Preview 2nd Semi Final, 2020: Richmond v St.Kilda - Metricon Stadium, Friday 9th October, 7:50PM AEDT

Who Wins?

  • Tigers

    Votes: 52 48.6%
  • Saints

    Votes: 55 51.4%

  • Total voters
    107

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

A zoom birth could have worked

On DUB-LX2 using BigFooty.com mobile app
I mean thatā€™s just common


A bit weak from Carlisle tbh. He can have more kids ffs

:tearsofjoy:

Gutted , play our first final for years and our best CHB leaves , was it more to do with no contract.
at first I thought premium was just missing the point but later he brings up that military go ages without seeing family/kids and that he was happy but gutted

Phht 3rd kid, can't even remember my 3rd...its all to keep the wife happy.
Geary as well. Do we need to put their wives in chastity belts over Christmas.
Cleary a tongue in cheek post unless his wife is a filth fan and ss jr 3 followed in mummyā€™s footsteps. Then itā€™s justified

Jake had it planned perfectly. Gave himself time to have a big week after the grand final win.

Bloody covid screwed it up.

This guy gets it!!
 
Sense I'm in the minority here but I don't want Marsh in. I just think the guy for all his physical attributes is a pretty average footballer. And FMD please not Abbott.

Getting Battle back is pivotal to us having any chance. I'd rather us go in small and bring in Dunstan and Sav than guys who don't cut it. Richmond won't take us to the cleaners in the air, it's their speedy ball movement that is their strength. We can afford to go in small against the Tigers. Our tall book-ends and Roma in the guts can still get the job done.
 
Wonder is Gleeson will clarify why it must be graded medium despite no medical backup.

What I wouldn't give to be my namesake in that room....

Edit: Ahh the vision, not the actual impact or result of contact, the eyes where perception is king and facts are bullshit.

Well done Gleeson.
 
What a slimy Kent Wallace is.

Reckon's Macrea was "groggy" after the hit and affected the outcome so Long should be out.

Russell says to him that every player needs a test and the Dogs didn't even test him so there was no impact. Wallace umms and ahhs and said he refused to have one, and then Russell points out that it is the doctors decision not the player.

What a dickhead, now saying we have no hope because we only laid ten tackles in the first half of the weekend. This bloke is a fool and a plonker.

Wrote off Hanners when we drafted him
Wrote of Paddy when we drafted him, now trying to get Long out for a fictitious head injury to Macrea.
Gronk fool. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Link?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

AFL: "That vision there strongly suggests this is not a glancing blow to the face, but rather significant, forceful impact."


Hang on, since when does that matter? It's all about the result, concussions etc... bloody morons
 
"You see the elevation of Long's shoulder to Macrae's head. He comes up a little, seems to see him a millisecond before contact and then there's that forceful contact. It's not in dispute there was high contact."
"That vision there strongly suggests this is not a glancing blow to the face, but rather significant, forceful impact."

What ****ing bullshit. Macrae must be the toughest bloke in the world then since he was perfectly fine
 
"What happens as a consequence of the force is in the lap of the Gods. The player may or may not suffer a concussion. He may or may not suffer a broken jaw. He may get up and run off. That's really not the point."
Why do a medical report then?
 
AFL: "When it comes to assessing impact, the important thing to remember is the word is impact, not injury. You're not assessing injury. If you go to the guidelines ... consideration will be given to the extent of force. It's the extent of force you're assessing. Injury is a consequence of force. It's a possible consequence, sometimes it's a probable consequence ... it says 'strong consideration' will be given to the potential to cause injury ... you have significant head impact, that's apparent from the vision, and you have momentum."


They are idiots. Do they realise that they are saying injury is a strong consideration, and force is just a consideration?
 
AFL: "That vision there strongly suggests this is not a glancing blow to the face, but rather significant, forceful impact."


Hang on, since when does that matter? It's all about the result, concussions etc... bloody morons

I wonder if they saw the vision where Long ceased his momentum whilst Macrae ran at him, you know, that half step?

I'm guessing not given Gleesons response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top