TOPIC:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

BC wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

BC wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: What you mean Mayo the $ubi Full Forward took an intercept mark backward of the wing...what was he doing back there?!

thewest.com.au/sport/wafl/duffield-slams...ics-bc-5839579871001

Dunno...maybe he was out for an afternoon stroll or buying the milk and paper but the fact remains no intercept marks were taken inside your forward 50 or anywhere near it in the last 2 minutes.

Do you even know what the guidelines are? This particular loose men behind the ball in our Forward half instance has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with our Forward 50 that is another rule for stoppages and kick ins where at least 2 players from each team have to be back and or attempting to be back inside the 50m at both ends of the ground. How many Colts games have you actually seen this season?

I know and understand the guidelines but what I'm failing to see after reviewing the footage several times are the "at least two forward sorties" where our boys took intercept marks in your forward line during the last 2 minutes of the game as stated by you....or are you making it up as you go along as usual?

This is your direct quote highlighted above that was attributed to me that I never actually posted.....
I certainly know what day it is do you?
Actually do you get anything right?
Who posted earlier "nothing to see here" or "sounds like sensationalised crap to me"....
Even though his own coach has even admitted to breaching the directive!

why would you be talking about intercept marks on at least 2 forward sorties at any other time of the game when it's only the last 2 minutes which were under scrutiny for Subi putting players behind the ball? and I repeat, as JonnyBoy said, there is nothing to see here as the WAFC has reviewed and the result will not change.

And as I posted above you are kidding yourself if you think this is all done and dusted!

Beasley Hutton wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

BC wrote: Given the infringement was 2 extras behind the ball for a 2 minute period when the pill didn't even go into SD's front half, I think a public stoning at Midland Reserve is the only fair and equitable outcome freez.

One of your plethora illegally behind the ball intercepted at least 2 forward sorties I can remember!

Where did I mention the last 2 minutes that was your comment?!....looks like it is you who is the one making it up as you go along as per usual!

But BH on page 8 of this discussion you did say this mate....well before BC mentioned it mate....

Beasley Hutton wrote:

BC wrote: Just as I thought ...nothing to see here...move on.

www.wafootball.com.au/news/15886/simply-...rand-final-statement

On the contrary it found you did have players behind the ball in the last few minutes which goes against the coaching guidelines designed by the Vic blow in Mick Ablett, your coach (an ex maggot I might add) even admitted you broke the coaching guidelines when interviewed but predictably it was going to be given the all clear if Scandall was involved.
As I posted earlier Scandall would have this swept under the carpet that is now reaching Mt Everest proportions at Roberts Rd!

I assume by a few minutes BH you mean 2?.....lot of sweeping by both sides of the argument here....but we can agree that both sides have agreed all the fuss is around the last few minutes of the game.....something both BC and BH have categorically stated......so atleast we agree on something I guess.

You assume wrong then Freeze.....where I went to school I was always taught a few is 3 or more maybe not at MLSH though hey?!

I think when an experienced journalist like Mark Duffield calls out the breach, people need to take some notice. He called the Subiaco excuse of a miscommunication the "biggest load of bollocks" he's ever heard in his life. Or is he a closet Swans supporter too? Duffield also made the point that when Swans hit the front in the last quarter they adhered to the spirit of the guideline by not dropping players behind the ball whereas Subiaco did.
Subiaco may well have won the game anyway who knows?
The game will obviously not be overturned or replayed but there needs to be some consequences to come out of what happened.

LOL BH....very true mate.....oh well still great to read so many different perceptions/opinions of key moments in what sounded like a great game of footy.....decapitation or ducking.....players behind the footy, yet the footy didn't get past the centreline in the last 2 mins or a few mins of the game......SD were robbed unfairly due to Subi's tatics....yet SD had so many more inside 50s than Subi for fark all result,.not sure how a few or even two players behind the play prevented SD from scoring the match winner, when SD had a multitude of goal scoring opportunities earlier in the game, when Subi were playing within the guidelines, rules etc.....and funny and ironical to read a journo stating other folk are speaking total bollocks yet they get paid handsomely to speak theirs...LOL......footy at its best......

Seems not all is well in the new beaut Colts system- according to todays paper- Harding (SD), Foster (SF) and Dodd (Peel) are all quitting

KCEF wrote: Seems not all is well in the new beaut Colts system- according to todays paper- Harding (SD), Foster (SF) and Dodd (Peel) are all quitting

When 3 very good quality Colts coaches are all pulling the pin at once after the very first year of Vic interference you do have to ask questions KC?
Of course the totally inept WAFC will say there is nothing to see here!!!

Let me say from the outset that I do not think the result should be overturned in what was an exceptional Colts Grand Final.

My concerns lay with the WAFC's handling of the whole affair right through to one of the most insipid media release's I have ever read.

Bearing in mind that all of colts coaches are appointed by the WAFC and the two GF coaches were advised that instant dismissal would result if the guidelines were breached.
BC and johnnyboy can trivialise it all they like but at the end of the day what happened after Swans got within 3 points was blatant cheating by Subiaco (let's blame the water boy).
There are three glaring anomalies here:
1. The complete lack of direction from the WAFC exacerbated by one of the worst media statements I have ever read.
2. The umpires must surely have been briefed similar to the coaches but were asleep at the wheel when they had the power to take control and rectify the situation.

3. Given that the coaches were under threat of dismissal we will await further outcomes in this regard.


As stated there should be no change to the result but the events detracted from a great game of colts football.