The Roar
The Roar

Dalgety Carrington

Roar Guru

Joined February 2014

443

Views

2

Published

5.7k

Comments

Published

Comments

Longmuir has stated a preference for 3 talls up front. That’d suggest that he’s a mind the goal supply to come mostly from the KPP’s. Of course the crumbers will play a role, just not the predominant one, especially if you add in the medium forwards into that mix.

How a hot start will anchor the Dockers' September hopes

Think it’s time for a follow up article.

I congest you not, a marks-ist manifesto

Hahaha look at the two likers. Richie Tiger, that isn’t you anonboy is it?

Anyhoo, I think what anonboy really meant was “Easy round to tip, just harder to get those tips right”.

The Roar's AFL expert tips and predictions: Round 16

Ahh good. So you’ll be dropping a four or five figure sum on the WC and posting the evidence for all to witness then?

The Roar's AFL expert tips and predictions: Round 16

That’s still not enough to say it was an intentional headbutt I’m afraid. Lockhart was also imparting his “deliberate forward momentum” too. Anyhoos, it’s all moot.

Michael Walters gives his side of the story after overturning 'headbutt' suspension

I said there was movement…angling it in, “shoving” descriptor was what I disagreed with, albeit “shoving” allows a pretty wide interpretation. Mind you the difference between “tilting” and “shoving” probably sits in the degree of force and momentum of movement.

Michael Walters gives his side of the story after overturning 'headbutt' suspension

I think the rule is written so that if you go the bump in a non-ball-contested act you are placing yourself in a position of responsibility for not causing forceful contact to the head. Although I think they’ve stepped back a little from that in the past year or so with either Hocking’s and/or Christian’s involvement.

Surely if it’s an intentional headbutt it’s going to require a level of force with the head movement. That’s what a headbutt is. The vision doesn’t really show him shoving his head forward, more just angling it in the confrontation.

I think you’ve got a fair case with the insufficient force, but likewise, I think based on the vision a case of unintentional is a very reasonable one too.

Michael Walters gives his side of the story after overturning 'headbutt' suspension

I know him getting off is probably irritating to you anon, given your irrational set against Lyon seems to have tainted everything about Freo for you (to the extent of creating Jo(h)n Barron type sock puppets).

Maybe show me though where what I’ve said is in the “transcript”, I’d be interested to see it or is it just another anon fantasy fabrication?

Michael Walters gives his side of the story after overturning 'headbutt' suspension

Haha…salty much?

There’s a clear case that it was unintentional and certainly the case that it was intentional requires non-observable guesswork. That was my initial take on it since I looked at the footage carefully the first time on Monday.

The clearest take is that it was a jostle with Lockhart actually coming in faster than Walters, there was a very minor collision of heads with no damage done.

A bump is different. If you neglect the ball in favour of bumping and head contact is made then you are more likely to get cited. If you bump in the contest for the ball you’ll get a lot more leniency. The difference between a bump/shirtfront and this collision is the vast difference in levels of force involved and potentials for injury.

Michael Walters gives his side of the story after overturning 'headbutt' suspension

I would think it’s pretty immature tactic to make up a character to dishonestly interject into discussions and/or pretending it’s someone else agreeing with you, instead of yourself agreeing with yourself.

Notice not one denial on offer.

Four talking points from AFL Round 14

Jonboy on the otherhand has only existed for the past year or two, when anon felt he needed support but wasn’t going to get it on a regular enough basis from any real person.

Four talking points from AFL Round 14

hahahahahaha…oh the hilarity, making up sock puppets to agree with…XD…totally shameless.

Four talking points from AFL Round 14

“My dear guests! I am anon, your host. Welcome to Fantasy Island!”…

As is usual with Jon anonboy Barron there, he’s shameless in making stuff up.

Four talking points from AFL Round 14

Filthy lucre (it’s not a case of need either, just very lucrative).

The Jaidyn Stephenson ban exposes the AFL's hypocrisy

My point was really that a season is long and there so much to play out, not that the Tigers were the sole example, but one of several.

We can go on more than we’re seeing now, like the previous 4-5 years and really that’s a core point I was making. If we only go on what we’re seeing then we’re missing a big part of the picture and highly likely to be in reactionary mode.

Only going on what’s in front of the eyes leads to a common logical disfunction media analysis gets with a sort of goldfish syndrome.

Previewing the 2019 AFL dark horse derby

Normally it’d be odds on that Shuey lingered low to draw a free, but in this instance it looks like a genuine case of him going after the ball, as was Bellchambers who looks like he merely turned to follow the ball and not deliberately turn to bump at all.

'That's dangerous': Could Jeremy McGovern cop a week for this nasty incident?

Yep that’s a ridiculously false equivalence.

There’s three strikes for non-PEDs with gameday caveats. Get caught with most non-prescription drugs (doesn’t have to be ice, could even be something like elevated levels of caffeine) in your system on gameday it’s a different story. With gambling, you can bet on anything away from the AFL and not incur the AFL’s wrath, bet on games and it’s a different story.

Ten weeks for Jaidyn Stephenson? You've got to be kidding, AFL!

Wouldn’t a virtual reality kid, dreamed up in cyberspace by another virtual creation just now be free to transmit across the ether and access gambling resources anywhere? I would’ve thought it was too soon for them to see anything at a game, given one isn’t being played today, even supposing said monitors are hooked up to the internet at the stadium.

The Jaidyn Stephenson ban exposes the AFL's hypocrisy

I don’t know what happened to my reply here it seems to have gone walkabouts….

Yep the 830 timeslot is at the very edges of family viewing really.

Fair enough your point about impressionable teenage minds. But we can’t realistically hermetically seal in teenagers, so at least within a program like that it allows you to have a conversation with them and better arm them to deal with the temptations of gambling. We’re probably better off not trying to tell teenagers what to do and risk further arming their independence defences. You really just want to provide them with the best resources that they’ll realistically use and offering someone they can turn to and honestly discuss things with.

TV probably isn’t going to be the place where they get full access to exposure to gambling anyway, with them being online, accessing social media and often insidiously within electronic games there’s gambling rewards and reinforcement.

The Jaidyn Stephenson ban exposes the AFL's hypocrisy

Recent history is littered with teams who’ve started the year in scintillating form and find it hard to keep it going into the second half of the year. Just last year Richmond looked a near shoe-in for many, even up to the dying stages.

The AFL’s a harsh environment and it may not take as much as we think for a solid base to get eroded away and for things to get shaky. As much as anything else, what recent years show me is that luck is as massive now as it has been at any time in a premiership race.

Previewing the 2019 AFL dark horse derby

But also a greater vested interest in him not getting caught at all.

After the fact the greatest value of the punishment is to serve as a signal to everyone else. Putting an added incentive for self-reporting makes sense for stewarding the game.

The Jaidyn Stephenson ban exposes the AFL's hypocrisy

Agreed. It’s an illogical argument made here that lacks consistency in trying to link to entirely separate issues. It’s a common mistake though, where people conflate and confuse the difference between illicit drugs (aka arbitrarily illegalised drugs) and performance-enhancing drugs.

As far as the ads go, there needs to be restrictions placed on them, which I think might also be tighter on the type of platforms allowing the gambling to take place as well. It’s too easy with reward enducing thing like gambling to bypass the self-control areas of the brain and go straight to the deeper subconscious mechanisms in the brain.

The Jaidyn Stephenson ban exposes the AFL's hypocrisy

What time was the Front Bar televised?

The Jaidyn Stephenson ban exposes the AFL's hypocrisy

I can understand the utility of the “self-reporting” narrative and subsequent discount for the AFL. It provides an incentive for other players to come forward. In essence, it was self-reported, given the club and Stephenson ostensibly went to the AFL, rather than the AFL discovering it.

It’s a bit like your family or workplace discovering you’ve been doing something that breaks the law and convinces you to report that to the relevant authorities. Even though you didn’t come to that conclusion on your own, it’s still self-reporting.

The Jaidyn Stephenson ban exposes the AFL's hypocrisy

Maybe there might be a greater consensus to call what Kennett said xenophobic.

Gillon McLachlan's press conference was an abject failure in providing clarity to the fans

close