No Oppo Supporters 2024 AFL General Discussion

[liz]

Any suggestion that West Coast aren’t the worst fans in the AFL is wrong.

Or just different to your experiences.

I've had three good friends and a couple of colleagues who were (most of them still are - one of the ex-colleagues has switched his allegiance to the Swans now after living here for so long) Eagles fans. So that might colour my view. Though one of the ex-colleagues (who, to the best of my knowledge remains an Eagles fan) was a bit insufferable at times.

But in general I've had no issues with Eagles fans. When I arrived at Melbourne airport late evening for the 2006 GF there was a gigantic line waiting for the AirBus so I landed up sharing a cab to the city with a couple of Eagles fans I met in the queue. And I had a few good chats with Eagles fans while milling around in the airport on the way home on the Sunday. Everything was pleasant and respectful.

My worst experiences have been with North fans.

 

[Glenn_]

Well the Carlton fans are obnoxious, but the club did the AFL world a favour by eliminating Collingwood from finals contention.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I've met (mostly) good and (occasionally) bad from all groups of fans. The most civilised by far have been Swans fans. Not joking. Haven't met a truly feral Swans fan in 20 years.
Don't trust TV, they're always looking for something sensational.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

Or just different to your experiences.

I've had three good friends and a couple of colleagues who were (most of them still are - one of the ex-colleagues has switched his allegiance to the Swans now after living here for so long) Eagles fans. So that might colour my view. Though one of the ex-colleagues (who, to the best of my knowledge remains an Eagles fan) was a bit insufferable at times.

But in general I've had no issues with Eagles fans. When I arrived at Melbourne airport late evening for the 2006 GF there was a gigantic line waiting for the AirBus so I landed up sharing a cab to the city with a couple of Eagles fans I met in the queue. And I had a few good chats with Eagles fans while milling around in the airport on the way home on the Sunday. Everything was pleasant and respectful.

My worst experiences have been with North fans.

I’ve been to many games at the MCG - whilst the fans there can be loud and a bit feral, it’s mostly good natured. Across all clubs.

Optus, however, for WC games is genuinely hostile. Drunken bogans hurling foul mouthed abuse, throwing full beer cups and that kind of thing. Ejections are common. And remember, this is the crowd that booed Adam Goodes out of the game.

Freo is a completely different atmosphere - a much better environment to take kids to the footy.

Of course, generalisations aren’t a good thing. But I’ve been to every major ground in Australia except Adelaide Oval. Nothing I’ve experienced comes close to West Coast at Optus, particularly back when they were competitive.

 

[bedford]

I've met (mostly) good and (occasionally) bad from all groups of fans. The most civilised by far have been Swans fans. Not joking. Haven't met a truly feral Swans fan in 20 years.
Don't trust TV, they're always looking for something sensational.

You haven't met Wolfgang !

 

[Jewelsbon]

Any suggestion that West Coast aren’t the worst fans in the AFL is wrong.

West Coast and Essendon
Daylight third

 

[Jewelsbon]

It was a good win against the handbaggers on Saturday night by St Kilda, but I wouldn't call the rest of their recent form that special - they've only really belted up crap teams in that run since they beat us, and got towelled by Brisbane and beaten easily by Adelaide. I don't think their form line is that special.

Carlton's injury list is long, but I think with all to play for they'll go okay.

You may be right, I just think with Carltons injury list and taking the flight back from Perth into account, they'll struggle.
God I hope I'm wrong.

I’ve been to many games at the MCG - whilst the fans there can be loud and a bit feral, it’s mostly good natured. Across all clubs.

Optus, however, for WC games is genuinely hostile. Drunken bogans hurling foul mouthed abuse, throwing full beer cups and that kind of thing. Ejections are common. And remember, this is the crowd that booed Adam Goodes out of the game.

Freo is a completely different atmosphere - a much better environment to take kids to the footy.

Of course, generalisations aren’t a good thing. But I’ve been to every major ground in Australia except Adelaide Oval. Nothing I’ve experienced comes close to West Coast at Optus, particularly back when they were competitive.

Yep I'm with you DQ. Actually I've never been to Optus but I have been to all the other grounds and never, ever encountered anything like WC fans at home - and that includes Crows fans at home (which are pretty bad).
Never had a problem with them at the MCG in 05 and 06 and they have always been fine at the SCG, but my experience with them, back in the Subiaco days was unbelievable!

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Just quietly some questioned when I said last year of all the Dogs forwards I wanted Sam Darcy, that ship has sailed, but dead set he's the best of the lot of forwards

 

[McGowan3]

Or just different to your experiences.

I've had three good friends and a couple of colleagues who were (most of them still are - one of the ex-colleagues has switched his allegiance to the Swans now after living here for so long) Eagles fans. So that might colour my view. Though one of the ex-colleagues (who, to the best of my knowledge remains an Eagles fan) was a bit insufferable at times.

But in general I've had no issues with Eagles fans. When I arrived at Melbourne airport late evening for the 2006 GF there was a gigantic line waiting for the AirBus so I landed up sharing a cab to the city with a couple of Eagles fans I met in the queue. And I had a few good chats with Eagles fans while milling around in the airport on the way home on the Sunday. Everything was pleasant and respectful.

My worst experiences have been with North fans.

Have only experienced WC fans in Melbourne and they were fine (out of their natural habitat?). Agree Norh fans are very ordinary. St Kilda fans are pretty mild I reckon.

 

[cherub]

Or just different to your experiences.

I've had three good friends and a couple of colleagues who were (most of them still are - one of the ex-colleagues has switched his allegiance to the Swans now after living here for so long) Eagles fans. So that might colour my view. Though one of the ex-colleagues (who, to the best of my knowledge remains an Eagles fan) was a bit insufferable at times.

But in general I've had no issues with Eagles fans. When I arrived at Melbourne airport late evening for the 2006 GF there was a gigantic line waiting for the AirBus so I landed up sharing a cab to the city with a couple of Eagles fans I met in the queue. And I had a few good chats with Eagles fans while milling around in the airport on the way home on the Sunday. Everything was pleasant and respectful.

My worst experiences have been with North fans.

Maybe it’s where you come across them. Eagles fans in Perth, both at Subiaco oval and the new stadium are pretty obnoxious. (Yelling abuse at my 10 year old daughter in Swans gear). Our interaction on the Melbourne tram pre 2006 GF was pretty mean-spirited. All teams have good and bad fans. The Eagles have a pretty entitled view of the world, bolstered by a supportive local media. I much prefer the Freo fans, and had great interactions with them in 2013 PF, and 2006 PF in Sydney.

 

[JackHiscoxWasFast]

I judge opposition fan bases by their treatment of Adam Goodes.

Mic drop.

 

[kickthething]

Houston v Parker….which was worse?

 

[The King!]

Houston v Parker….which was worse?

Parker - he had red and white on

 

[Wheresbuddy]

Charlie Cameron

23

Charlie Cameron

Age

30

Ht

180cm

Wt

76kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.1

3star

K

8.4

3star

HB

3.7

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

G

1.5

5star

D

9.6

2star

K

7.9

3star

HB

1.7

1star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.7

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

9.6

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

4.2

4star

M

1.4

2star

T

3.4

5star

G

1.2

4star

got off because it was determined he had not committed an illegal act in his tackle. So without an offence, the consequence of his tackle was deemed immaterial.

I can't see why Houston can't use the same argument given he didn't hit the head, thus committing no illegal act and the concussion was caused by Rankine's head hitting the ground.

 

[kickthething]

Listening about Carlton’s performance from yesterday, West coast must be undefeated and gunning for a flag….

 

[liz]

Charlie Cameron got off because it was determined he had not committed an illegal act in his tackle. So without an offence, the consequence of his tackle was deemed immaterial.

I can't see why Houston can't use the same argument given he didn't hit the head, thus committing no illegal act and the concussion was caused by Rankine's head hitting the ground.

Firstly, I don't think it's entirely clear from the footage* whether Houston made direct contact to Rankine's head.

More relevantly, the AFL has said that if you choose to bump you are liable for the consequences. The rules around tackles are slightly different. You have a duty of care to your opponent but there are ways you can demonstrate you exercised that duty of care even if the outcome for the tackled player is bad.

*I'm referring to the footage that was shown during the game. There may be other footage since released that shows the impact more clearly. If there is, I haven't seen it.

 

[Wheresbuddy]

Firstly, I don't think it's entirely clear from the footage* whether Houston made direct contact to Rankine's head.

More relevantly, the AFL has said that if you choose to bump you are liable for the consequences. The rules around tackles are slightly different. You have a duty of care to your opponent but there are ways you can demonstrate you exercised that duty of care even if the outcome for the tackled player is bad.

*I'm referring to the footage that was shown during the game. There may be other footage since released that shows the impact more clearly. If there is, I haven't seen it.

I understand what the AFL have said but I think the point Cameron's lawyer made, and was agreed upon, was that an error in law was made suspending him for concussion his opponent as he actually did nothing illegal. He mentioned something about the cart coming before the horse or words to that effect.

I actually think this was a terrible decision by Houston to do what he did and lead to an awful outcome for Rankine. Just can imagine Houston's lawyer using this angle to get him off.

 

[liz]

I understand what the AFL have said but I think the point Cameron's lawyer made, and was agreed upon, was that an error in law was made suspending him for concussion his opponent as he actually did nothing illegal. He mentioned something about the cart coming before the horse or words to that effect.

I actually think this was a terrible decision by Houston to do what he did and lead to an awful outcome for Rankine. Just can imagine Houston's lawyer using this angle to get him off.

Won't work because Houston did do something illegal. He bumped. If you choose to bump (and often when you really don't choose to but get a contest slightly wrong - not relevant here) you are liable for the consequences.

For a tackle to be deemed rough conduct (and hence a reportable offence) there has to be a sling, or forceful driving into the ground, arms pinned, no mitigating circumstances. Even with those criteria, players have been suspended in the last couple of seasons for acts they wouldn't have been suspended for in years past. The edges are blurry but they exist. Unlike with a bump. Personally, I thought the Cameron tackle sat right on those blurry edges.

Edit: Further to the above, my memory of the Cameron judgement has just come back to me. The technicality that he got off on was that the AFL prosecutor hadn't explicitly made the case that Cameron's action was likely to cause injury. He had jumped straight to the nature of injury suffered by the player tackled. The common man in the street might presume that a tackle that HAD caused concussion was, in almost all circumstances, a tackle that was likely to cause concussion. And hence that this didn't need to be explicitly argued by the prosecutor. But the appeals board decided differently.

So Cameron didn't get off because it was determined he didn't do anything illegal, but rather because the prosecutor hadn't argued the case properly.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

I’ve been to many games at the MCG - whilst the fans there can be loud and a bit feral, it’s mostly good natured. Across all clubs.

Optus, however, for WC games is genuinely hostile. Drunken bogans hurling foul mouthed abuse, throwing full beer cups and that kind of thing. Ejections are common. And remember, this is the crowd that booed Adam Goodes out of the game.

Freo is a completely different atmosphere - a much better environment to take kids to the footy.

Of course, generalisations aren’t a good thing. But I’ve been to every major ground in Australia except Adelaide Oval. Nothing I’ve experienced comes close to West Coast at Optus, particularly back when they were competitive.

Crows fans at Adelaide Oval are horrible.

Entitled. Precious. Oblivious.

They have an inferiority complex unmatched IMO.

 

[Wheresbuddy]

Won't work because Houston did do something illegal. He bumped. If you choose to bump (and often when you really don't choose to but get a contest slightly wrong - not relevant here) you are liable for the consequences.

For a tackle to be deemed rough conduct (and hence a reportable offence) there has to be a sling, or forceful driving into the ground, arms pinned, no mitigating circumstances. Even with those criteria, players have been suspended in the last couple of seasons for acts they wouldn't have been suspended for in years past. The edges are blurry but they exist. Unlike with a bump. Personally, I thought the Cameron tackle sat right on those blurry edges.

Edit: Further to the above, my memory of the Cameron judgement has just come back to me. The technicality that he got off on was that the AFL prosecutor hadn't explicitly made the case that Cameron's action was likely to cause injury. He had jumped straight to the nature of injury suffered by the player tackled. The common man in the street might presume that a tackle that HAD caused concussion was, in almost all circumstances, a tackle that was likely to cause concussion. And hence that this didn't need to be explicitly argued by the prosecutor. But the appeals board decided differently.

So Cameron didn't get off because it was determined he didn't do anything illegal, but rather because the prosecutor hadn't argued the case properly.

I hope you're right because what Houston did and subsequently caused was foul. Based on sentences handed out, he deserves 6 weeks but I've heard some commentators suggest he will only get 3 so as to give him a chance to make it back for the GF if Port were to make it.

 

[liz]

I hope you're right because what Houston did and subsequently caused was foul. Based on sentences handed out, he deserves 6 weeks but I've heard some commentators suggest he will only get 3 so as to give him a chance to make it back for the GF if Port were to make it.

It's inconceivable that he'll get three. I've heard some suggest he could get four so he'll be available for a GF if Port get there the long way around. But I reckon five is the starting point and I wouldn't be shocked by six.

I know the tribunal won't take it into account, but it was no fluke that Rankine was on the end of the bump. He'd clearly been identified as the player most likely to win the game for Adelaide. We're a team with three or so stars that lift the rest. I shudder at the thought of an opponent lining up Heeney* sometime during a cut-throat final, knowing that without him we're not as potent. He already gets a bit of physical attention from opponents, and has done throughout his career, despite never before putting together a season as awesome as this one. Oppositions know that, even when not in a purple patch, he can turn a game in a couple of possessions.

*One could make a similar observation re Daicos, except that he won't be playing in a cut-throat final any time soon.

 

[bedford]

It's inconceivable that he'll get three. I've heard some suggest he could get four so he'll be available for a GF if Port get there the long way around. But I reckon five is the starting point and I wouldn't be shocked by six.

I know the tribunal won't take it into account, but it was no fluke that Rankine was on the end of the bump. He'd clearly been identified as the player most likely to win the game for Adelaide. We're a team with three or so stars that lift the rest. I shudder at the thought of an opponent lining up Heeney* sometime during a cut-throat final, knowing that without him we're not as potent. He already gets a bit of physical attention from opponents, and has done throughout his career, despite never before putting together a season as awesome as this one. Oppositions know that, even when not in a purple patch, he can turn a game in a couple of possessions.

*One could make a similar observation re Daicos, except that he won't be playing in a cut-throat final any time soon.

Just heard Buckley on SEN , he said 3 is too low and 6 too high , so he settled on 5

 

[Dubai Quacker]

I hope you're right because what Houston did and subsequently caused was foul. Based on sentences handed out, he deserves 6 weeks but I've heard some commentators suggest he will only get 3 so as to give him a chance to make it back for the GF if Port were to make it.

Maynard got none.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Should get 5 or 6. If he gets 4 I hope Port fall at the final hurdle after taking the long path to the PF and he misses his opportunity.

 

[Punts]

Shocking news on Sam landsberger