Roast Douglas' speckie

[StonesThrow]

That tackle just made him look stupid. Wouldn't have hurt douglas more than a normal tackle. Screams of someone ' trying to show how rugby they are'

Surely izzy had one of those velcro tops on. No jumper comes apart that easy.

 

[knobby]

Can't believe the grammar police have let this slip, shouldn't it be Douglas's speckie ? There was only one Douglas.

 

[swanfan]

Izzy felt like a man when his guernsey was ripped.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Can't believe the grammar police have let this slip, shouldn't it be Douglas's speckie ? There was only one Douglas.

You don't put an apostrophe after a word finishing with "s", when this happens you just put a ' there.

 

[knobby]

FromWiki - font of all knowledge !

Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound
This subsection deals with singular nouns pronounced with a sibilant sound at the end: /s/ or /z/. The spelling of these ends with -s, -se, -z, -ze, -ce, -x, or -xe.
Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation. Examples include Oxford University Press, the Modern Language Association, the BBC and The Economist.[18] Such authorities demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Tony Adams's friend. Rules that modify or extend the standard principle have included the following:
If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian,[19] Yahoo! Style Guide,[20] The American Heritage Book of English Usage[21] Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended.
Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in a sibilant, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive; among sources giving exceptions of this kind are The Times[22] and The Elements of Style, which make general stipulations, and Vanderbilt University,[23] which mentions only Moses and Jesus. As a particular case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's – even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's. Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules.

Not that I care just taking the urine

 

[Vooligan]

FromWiki - font of all knowledge !

Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound
This subsection deals with singular nouns pronounced with a sibilant sound at the end: /s/ or /z/. The spelling of these ends with -s, -se, -z, -ze, -ce, -x, or -xe.
Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation. Examples include Oxford University Press, the Modern Language Association, the BBC and The Economist.[18] Such authorities demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Tony Adams's friend. Rules that modify or extend the standard principle have included the following:
If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian,[19] Yahoo! Style Guide,[20] The American Heritage Book of English Usage[21] Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended.
Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in a sibilant, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive; among sources giving exceptions of this kind are The Times[22] and The Elements of Style, which make general stipulations, and Vanderbilt University,[23] which mentions only Moses and Jesus. As a particular case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's – even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's. Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules.

Not that I care just taking the urine

It's ok, it's from Wikipedia. Forget what I learnt in my Pro English topic at Flinders, this must be true!

 

[porpoise]

Can't believe the grammar police have let this slip, shouldn't it be Douglas's speckie ? There was only one Douglas.

Actually, both are acceptable. Check this out.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

 

[SydCrow]

Reckless, high contact, high impact, Dougie should have got weeks. More double standards by the MRP.

 

[porpoise]

Reckless, high contact, high impact, Dougie should have got weeks. More double standards by the MRP.

Would be interesting actually if he missed the mark. Would the MRP have acted?

 

[Zai and Bray]

I can't believe he didn't slip mid-air.

Thats how clumsy he is, kneeing people in the face.

I see what you did there

 

[SugarShane]

Should've been a week for headbutting Douglas's knee.

 

[Geoffa32]

I know he got hurt, and we should not make light of it, but the slow mo of Palmer turning his head as Dougy's knee was just about to hit him is priceless.

You can see the "Oh ****" moment on his face just before impact.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Reckless, high contact, high impact, Dougie should have got weeks. More double standards by the MRP.

Poses an interesting question. On the one hand it was a perfectly legitimate marking contest and I doubt there was any intent to hurt the player. On the other hand he clearly made high contact and hurt the GWS player. If the MRP were consistent he should probably get a week. That said, I'd hate to see players get suspended over completely accidental contact. Things like this just happen in footy.

 

[Geoffa32]

Poses an interesting question. On the one hand it was a perfectly legitimate marking contest and I doubt there was any intent to hurt the player. On the other hand he clearly made high contact and hurt the GWS player. If the MRP were consistent he should probably get a week. That said, I'd hate to see players get suspended over completely accidental contact. Things like this just happen in footy.

Hmmmmm I can see in the future that charges could be laid for carelessness in such instances.

Afterall who would have thought five years ago you would cop three weeks for a tackle that gets you a free kick for HTB.

Could be the AFL's next target, head injuries resulting from marking contests.

 

[crowded house]

Poses an interesting question. On the one hand it was a perfectly legitimate marking contest and I doubt there was any intent to hurt the player. On the other hand he clearly made high contact and hurt the GWS player. If the MRP were consistent he should probably get a week. That said, I'd hate to see players get suspended over completely accidental contact. Things like this just happen in footy.

Jack Z from north seemingly just got 4 weeks for a similar incident, contestIng the ball in the air. Only real difference was it was not for a mark. Pretty poor though.

 

[Geoffa32]

Jack Z from north seemingly just got 4 weeks for a similar incident, contestIng the ball in the air. Only real difference was it was not for a mark. Pretty poor though.

He should have stuck his hands out pretending to go for the mark??

 

[beartoo]

It's ok, it's from Wikipedia. Forget what I learnt in my Pro English topic at Flinders, this must be true!

It depends how long ago you studied English and how 'old school' your lecturer was. An apostrophe has been considered to be optional in these circumstances for many years.

 

[SydCrow]

if Dougie hadn't marked the ball because he had gone up too early, and the ump paid a free, would it have been reportable?

I am still filthy with Knees McPharlin

 

[Mismatched]

actually, attacking Douglas wasn't the aim.
Proving Richmond fans wrong was.

In the Walker saga a couple of them made the claim that we'd stick behind out men through think and skin and ignore incidences due to a percieved bias towards our own player.
My point is I don't have double standards and I'm trying to prove Richmond trolls wrong.

But I guess you guys have to go and prove them right don't you

Why on earth do you need to prove anything to that mob to start with? You're only displaying your own insecurities, especially when you start attacking your own when there was absolutely no reason to. If there was reason to you could rest assured that Mark Robinson would have been harping on about it all week.

Douglas had eyes for the footy and a right to jump for the footy. Palmer ran back into the space and it could be argued that he headbutted Douglas' knee as much as Douglas kneed him in the face. Unfortunate, but that is the risk you take for going back with the flight of the footy and to say anything else is to disrespect the act of courage that it took to do such.

To award a free kick/suspend a player for like Douglas would only encourage more players to do stupid things like running back with the flight. Instead of going for the footy like Palmer was, you'll see them do it so they win a free kick. We already see it with head high tackles where players intentially run headfirst into an opposition player to win a head high free kick and more often than not the umpire obliges.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Douglas had eyes for the footy and a right to jump for the footy. Palmer ran back into the space and it could be argued that he headbutted Douglas' knee as much as Douglas kneed him in the face. Unfortunate, but that is the risk you take for going back with the flight of the footy and to say anything else is to disrespect the act of courage that it took to do such.

This is exactly right.

The reason contact between Richard Douglas knee and Rhys (Clive) Palmer head was the fact that Palmer turned his head at the last second. Contract only occurred at the very last moment.

Watch the incident, Palmer was facing the ball with his head looking in the kickers direction and doesn't turn his head to fact Douglas after he jumps and Marks the ball. Contact doesn't occur until Douglas nearly marks the ball.

It was a very innocuous incident and a football collision. Nothing could be done about it. Not even Richmond would be that stupid to argue that fact.

 

[crowded house]

He should have stuck his hands out pretending to go for the mark??

I meant the Zeibell decision was poor. Not Dougy's mark. That was great!

 

[Vader]

Douglas was never in any danger of being reported as long as his flight was ruled to be a realistic attempt at a mark, even if he didn't actually mark the ball - or even make contact with it. If the umpire ruled that it was an unrealistic attempt (which they couldn't once he completed the mark) then he would have definitely conceded a free kick and would possibly have come under the scrutiny of the MRP.

The same comment/standard applies to the McPharlin/Stevens incident.