Swans v Giants Elimination Final 2021

[Maltopia]

Do you, in all honesty, when touching an umpire is forbidden, that Greene's is worse than Martin's?.
Since greene is potentially missing 3 finals, and Martin got a fine, I'd guess it must be judged a factor of, say, 10 times worse.

Martins had arguing, swearing, intentional contact, forceful contact, and repeated contact.

Missing finals is irrelevant in terms of how many weeks the panel lands on. The panel don't decide if is three weeks during finals, and ok, let's make it four or five games instead if it is the start of the season. The fact that it is finals is more devastating for Greene and GWS, but it should be seen as three games. The fact that it might be a grand final is an unfortunate coincidence.

[KTigers]

Look it's probably not going to matter, GWS aren't going to win the flag this year with or without Toby. The other conundrum that will be
playing on Friday night is our old friend Gary Rohan, who MCS brought up in the quote from Titus. His almost decade long inability to
get even remotely near the ball in an AFL final is probably one of the code's greatest mysteries. I reckon there is a thesis in there for
some footy loving PHD student.

[Maltopia]

Oh, and the AFL are considering appealing the three match ban on Greene as they thought it was inadequate - they sought six weeks.

Greene was in Stevic's face, and walked right at him. Stevic said he wasn't intimidated (who knows)? However, it looks shockingly disrespectful and aggressive (not violent or explosive aggression, I am meaning the vibe of it) as it was front on contact which twisted Stevic around. It is not at all reasonable to compare this with Martin's incident.

If you were the umpire, which would you have preferred happen to you? The Martin incident, where the player appears to demonstrate the officiated play against the side of your upper arm, or the Greene incident where he is almost in your face as he is speaking heatedly at you and then bumps you almost front on and partly spins you around?

[dejavoodoo44]

Toby is not very bright - has done some very stupid things over the years. Surely Mumford could pull him aside and teach him how to disguise foul play as clumsiness.

A good science experiment: lock Mumford and Greene in a room, and see how long it takes, for their 'accidents' to injure each other.

[Velour&Ruffles]

The toby-tax is real, and its all centred around the Vic-media narrative that the expansion clubs are evil, gifted, tassy blockers, etc. I saw Buddy fend off with an elbow to the throat in the final, as players do every game. Toby does it to vic-darling Dangerfield, and he gets a week. Its sickening.

My predictions:
If it was selwood who did same thing: a fine.
If it was a normal player: 1 week (because its missing a final).
If the AFL want to 'set an example': 2 weeks (give him a chance at a grand final).
Toby tax: 4 weeks.

Sorry but this is absolute drivel. The treatment Toby gets is because he is a dirty recidivist who, despite being incredibly talented, is a complete cretin who is totally unable to control his impulses in the moment. If it was all about perceptions of "expansion clubs" then surely other players at both GWS and Gold Coast would be treated the same. But they aren't. And there's only one difference - Toby acts like a complete @@@@@head constantly and other players don't.

[mcs]

I've been here a lot longer than you sunshine.

It's the inequality that's the issue. And we, non Victorian teams, are usually the victims. It may be Greene now, who is next?

What you walk past is what you accept.

If we find someone stupid enough to do what Greene did, then he will get the appropriate punishment.

This has zero to do with the fact Greene plays for the Plastics, and all to do with the fact he has a habit of doing really stupid things on the football field.

Look it's probably not going to matter, GWS aren't going to win the flag this year with or without Toby. The other conundrum that will be
playing on Friday night is our old friend Gary Rohan, who MCS brought up in the quote from Titus. His almost decade long inability to
get even remotely near the ball in an AFL final is probably one of the code's greatest mysteries. I reckon there is a thesis in there for
some footy loving PHD student.

While I will always give Gary some leeway in terms of how his career has turned out due to that awful incident when he broke his leg, I've never understood why he nearly always disappears in finals. I can get that he isn't a big posession numbers player but can still have a big impact. But he has such an incredibly small influence on so many big finals he has played, its quite baffling from a footballing perspective.

[Velour&Ruffles]

The above post is hilarious in it's over reach....having said that, lets read what the voice of reason, Titus O'Rielly thinks:

"The Giants will be hoping their luck holds as Toby Greene heads off to the tribunal for bumping an umpire.

It was 100 per cent on purpose, yet a lot of people seem to have decided defending Toby Greene is the hill they’re going to die on.

That seems strange given the rather extraordinary, sustained effort Greene has put in to prove beyond doubt he is a goose.

Still, in a world where people are taking horse worming medicine, it’s hardly surprising that people have decided to just believe Greene is somehow hard done by."

Are you in the horse medicine camp Barry? That's a serious question....

The Monday Knee Jerk Reaction: Finals Week One - Titus O'Reily | Don’t have faith in yourself

Yet again, Titus nails it.

[Velour&Ruffles]

I was on the money I reckon - saved himself a week by 'fessing up & apologising.

Had to laugh when I heard the dispute was coz Greene claimed that JMc had "dived" when (a) the replay clearly shows he made contact with McInerney's throat and (b) a quarter later he takes a dive himself - and Stevic falls for it!

Yep, this kind of encapsulates exactly what sort of eejit we are dealing with.

[Velour&Ruffles]

I've been here a lot longer than you sunshine.

It's the inequality that's the issue. And we, non Victorian teams, are usually the victims. It may be Greene now, who is next?

What you walk past is what you accept.

Lol. It won't be anyone except Greene. He's the biggest @@@@@head in the entire league. I won't be losing any sleep over the prospect of creeping interstate bias. He's been in the league 9 years now and it still only seems to be confined to him.

[dejavoodoo44]

Lol. It won't be anyone except Greene. He's the biggest @@@@@head in the entire league. I won't be losing any sleep over the prospect of creeping interstate bias. He's been in the league 9 years now and it still only seems to be confined to him.

Yes, Grub Greene demonstrates NSW solidarity, by elbowing McInerney in the head and claiming that "he took a @@@@ing dive".

[Hotpotato]

The Giants will still beat The Cats without Toby ..

[Nolie]

[QUOTE=mcs;830672].....at poor late call in terms of decision making when he should of found Heeney (I think it was) instead ......

- - - Updated - - -


GRRR! Were you not paying attention at page 56. It is "should HAVE" not "Should OF". As 01983309 said, cannot quite remember the number, sometimes you hear commentators say "should of" but they talk so quickly and mumble you can never be quite sure whether they said "of" or mumbled "have". You give them the benefit of the doubt but think they are probably a drongo. When someone actually puts it in writing you look at it and think "What a dozy Digger".

If in doubt use the shortened version - could've, should've, would've. Its not could'f , should'f or would'f. Cannot get it wrong if you use the abbreviation.

[Faunac8]

[QUOTE=Nolie;830726]

.....at poor late call in terms of decision making when he should of found Heeney (I think it was) instead ......

- - - Updated - - -


GRRR! Were you not paying attention at page 56. It is "should HAVE" not "Should OF". As 01983309 said, cannot quite remember the number, sometimes you hear commentators say "should of" but they talk so quickly and mumble you can never be quite sure whether they said "of" or mumbled "have". You give them the benefit of the doubt but think they are probably a drongo. When someone actually puts it in writing you look at it and think "What a dozy Digger".

If in doubt use the shortened version - could've, should've, would've. Its not could'f , should'f or would'f. Cannot get it wrong if you use the abbreviation.

How rude of them at the very least they could of taken the time to read your directive????
Seriously though while I always try to check that any written communication I undertake is double checked for spelling and grammar before I select send or post I also understand that not everyone has the same mindset.
I think if the intent of the wording is clear then live and let live after all this is a footy fan forum not an intellectual think tank.

[mcs]

[QUOTE=Nolie;830726]

.....at poor late call in terms of decision making when he should of found Heeney (I think it was) instead ......

- - - Updated - - -


GRRR! Were you not paying attention at page 56. It is "should HAVE" not "Should OF". As 01983309 said, cannot quite remember the number, sometimes you hear commentators say "should of" but they talk so quickly and mumble you can never be quite sure whether they said "of" or mumbled "have". You give them the benefit of the doubt but think they are probably a drongo. When someone actually puts it in writing you look at it and think "What a dozy Digger".

If in doubt use the shortened version - could've, should've, would've. Its not could'f , should'f or would'f. Cannot get it wrong if you use the abbreviation.

I am sure there is a forum out there somewhere on the world wide web that you can rant and rave about the death of the english language, where more than a minority of posters will actually care.

If you must be pedantic, at least do it completely in cheek like I did yesterday with Barry.

Sure I should have thought about it. But guess what - I didn't. Because, funnily enough, the main reason I post on RWO is to talk about football, not to seek out perfection in the use of the english language.

And while you may not like the use of the term 'should of', rightly or wrongly, it is commonly used and has a meaning that is well understood. Just one of many examples of how the english language continues to evolve over time.

[Markwebbos]

Didn’t realise RWO means Reading & Writing Organisation.

Perhaps Grammer correction should of had its own Fred?