Little excursion to AFL house during last year's B&F, with help from tommi.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

Hit.
Nail.
Head.


Fev would have been missing for next years pre-season comp had he done it, bearing in mind the pissy bit of nothing he got suspended for earlier in the year.

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

That is [REDACTED]! I can't believe Didak got off scott free. Typical, the umpires clearly want to give Collingwood a better chance in the finals. Pity they aren't GOOD ENOUGH!!!

_________________
GO BLUE BOYS!!

Yep, no different to Ryan Houlihan's "bump" earlier this year. A good old fashioned hip and shoulder. Should be more of it.
The media and supporters of smaller clubs have been complaining as to why Carlton gets blockbuster games as they are not worthy of them? How many extra Carlton/Collingwood followers will go to the next Carlton v Collingwood match because Aland Didak cleaned up Heath Scotland? In the end we got flogged but the game refleced the old rivalry between the two clubs that the Footscrays, Kangaroos etc. crave. Even though Carlton got flogged newspaper articles were not filled with the word "wooden spooners", even Joffa's big spoon did not get a mention.
This incident has done more for the brand of our football club than any marketing campaign the club has come up with recently.
I am big picture type of guy

It's bullshit one week, fair the next.

My opinion is that regardless of what you think of the player, the actual event was something that can, and does happen in most games of footy, most weekends. And I believe if you take away the fact it happened to a Carlton player, most here would agree it's "part of the game". Or at least it should be part of the game we grew up loving to watch. Didak had absolutely no malice in his decision to bump Scotland. It was slightly high, but clearly in the flow of the game.

What's unfair is the whole tribunal system where nobody knows week to week, player to player how things will be judged. I was certain he'd cop a few weeks, based soley ( ) on the ambiguous rules we'd been dished out and told to trust in.

Remembering the game I learnt to love watching as a kid I don't belive there was one single incident, on either side, that I would want to have been reported.

The AFL have a lot to anser for. Alan Didak doesn't.

_________________
SIDE BY SIDE
COOOOOLLLLLIIIINGWOOOOOOOD

I thought he'd just brought the missus along to the game.

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

re Didak - agree with the decision but it so very inconsistent. When a guy has his head down paddling the ball and someone comes in with a hip and shoulder (even a soft one) you are guaranteed weeks. Besides the fact you could bust someones neck is there any difference in the rules?? Both head high, both bumpees playing the ball, both in play, both "reckless" as well.

I confused.

_________________
I support Carlton, Fulham and I'm an accountant - my mate calls me a 3 time loser.

In public the AFL state they have a philosophy that the head is sacrosanct and that head high contact will be harshly dealt with.

However, the Match Review Panel (including Andrew McKay) and Tribunal clearly have not heard.

The video of the hit clearly shows that at the minimum, Didak was negligent in that he pushed off and up and was NOT aiming low at the body, but high towards the head. As such, under present day laws and supposed stated interpretation, he should have been found at the least guilty of neligent contact, head high, in play .... 3 weeks penalty.

For these reasons, the "accidental" ruling is a disgrace, specially in view of various charges laid over the last 3 years, also grossly unfair in terms of the on field consequences of Didak's onfield action in acting in such a negligent manner.

This is a disgraceful farce, and the Match Review Panel should be ashamed of their inconsistent rulings.

Was very surprised to see Robert Walls get passionate about this on the coach tonight, like he was actually on Carltons side. He was very fired up and pissed off about the lack of report and that F'Wit Goldspink.

The Didak bump was very similar to Houla's bump but the thing was that we all wanted Houla to get rubbed out at the time...

As I recall their was another sign put up as well.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

For the benefit of those without A/star - what did he say?

And did Sheephen and Healy agree with him?

I have forgotten - but refresh my memory Camel.


The politburo (read Demetrispew) surrounds itself with incompetents so it looks good:

The triumvirate of Anderson, Gieschen and Schwab - two failed football coaches and a corporate lawyer who couldn't cut it.


Is this enough to get us into trouble.

Really I would have a real go at Goldspink as we all know he is an incompetent and buffoon - but in this situation he really did Carlton a huge long term favour as prior to his clearly demonstrated incompetence and bias we were in danger of actually winning the game and costing us another top 20 player, so thank you Darren from the heart of my bottom.

"Name and address supplied."

Sue me Darren - really please sue me .

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

Headplant is right. Didak may not have had is elbow raised but he was aiming at Scotland's head. As far as I'm aware if there is contact with the head then you are supposed to be in trouble.

_________________
Just because I'm offended, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Mike agreed with Walls and both are confused like everybody else. Healy thought bump was OK, they showed a few bumps from the weekend which nothing was done.

Walls and Mike very unhappy with the umpiring from the game saying Goldspink change the course of the game in Pies favour.

Walls wanted the Whitnall/Didak clash showed again and in slow mo as he thought there was a headbutt from Didak first (I agree) which pissed off Whitnall causing the first free to Burns in front of goal.

Heady I couldn't agree with you more. "The player's head is sacrosant" they say... No it's not... Yes it is... No it isn't... Yes it is... Pathetic really

Just saw this on The Winners. Didak thrust his head toward Red who immediately grabbed him and threw him onto the ground. If he'd not made contact I couldn't see Lance reacting that savagely.

They also showed Holland blowing Banno a kiss after he was gifted his goal. Obviously needs another smack in the mouth.

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

I can't wait until the return match next year. We will be better. The Pies will be lamenting another dismal finals campaign and we will belt them. If we win less than four games next year then two of the wins must be against the Pies.

LMAO

_________________
Circumstance has no value. It is how one relates to a situation that has value. All true meaning resides in the personal relationship to a phenomenon, what it means to you.

Taken into context with Gainsiricusa and Houlihan bumps, the match review panel have been consistent.

Consistently crap.

They are the biggest bunch of incompetent flower ever assembled in the same room. The AFL needs to quit the experiment of haveing ex players deciding penalties and get people with brains to do the job.

The AFL have cried that the head is sacrosant and then allow players to charge another player and strike them in the head and call it accidental. They have 4 categories, intentional, reckless, negligent and accidental. If you try to hit a player and happen to hit him in the head, it cant be accidental. Only a moron would say that. It has to be one of the first 3.

To people who say we need to keep the bump, I agree but players need to take responsibility for a blow to the head. It isnt tough stuff and its dangerous

_________________
T E A M

Read this report issued last FRIDAY

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 11,00.html

sanctions will be increased for HEAD HIGH CONTACT

yet when a guy breaks his nose because of the before mentioned action then its deemed as ok.