Tweet
On yesterday's effort, Roughead would walk into the Italy soccer team ...
-
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball) -
There are three people who saw the Bevo free kick and not the Hall penalty as a turning point. They all post on this site. Funny Roos didn't mention it. Goodes didn't mention it. None of the commentators mentioned it. None of the written media reports mentioned it. How can so many people get it so wrong????Bevo bandwagon driverComment
-
View the footage, which Roos hadn't seen when he made his assessment.
YouTube - Barry Hall gives away a triple 50 metre penalty
Tell me where Hall F%&ked up any more than any other player ever.
1. Was it in the marking contest?
2. Was it when he said to the umpire "he was holding my arm"?
3. Was it when he failed to see Roughead approaching him from behind?
4. Was it when he failed to apply Buddhist principles in not avoiding contact with a yapping poodle who deliberately obstructed him when he was going back for his second BS 50m?
Honestly, if Baz can't get some support from his own supporters, I think it's a sad day.
The hit on Staker was bad. He copped what he deserved. Yesterday was no more than an umpire failing to be impartial (freeze frame at 25 seconds and see what Vozzo was looking at) and the rest has been media hysteria. Swans supporters should stand up for Swans players, particularly when they are in the right.Comment
-
Fact remains, whatever Baz 's subsequent reactions, the original free was a joke (and in fact should have been an arm chop free TO Hall). If the correct decision is made in either case, the match goes down a whole different path.
Players give lip aggressively to umpires all the time - and if that had been anyone else but Hall, no free would have been paid. He is on a different footing to all other players - which is just wrong and flies in the face of everything the AFL tells us the umpires department supposedly stands for.
The overriding message is to suck up to the three blind mice and you'll get a better than even run from them.Comment
-
Why remonstrate at all? If he gets raped by the umps all the time, wouldn't it be smart for him to just to keep his mouth shut?
Why not just run around Mitchell? He just couldn't help himself.
You seriously are delusional if you think he is in the right here. It's pretty clear that Kirk and Goodes didn't think he was.Comment
-
"You just don't need to do that Barry"
-Craig HendrieComment
-
In a star trek world, everyone would be able to go back and do things differently, but seriously, who could expect to give away three 50's for such incidents?
Hally was expected by another poster to know that Roughead was coming at him from behind and to step gracefully out of the way, now you say he should have danced around Mitchell coming at him from the front as well!!
Hally could have turned at right angles, but a player like Mitchell, who goes the niggle far too much these days for a player of his quality, would have got in Hally's face and stayed there no matter what. His three fingers "little man syndrome" display shows what he's about these days.
Perhaps they should have played quickstep music for Hally over the ground mikes - so he could have waltzed around all the opposition players as he walked a path no-one has probably ever had to in the game's history (150m!)
Please! If we are going to be that soft, then the game is truly lost and the AFL thought police have won - all physicality and aggression to be blotted out of the game and the remains left to robots to play.Comment
-
Are you saying that it's reasonable for a different set of rules to apply to Hall? Otherwise, how about some words for those applying the seperate set of rules?
Why the f$%k should he. It's his path, he is involved in getting back to the mark. Mitchell is not involved and deliberately initiates contact. And going by Mitchell's reaction after, as Hall DID try to get away from him, he just kept getting in his face anyway.Why not just run around Mitchell? He just couldn't help himself.
I would say that there's little likelihood that Goodes or Kirk saw the original marking contest, or the Roughead decision, and probably assumed that Hall whacked Roughead. I think that once they view the replay, they, and Roos, will be apologising to him.You seriously are delusional if you think he is in the right here. It's pretty clear that Kirk and Goodes didn't think he was.Comment
-
Kirk and Goodes, I suggest, were mostly concerned about stopping him really doing something stupid.
That's the first time I've watched the incident since during the game and have to agree that all but the Mitchell incident were non-frees/50m penalties. He's not the only player who gets hard done by, but hard done by he certainly does get.Comment
-
It reminded me of this.....
YouTube - Angry Frase
Gehrig gave away a free kick, and because he was well known for having a short fuse, Mundy and Grover went up to him to try and get him to do something stupid to give away 50. Instead of letting his temper get the better of him, Gehrig should of ignored them and done nothing. He couldn't help himself though and he directly cost his side a goal - The Saints went on to lose by a point that day.
Yesterday, instead of being sucked in by Mitchell's taunts, Barry should of ignored him. Instead he chose to make high contact, and it resulted in a 50m penalty which gave Hawthorn a cheap goal at a vital point in the game and our season as a whole. It was @@@@ing dumb and he just couldn't help himself.
Even when the goal had been kicked Hall still wanted to go on with it. Goodes and Kirk then pleaded with him to let it go, he got dragged, Roosy gave him a stare as he came off. I find it very hard to understand how you came to the conclusion that he was "in the right" puppy eyes.Comment
-
No I'm not saying it's reasonable for a different set of rules to apply. Got no idea how you came up with that.
Mitchell was in his path, yes. But was Hall obliged to make head high contact with him? He CHOSE to do that, and it gave Roughead a shot from the goal square.
I'm pretty sure Goodes and Kirk would of seen the original marking contest. I can't think of many reasons why they wouldn't of. As a player you generally keep an eye on where the ball is. If you think Roos or any of Hall's teammates will be apologising to him then you need to get serious. I'm pretty certain that it will be the other way around.Comment
-
Why did Roughead run through barry's outstretched arms, in the first place?Comment
Comment