Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

[cookie2]

Maybe so, but the younger generation needs a bit of a foot up the behind.

As I said, I like Simmo so that's OK by me.  8)

[DJC]

Richard Hinds has written a very good article outlining why there should be more concern about Kreuzer's concussion than Dangerfield's Brownlow hopes.  I have posted an extract below:

... This should be apparent to those in the jockocracy who leapt to Dangerfield's defence. Surely, more than anyone, ex-players now appreciate the potential long-term consequences of the damage suffered by Kreuzer.

That should be apparent even to Geelong coach Chris Scott, who virtually demanded Dangerfield be cleared.

Although anyone who has regularly observed Scott and his twin, Brad, in the coach's box knows that what makes them identical is not their appearance. It is that neither has ever seen a justifiable free kick paid against their teams.

Most reprehensible were those who thought first of the impact of Dangerfield's potential suspension on the Brownlow Medal — and, even more ghastly, Brownlow Medal betting — than the precedent a "not guilty" finding would create ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-31/ma...tion=sport

The bleating on Geelong radio after the one match suspension was announced is unbearable  >

[flyboy77]

And let's not forget the other favourite, Dusty, should have been scrubbed for what he did to Curnow imo.

Anyone got that match recorded?

[Micky0]

Richard Hinds has written a very good article outlining why there should be more concern about Kreuzer's concussion than Dangerfield's Brownlow hopes.  I have posted an extract below:

The bleating on Geelong radio after the one match suspension was announced is unbearable  >

Wow great quote and so true.

It does take a bit of time to turn the talk around when the commentator was Ling tho

[Gointocarlton]

The radio callers have indeed been unbareble. One imbecile caller to SEN even had the gaul to have whinge and about it and somehow brought the fact that they have 7 home games at SS into the argument and that they were behind the 8 ball (or something utterly ridiculous like that). Seriously I know people are entitled to an opinion but if your not going to put up a credible, logical, rational  argument, STFU. If this wasn't Dangerfield the gun or Dangerfield the Brownlow favourite, it would not even be worthy of being discussed. Everyone would have simply said "Yep, fair call, next". Instead, a load of rubbish excuses (mainly by Geel supporters). "He didnt sling", "He thought he had the ball" blah blah blah. All irrelevant, the correct decision was made. Watch this space though, I'm a sceptic and think that Geel will appeal and it will be successful (and staged). This way, the AFL hedges their bets and says "See? We found him guilty and suspended him but the appeal process worked and the Brownlow Favorite Geelong champion player Dangerfield is free to play".
Meanwhile, our AA Ruckman faces a week on the sidelines and no one give a flying feck cos its all about Bambifield and his feckin Brownlow. Feck the feckin Brownlow >.

[Baggers]

Richard Hinds has written a very good article outlining why there should be more concern about Kreuzer's concussion than Dangerfield's Brownlow hopes.  I have posted an extract below:

The bleating on Geelong radio after the one match suspension was announced is unbearable  >

Absolutely... and in the print media. Imagine their bleating had Kreuzer done the same to Dangerfield and he'd been out for the remainder of the game!!! They'd be calling for 2-4 weeks. C0ckheads. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

[Gointocarlton]

Absolutely... and in the print media. Imagine their bleating had Kreuzer done the same to Dangerfield and he'd been out for the remainder of the game!!! They'd be calling for 2-4 weeks. C0ckheads. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

It makes me vomit.

[Thryleon]

I'll play devils advocate here.

Whilst it's unfortunate that Kreuzer was concussed, I am a firm believer in the outcome of an action not dictating whether or not that action is legal.

I thought that the tackle itself was ok, and that Kreuzer was more unlucky than anything else.

A week seems harsh to me.  Particularly when you have blokes being punched and getting a fine as a result like cotchin.

[DJC]

I'll play devils advocate here.

Whilst it's unfortunate that Kreuzer was concussed, I am a firm believer in the outcome of an action not dictating whether or not that action is legal.

I thought that the tackle itself was ok, and that Kreuzer was more unlucky than anything else.

A week seems harsh to me.  Particularly when you have blokes being punched and getting a fine as a result like cotchin.

I saw it differently Thry.  Dangerfield pinned Kreuzer's arms so he couldn't protect himself, then smashed his head into the ground.  It was deliberate and Dangerfield clearly intended to hurt Kreuzer and gain an advantage for his team.  Two weeks would be a fair penalty, regardless of whether Kreuzer misses a week.

The research into repeated concussions has produced frightening results and the AFL must do more to stamp out tackles that are likely to cause head injuries.

[flyboy77]

Aye. the bloke knew exactly what he was doing and to suggest he didn't know the ball was long gone is simply laughable....