TOPIC:

UNKA2 wrote:

anchorman wrote: Who does Johnson play for!!! oh tht's right he plays for Geelong.Where is Geelong!!!! Oh that's right that is country Victoria. As I said from, for, and by.

Keep going a/man, we now have edgell as well as mc cains, after those chips on yer shoulder.

Must have effected the umpiring too those damned Vics, 13 free kics to 3 in Freos favour in the first half.

Thats it in a nutshell..lol

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

thefalconstrike wrote: To say Priddis wouldn't get a game in front of Lachie Neale or Brad Ebert is bordering on stupidity. Also Ballas should of tackled instead of going the bump then he would of been playing this week.

TFS: I would pick Neale over Priddis and it was a free kick against Ballantyne - nothing more nothing less.

You obviously must have a different rule book or you watched it with your purple glasses on as the legal team at the dockers didnt agree with you and accepted teh 2 weeks, pretty wise too! Remind me not to go to the trib. with you representing me swannie.

Bazza Freo's decision is purely a pragmatic one.

Yeah in other words they never had a case in defence.

That is not what pragmatic means Bazza. Given the initial finding, which remarkably A/man and I are in accord, was extremely suspect, there was no way they would have been successful in contesting the initial decision and the consequence would have been 3 weeks rather than 2 weeks. If one replaced Ballantyne with Fyfe and the same scenario was in place, the worst Fyfe would have got would have been a fine.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

thefalconstrike wrote: To say Priddis wouldn't get a game in front of Lachie Neale or Brad Ebert is bordering on stupidity. Also Ballas should of tackled instead of going the bump then he would of been playing this week.

TFS: I would pick Neale over Priddis and it was a free kick against Ballantyne - nothing more nothing less.

You obviously must have a different rule book or you watched it with your purple glasses on as the legal team at the dockers didnt agree with you and accepted teh 2 weeks, pretty wise too! Remind me not to go to the trib. with you representing me swannie.

Bazza Freo's decision is purely a pragmatic one.

Yeah in other words they never had a case in defence.

That is not what pragmatic means Bazza. Given the initial finding, which remarkably A/man and I are in accord, was extremely suspect, there was no way they would have been successful in contesting the initial decision and the consequence would have been 3 weeks rather than 2 weeks. If one replaced Ballantyne with Fyfe and the same scenario was in place, the worst Fyfe would have got would have been a fine.

That's your opinion swan. Also if your mum had balls she would be your dad? That's just my opinion.

thefalconstrike wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

thefalconstrike wrote: To say Priddis wouldn't get a game in front of Lachie Neale or Brad Ebert is bordering on stupidity. Also Ballas should of tackled instead of going the bump then he would of been playing this week.

TFS: I would pick Neale over Priddis and it was a free kick against Ballantyne - nothing more nothing less.

You obviously must have a different rule book or you watched it with your purple glasses on as the legal team at the dockers didnt agree with you and accepted teh 2 weeks, pretty wise too! Remind me not to go to the trib. with you representing me swannie.

Bazza Freo's decision is purely a pragmatic one.

Yeah in other words they never had a case in defence.

That is not what pragmatic means Bazza. Given the initial finding, which remarkably A/man and I are in accord, was extremely suspect, there was no way they would have been successful in contesting the initial decision and the consequence would have been 3 weeks rather than 2 weeks. If one replaced Ballantyne with Fyfe and the same scenario was in place, the worst Fyfe would have got would have been a fine.

That's your opinion swan. Also if your mum had balls she would be your dad? That's just my opinion.

TFS and if you had an articulate thought it wouldn't be yours.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

thefalconstrike wrote: To say Priddis wouldn't get a game in front of Lachie Neale or Brad Ebert is bordering on stupidity. Also Ballas should of tackled instead of going the bump then he would of been playing this week.

TFS: I would pick Neale over Priddis and it was a free kick against Ballantyne - nothing more nothing less.

You obviously must have a different rule book or you watched it with your purple glasses on as the legal team at the dockers didnt agree with you and accepted teh 2 weeks, pretty wise too! Remind me not to go to the trib. with you representing me swannie.

Bazza Freo's decision is purely a pragmatic one.

Yeah in other words they never had a case in defence.

That is not what pragmatic means Bazza. Given the initial finding, which remarkably A/man and I are in accord, was extremely suspect, there was no way they would have been successful in contesting the initial decision and the consequence would have been 3 weeks rather than 2 weeks. If one replaced Ballantyne with Fyfe and the same scenario was in place, the worst Fyfe would have got would have been a fine.

So the report is what the problem is?. So Fyffe would have had a different report levelled against him?....

swan42 wrote:

thefalconstrike wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

thefalconstrike wrote: To say Priddis wouldn't get a game in front of Lachie Neale or Brad Ebert is bordering on stupidity. Also Ballas should of tackled instead of going the bump then he would of been playing this week.

TFS: I would pick Neale over Priddis and it was a free kick against Ballantyne - nothing more nothing less.

You obviously must have a different rule book or you watched it with your purple glasses on as the legal team at the dockers didnt agree with you and accepted teh 2 weeks, pretty wise too! Remind me not to go to the trib. with you representing me swannie.

Bazza Freo's decision is purely a pragmatic one.

Yeah in other words they never had a case in defence.

That is not what pragmatic means Bazza. Given the initial finding, which remarkably A/man and I are in accord, was extremely suspect, there was no way they would have been successful in contesting the initial decision and the consequence would have been 3 weeks rather than 2 weeks. If one replaced Ballantyne with Fyfe and the same scenario was in place, the worst Fyfe would have got would have been a fine.

That's your opinion swan. Also if your mum had balls she would be your dad? That's just my opinion.

TFS and if you had an articulate thought it wouldn't be yours.

Once again that's your opinion.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

thefalconstrike wrote: To say Priddis wouldn't get a game in front of Lachie Neale or Brad Ebert is bordering on stupidity. Also Ballas should of tackled instead of going the bump then he would of been playing this week.

TFS: I would pick Neale over Priddis and it was a free kick against Ballantyne - nothing more nothing less.

You obviously must have a different rule book or you watched it with your purple glasses on as the legal team at the dockers didnt agree with you and accepted teh 2 weeks, pretty wise too! Remind me not to go to the trib. with you representing me swannie.

Bazza Freo's decision is purely a pragmatic one.

Yeah in other words they never had a case in defence.

That is not what pragmatic means Bazza. Given the initial finding, which remarkably A/man and I are in accord, was extremely suspect, there was no way they would have been successful in contesting the initial decision and the consequence would have been 3 weeks rather than 2 weeks. If one replaced Ballantyne with Fyfe and the same scenario was in place, the worst Fyfe would have got would have been a fine.

fair dinkum mate, you are dissaperaing up your own arse on this one, its about Ballantyne not Fyfe so your argument is pointless.

A/Man and you in accord, that pretty much sums up the planet you are on in respect to this one, you need a room full of mirrors mate.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

thefalconstrike wrote: To say Priddis wouldn't get a game in front of Lachie Neale or Brad Ebert is bordering on stupidity. Also Ballas should of tackled instead of going the bump then he would of been playing this week.

TFS: I would pick Neale over Priddis and it was a free kick against Ballantyne - nothing more nothing less.

You obviously must have a different rule book or you watched it with your purple glasses on as the legal team at the dockers didnt agree with you and accepted teh 2 weeks, pretty wise too! Remind me not to go to the trib. with you representing me swannie.

Bazza Freo's decision is purely a pragmatic one.

Yeah in other words they never had a case in defence.

That is not what pragmatic means Bazza. Given the initial finding, which remarkably A/man and I are in accord, was extremely suspect, there was no way they would have been successful in contesting the initial decision and the consequence would have been 3 weeks rather than 2 weeks. If one replaced Ballantyne with Fyfe and the same scenario was in place, the worst Fyfe would have got would have been a fine.

Disagree.
Plus that is purely specualtion.