The Roar
The Roar

You'llNeverHawkAlone

Roar Rookie

Joined May 2019

11k

Views

9

Published

49

Comments

Published

Comments

Well if you hold both those opinions concurrently, then given he hasn’t killed or hurt anyone, perhaps you should take a look at yourself, before judging him

The Kyrgios case of Australia’s tennis public

Great. And you’re free to scroll past my title and ignore it, but you didn’t. And people are free to not watch him on channel 7, but they’ll keep doing it. They’ll keep hating him, but they’ll keep following him. So actually I think most more people agree than they would admit. They can’t help talking about him

The Kyrgios case of Australia’s tennis public

I never suggested that Geelong never wanted to play home games in Melbourne. I’m suggesting they no longer do, and the fact they once did should not condemn them to do it forever.

My point that “the only example of a team handing home ground advantage to their opponent other than Geelong” is not incorrect. Certain teams host games away from home, but ONLY Geelong in Melbourne, or the yearly Collingwood v StK, WB or NM game is a home team playing an away team, at that team’s ground. With the exception of GC v FRE in Perth, or other such ridiculous situations, of course. So you didn’t understand me. Richmond v Sydney at Docklands, for example, takes away some of the Tiger’s advantage, but it is not Sydney’s home ground.

Yes I did remember it was a Richmond home game.

Under the current circumstances, Richmond, Collingwood and Hawthorn never do. That seems relatively easy to understand. Admittedly I didn’t spell that out, but I don’t think you’ve found the holes you think you have.

“Regardless, tickets are sold to members of both clubs first, so home supporters have never had a right over away supporters for finals.” That’s fine. But the 2017 final was played on a Friday, at the MCG. So it clearly suited Richmond fans. As for the access, well, Geelong have some fans in Melbourne, but they have a lot of fans in Geelong. I can jump online and buy a ticket for a Bob Dylan concert in Montreal, but I don’t have the same access to it that Montreal locals do.

Possibly a fair point on the Bulldogs Adelaide final. Yet that game, you know, the one time it didn’t involve Geelong, was actually debated at large. Many people have said they earned the right to play at home.

I’m well aware there were tickets on sale that day for that prelim. My understanding is 1000 tickets were held back and put up for sale on the day. I guess by that time people didn’t think they could still get them. This was possibly so it wouldn’t sellout so they could justify claiming they’d made the right decision. I guess that worked…

The GMHBA final integrity contradiction

No. It’s not their main ground, nor is it a complete AFL venue. GMHBA is

The GMHBA final integrity contradiction

Yes but the more unique anyone ground is, the more different away grounds are. So it should be equally hard going away. But no one says that.

But that’s so exceptionally arrogant and selective. “Proper ground” haha. The MCG is extremely wide, the SCG is extremely short, Subiaco was also extremely narrow, Docklands has a roof. Surely all these things are just as relevant in terms of specific home advantages, but no, like all the other sheep you just think the Geelong narrowness matters. It’s so incredibly selective

The GMHBA final integrity contradiction

Right. Do you not see how Geelong gets shafted with this way of thinking though? If some have to go there, but others don’t, it’s not fair. But you don’t think it’s unfair on Geelong not being able to play at home. Anyway if you want to get technical, maybe Geelong should have to play all their finals at the opponent’s ground. I mean, MCG teams get to play away Geelong finals at home, so shouldn’t interstate teams as well? After all, the SCG is no less Sydney’s home than the MCG is Richmond’s. And no amount of Caro spin is going to make the MCG Geelong’s home ground

The GMHBA final integrity contradiction

I guess I’ll address them then.

1. Explain why it matters how recently they requested it. That it’s not always been the case doesn’t make it right. Maybe it was always wrong. And I never said all games at Docklands were forced, but that they were forced up until recently. For roughly a decade they openly said they didn’t want games there.
2. Perhaps there were glaring holes in your reading of the argument. I specified that other MCG teams play at Docklands. I just highlighted Collingwood becuase they host a Docklands specific team there every year. And it’s strange to assume a Geelong fan wouldn’t remember where that game was held, given it kick started their greatest ever era. And that one game they hosted a few miles away from home doesn’t make up for the many Geelong have hosted literally at Richmond’s home ground.
3. By never I meant never from this point. The way the AFL is currently thinking they would never currently send Richmond there.
4. No I’m not being presumptuous. I’m making the point that no one ever worries about lock outs other than Geelong games. No one cared about Richmond playing in Hobart in 2016, or a prelim at Spotless the same year. Caro even said in a podcast yesterday that was okay because it probably didn’t lock out that many. It’s either okay or its not…

On the Freo thing I’m not sure what your point is. Those other teams you’ve listed aren’t Freo.

The GMHBA final integrity contradiction

Thankyou kindly

The GMHBA final integrity contradiction

Can you specify some of those? I’d love to discuss them with you. I’d counter you at this stage by saying the saga wouldn’t have existed in the first place if it weren’t for wild assumptions from us fans who weren’t involved. But I would like to hear your perspective

The apology AFL fans needed, not the one we deserved

I was arguing the outrage was based upon misinformation, and contractors stances. He should never have had to apologise. And yes, they do everything in the interest of fans. Fans hate the congestion so they change the rules. Then they get criticised for changing the rules. Theres no winning

The apology AFL fans needed, not the one we deserved

Well you’re right, it would definitely increase scoring. It would also mean no reward whatsoever for good defence across the season, thus totally annulling one avenue of integrity in our great game. An idea that would actually destroy the game, not fix it

The easy fix to the AFL's scoring woes

With pleasure. He imparts it upon everyone else like it is fact, when it simply appears within his own belief system. It is telling people to be a certain way, because they will be punished if not. But the punishment is burning in hell for all eternity. I’m sure you can decipher the bullying in that?

As for the arrogance? Well, haven’t we all heard the term ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’? Well, what a sham that is. His posts says nothing about homosexual behaviour, but homosexuals. The love the sinner nonsense is how they’ve always gotten away their dated beliefs. It seems they don’t always have to pretend there’s any more noble a cause than conformity. You will conform to our requirements, or else you will burn in hell… You don’t detect a hint of arrogance in that?

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

Well thankfully we have IVF. My statement that being gay is okay doesn’t need to be extracted any further than the statement itself. Especially not with maniacal hypotheticals

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

I appreciate the feedback. And accept it was along the more sensationalist lines.

I would defend myself and say the bullying claim while perhaps unexplained was sort of implied by his actions. Telling someone they are going to burn in hell for eternity seems like bullying to me, to do so in the name of your ‘beliefs’ is arrogant, because it means you can justify any old thing it says. But to be fair, I didn’t explain that

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

But then we run the risk of allowing much worse things than nasty Instagram posts.

I read all yours comments, and understand your slight moral dilemma. But there needn’t be a dilemma. You were against what he said because he hurt people. You’re against religious organisations sacking homosexuals for the same reason.

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

It is addressing, specifically, the idea the so many people – I believe the majority of those on his side – who are arguing his right to free speech. The insinuation being that it doesn’t matter what you say, no matter to whom and no matter the circumstances, you must be allowed to say it. I used ridiculous examples to highlight how ridiculous that argument is.

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

Where did I go wrong?

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

I’d be interested to know what part of that sentence was irrational? Even nob-factual?

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

My point was quite obviously that people like Alan Jones and the vast majority of our country, it seems, argue he’s been sacked for having an opinion and exercising his freedom of speech. I used absurd examples because when people make that argument they take out ALL nuance, and claim you should be able to say whatever you want, whenever you want. If you understood that, you wouldn’t make that comment

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

I think most of what you said is very fair.

But I cannot accept your statement that “No-one is claiming that his employment is under threat because he is “exercising his right to free speech””. Please read any thread on anything relating to this topic and you’ll know that’s extremely incorrect. Its the exact line of argument people take to justify saying whatever they want without consequence. This is no different.

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

Because being gay is okay. And religion is factually wrong in saying it isn’t. The evidence is in the fact they were all written before society had progressed anywhere significant in an inclusive sense. It just hasn’t caught up yet.

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

The fact is, it’s a terrible look for an organisation trying to promote inclusiveness.

I don’t consider that a double standard. One is sacking the other for their lack of inclusiveness, the other wants to sack someone because they aren’t inclusive themselves. I have no time punishing people for being who they are. But telling homosexuals they are lesser to you isn’t being who you are, that’s being a terrible person.

The Folau freedom of speech double standard

Sensational. It appears anon here is THE person able to interpret all booing. Pleasure to meet you finally

Boo-merang: Why booing will always return

Oh man, you’ve got me salivating already. Let’s hope it happens again!

Geelong are setting the pace; the AFL season is in their control

Geelong already have away games at the MCG. I think the Interstate teams needing games at the G thing is clearly relevant, but not hugely to the Geelong-orientated article. And it’s only for the purpose of the grand final those teams need G experience. I’d prefer home games that help us get the the big dance, and worry about the stadium when we cross that bridge.
As for handicaps, well, consider this. Geelong starts this year really well. Maybe they’ll finish top two? If that becomes realistic, they don’t have any particular advantage. They hope Collingwood or Richmond don’t happen to finish 3 or 4 so as to not completely nullify their home advantage in finals. West coast finish second last year and have a clear home path to finals. Don’t tell me Geelong don’t have a handicap.
Geelong host west coast in a final, it’s in Melbourne, an advantage, but not hugely. West Coast host Geelong, they get it at home, no question

How Geelong gets robbed by the AFL