- Moderator
- #551
5 - 2
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
If this is the page count we get to after a 50 point win, will we in fact have 5 page postmatches if we win by 100 points?
That's why he won the RS nom, by the way. Not because he played well or better, but because the rest of the AFL community - at least, those judging the RS - wanted Nth to feel a little better about Jack being correct.Way to go JSOS
And this after HF struck JSOS behind play. Bravo JSOS.Way to go JSOS
Also you nowhere near as gorgeous as me ugly boyWay to go JSOS
hows that first chance he could he told the public what was said, **** i hope our players get into him again next time we play.That's why he won the RS nom, by the way. Not because he played well or better, but because the rest of the AFL community - at least, those judging the RS - wanted Nth to feel a little better about Jack being correct.
Also, what happened to the days of what was said on the field stayed on it?
Unpopular opinion: That 'what's said on the field stays on the field' attitude is kind of nonsense.
It's nonsense in the most recent case of JSOS because about 2.5 seconds after it happened there were people right here gleefully posting what they'd just lip-read on TV.
It's nonsense every time anyone engages in racial abuse, for obvious reasons.
It's nonsense because what exactly is being protected by this? Is the idea that in the heat of the moment, someone might say something they don't want to cop to publicly and so we're trying to spare their blushes? I call BS. The new rule about umpire abuse has made it quite clear that players are entirely capable of controlling what they do or don't say.
How about: if a player in AFL or any other sport doesn't want their on-field abuse / sledging / whatever made public, then just don't say it? And if they do say something, be prepared to own it.
I thought JHF's answer was fantastic. He answered what was said, but censored it enough to take the sting out of it.Love it. And I'm not sure what Horne-Francis is supposed to do, when he's directly asked about it afterwards, him being all of 18 years old, and everybody already knowing exactly what was said anyway. He paraphrased, in time-honoured fashion. Play on. Ducking the question or lying about the exchange would have been worse.
Hmm...Unpopular opinion: That 'what's said on the field stays on the field' attitude is kind of nonsense.
It's nonsense in the most recent case of JSOS because about 2.5 seconds after it happened there were people right here gleefully posting what they'd just lip-read on TV.
It's nonsense every time anyone engages in racial abuse, for obvious reasons.
It's nonsense because what exactly is being protected by this? Is the idea that in the heat of the moment, someone might say something they don't want to cop to publicly and so we're trying to spare their blushes? I call BS. The new rule about umpire abuse has made it quite clear that players are entirely capable of controlling what they do or don't say.
How about: if a player in AFL or any other sport doesn't want their on-field abuse / sledging / whatever made public, then just don't say it? And if they do say something, be prepared to own it.
Barely, or didn't at all?Instead of Horne-Francis getting cited by the AFL for his late hit on Silvagni he gets rewarded with a Rising Star nomination in a game where he barely played better than Jack Carroll.
Barely, or didn't at all?
he was cited (softly):Instead of Horne-Francis getting cited by the AFL for his late hit on Silvagni he gets rewarded with a Rising Star nomination in a game where he barely played better than Jack Carroll.
he was cited (softly):
Jason Horne-Francis, North Melbourne, has been charged with Striking Jack Silvagni, Carlton, during the third quarter of the Round Seven match between Carlton and North Melbourne played at Marvel Stadium on Saturday, April 30, 2022.
In summary, he can accept a $2000 sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Intentional Conduct, Low Impact, Body Contact. The incident was classified as a $3000 sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a $2000 sanction with an early plea.
Don't be broadminded. Horne-Francis had 20 disposals, 1 mark, 1 tackle, 4 inside 50's, 3 clearances and 6 clangers for 11 effective disposals and 305.4 metres gained. In the same game, Jack Carrol had 19 disposals, 8 marks, 1 goal, 3 goal assists, 1 tackle, 4 clearances, 5 inside 50's, 1 clanger for 12 effective disposals and 411 metres gained.I was trying to be broad minded
Also 3 score involvements versus Carroll's 8, equal 2nd behind only CrippsDon't be broadminded. Horne-Francis had 20 disposals, 1 mark, 1 tackle, 4 inside 50's, 3 clearances and 6 clangers for 11 effective disposals and 305.4 metres gained. In the same game, Jack Carrol had 19 disposals, 8 marks, 1 goal, 3 goal assists, 1 tackle, 4 clearances, 5 inside 50's, 1 clanger for 12 effective disposals and 411 metres gained.
He had a single possession more, yet had less effective disposals. He played inside mid all game and had less clearances than Carroll who played on the wing.
AFL makey-uppey at its finest.
HF will be a very good player and will deserve a RS nomination, but awarding the nomination on the same week as being charged for striking behind the play is a decidedly poor choice by the AFL and in contradiction to all their other messaging. Pathetic really. Particularly given their stance on the Young bump.Instead of Horne-Francis getting cited by the AFL for his late hit on Silvagni he gets rewarded with a Rising Star nomination in a game where he barely played better than Jack Carroll.
Don't be broadminded. Horne-Francis had 20 disposals, 1 mark, 1 tackle, 4 inside 50's, 3 clearances and 6 clangers for 11 effective disposals and 305.4 metres gained. In the same game, Jack Carrol had 19 disposals, 8 marks, 1 goal, 3 goal assists, 1 tackle, 4 clearances, 5 inside 50's, 1 clanger for 12 effective disposals and 411 metres gained.
He had a single possession more, yet had less effective disposals. He played inside mid all game and had less clearances than Carroll who played on the wing.
AFL makey-uppey at its finest.