" and pretend everyone else is at fault. It's really your choice. The only reason I'm arguing it is because I don't think your mode of operation is good for the world, and I'm very confident it's not good for you as a human.

OK mate, you might want to pull your head in. You've made some absurd conclusions based on one conversation and you come across to me as a bit of a sooky clown. I have no intention of taking any advice from you based on me having a completely tame discussion on an anonymous forum.
You are right about one thing though you know. People who see things in black and white are a very big part of the problems in this world. That doesn't mean that you have to be indecisive about every issue. And if you have made your mind up about a particular issue, to have some joker extrapolating that that is the way you are in general would be laughable if it wasn't so stupid. Frankly, your way of fussing over the use of ellipses and exaggerating the level of insult being delivered is quite sad and pathetic. I was prepared to end the chat in a friendly way, but nah...see ya later. Have a whinge and cry to some people with a bit more time for it and respect for you than I've got. Adios.

 

[bergholt]

You've made some absurd conclusions based on one conversation

That's fair. I certainly can't conclude anything about your entire personality, so I apologise if it feels like I did. But I can draw some pretty clear conclusions about the way you discuss things based on the way your discussed this thing. I think the way you conducted yourself doesn't serve you or the world well.

I have no intention of taking any advice from you based on me having a completely tame discussion on an anonymous forum.

Why would "anonymous" make any difference? Does that mean that you pretend the people on the other side aren't humans?

Anyway, happy to meet up for a coffee one day, these discussions are usually easier in person.

You are right about one thing though you know. People who see things in black and white are a very big part of the problems in this world. That doesn't mean that you have to be indecisive about every issue.

Agreed. But acknowledging that we rarely have the full truth of a situation or a complete understanding of causality isn't "being indecisive". Most things in life are grey. Most discussion is black and white. That's a problem.

I was prepared to end the chat in a friendly way, but nah...see ya later. Have a whinge and cry to some people with a bit more time for it and respect for you than I've got. Adios.

I must admit I don't really understand this. Originally I made a fairly tame comment, and you came out swinging in your response. I probably didn't keep my cool when responding to that, which is a problem I have to deal with. But you seemed happy enough to keep swinging back. And now you've decided it's not worth your time? What changed?

 

[borderbarry]

People can get very touchy on Big Footy cant they?

 

[Persevering Saint]

People can get very touchy on Big Footy cant they?

How DARE you say that!?!!!?

 

[Saint_Dos]

Seeing as we aren't getting up to much, I was trying to work out how other trades might happen.
How do people see this?

West Coast: IN T.Kelly OUT: Pick 20 & 22
Geeong: IN Pick #11 OUT: T.Kelly
Nth Melb: IN Pick 20&22 OUT: Pick 11

This would allow North to use Pick 20 on Polec (not sure its enough maybe add a future 2nd?) and Pick 22+30 to make the points up to cover Tarryn Thomas in the draft.

Meaning

West Coast: IN T.Kelly OUT: Pick 20 & 22
Geeong: IN Pick #11 OUT: T.Kelly
Nth Melb: IN Polec, Tarryn Thomas OUT: Pick 11 & 30

 

[st_trav_ofWA]

with the release of the 9 new rules for 2019 i have exclusive sneek peak of the new rules for games played at Optus Stadium :

• Any tackle above the belly button on Shuey is high
  
  
• Any defender looking in the general direction of Kennedy in a marking contest will be infringing and a free will be paid
  
  
• The loudest Boo towards a visiting player results in that player getting no further free kicks for the game regardless
  
  
• Punching a bloke is ok provided you wear blue and you kind a feel sorry about it
  
  
• If the home team go’s 4 minutes without a free a random free will be awarded just to keep the crowd happy
  
  
• Any player to hurt or injure a home team player (deliberately or accidentally) will be punished
  
  
• In the case of a lopsided free kick differential the visiting team will get 6 free kicks in the closing stages of the game (provided the result is already determined)
  
  
• In the case of a close game the umpire must impose himself onto the game in favour of the home team
  
  
• In the case of 50/50 decisions refer to the crowd reaction to make your decision
  
  
• If in doubt #freekickWCE
  

 

[plugger66]

Some of the new rules are interesting. The only point of the goal square now is if you mark it inside the square. There is now no point for kick outs at all unless im missing something. The ruckman now how having prior in the ruck will create more stoppages not less IMO. The other one is the 6 6 6. To me it actually creates a more crowded forward line because 12 players have to be in the 50 metre arc after a goal. That is a lot of players in a small area. Cant see how a quick clearance will help now because there will be to many players in the 50 for any space. At least when you could stand where you wanted the CHF would sometimes stand on the centre square line or a HFF would do the same. Now all 6 forwards and backs have to be in the 50. Crazy stuff.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

with the release of the 9 new rules for 2019 i have exclusive sneek peak of the new rules for games played at Optus Stadium :

• Any tackle above the belly button on Shuey is high
  
  
• Any defender looking in the general direction of Kennedy in a marking contest will be infringing and a free will be paid
  
  
• The loudest Boo towards a visiting player results in that player getting no further free kicks for the game regardless
  
  
• Punching a bloke is ok provided you wear blue and you kind a feel sorry about it
  
  
• If the home team go’s 4 minutes without a free a random free will be awarded just to keep the crowd happy
  
  
• Any player to hurt or injure a home team player (deliberately or accidentally) will be punished
  
  
• In the case of a lopsided free kick differential the visiting team will get 6 free kicks in the closing stages of the game (provided the result is already determined)
  
  
• In the case of a close game the umpire must impose himself onto the game in favour of the home team
  
  
• In the case of 50/50 decisions refer to the crowd reaction to make your decision
  
  
• If in doubt #freekickWCE
  

I'm confused.

Which ones are the new ones?

 

[plugger66]

Having a great day at the g with harvs Loewe Bedford and skilts. And mark gamble

 

[George]

The only point of the goal square now is if you mark it inside the square. There is now no point for kick outs at all unless im missing something.

I think if the player kicking out doesn't play on he still needs to kick it within the square otherwise a ball up will be called.

 

[plugger66]

I think if the player kicking out doesn't play on he still needs to kick it within the square otherwise a ball up will be called.

How do you know though

 

[George]

How do you know though

I think

 

[plugger66]

I think

I can’t think but doubt it’s possible

 

[toxic]

I think if the player kicking out doesn't play on he still needs to kick it within the square otherwise a ball up will be called.

Nope,

He can kick or handball from the square or run out of the square and kick or handball

 

[mightymalaka]

Having a great day at the g with harvs Loewe Bedford and skilts. And mark gamble

WTF? Have you gone back in time?

 

[plugger66]

WTF? Have you gone back in time?

Carji club. Spoke to harvs boy Conner. He doesn’t play footy. He wants to be an actor. Said he had a lot more confidence than his dad. Rob says saints lack mids. Who would have guessed. Surprised with rumours we are taking king. Has a year to go on his contract before deciding what he will do next. Tried to Sam Loewe down to Ormond. Said I wouldn’t play with that shit side. Good kid though. Stewie looks fitter than when he played. Peter Bedford like drinking and poor skilts is stuffed
But as Ormond number one ticket holder was wrapt we won the flag this year.

 

[mightymalaka]

Carji club. Spoke to harvs boy Conner. He doesn’t play footy. He wants to be an actor. Said he had a lot more confidence than his dad. Rob says saints lack mids. Who would have guessed. Surprised with rumours we are taking king. Has a year to go on his contract before deciding what he will do next. Tried to Sam Loewe down to Ormond. Said I wouldn’t play with that shit side. Good kid though. Stewie looks fitter than when he played. Peter Bedford like drinking and poor skilts is stuffed
But as Ormond number one ticket holder was wrapt we won the flag this year.

Good on you and Ormond! Sounds like quite the fun day!....
Sad to hear about Skilts. But he's a warrior if ever there was one!
Not surprised about Stewie! He's a beast, could teach our current lot a thing or two!
Bedford has apparently legend status for his deeds on Brownlow night for a couple of decades!
Not to forget what a special sportsmen he was himself!

But most pleasing is that Harves is wisely playing the long game
and at least he can see where our obvious deficiencies are
have no doubt he's dream is to coach his beloved Saints!
The way the cards are falling it may well just be set up perfectly
for him to do so!
Half your luck for what sounds a terrific day!....

 

[Ekomaira]

watching the game against GWS this year, Brandon White... talk about being hard in the contest. god dayum. love it

 

[mightymalaka]

watching the game against GWS this year, Brandon White... talk about being hard in the contest. god dayum. love it

Yesssss! Makes you wonder what rock Richo had him hiding under for
the rest of the year! Crafty by the Richo man.
Not wanting to display our hand to early!
Master at playing mind games is our Richo!
Lulling the oppo into a false sense of security he is
then after his 15th contract extension in the
year 2050 he will pounce!

Genius!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yesssss! Makes you wonder what rock Richo had him hiding under for
the rest of the year! Crafty by the Richo man.
Not wanting to display our hand to early!
Master at playing mind games is our Richo!
Lulling the oppo into a false sense of security he is
then after his 15th contract extension in the
year 2050 he will pounce!

Genius!

He had an awesome 7 tackles in that game. But.....He didn't do that in the games he played afterwards.