Grand Final thread / Your Predictions?

[tigersalive]

Couldnt agree with the match review panel more.

Ablett had his head over the ball and Sam Mitchell crunched him on the shoulder, not on the head.  Ablett was within 5 metres of the ball so Ablett had every reason to expect a bump and Mitchell had every right to dish it out.

And a bloody good one it was too. 

[Tigermonk]

Amazing how a club like Hawthorn can get it right from a rebuild. Makes Richmond look stupid all over again 

[WilliamPowell]

Couldnt agree with the match review panel more.

Ablett had his head over the ball and Sam Mitchell crunched him on the shoulder, not on the head.  Ablett was within 5 metres of the ball so Ablett had every reason to expect a bump and Mitchell had every right to dish it out.

And a bloody good one it was too. 

Have to disagree....

Mitchell at no stage had eyes for the ball, his "bump" made contact above the shoulder with Junior's head.

Going by what the "learned panel" at Match review has dished out during the course of this season - Mitchell deserved to be sanctioned.....

All I want is consistency... this decision shows a form consistency. And that is the lack of it.

[tigersalive]

Couldnt agree with the match review panel more.

Ablett had his head over the ball and Sam Mitchell crunched him on the shoulder, not on the head.  Ablett was within 5 metres of the ball so Ablett had every reason to expect a bump and Mitchell had every right to dish it out.

And a bloody good one it was too. 

Have to disagree....

Mitchell at no stage had eyes for the ball, his "bump" made contact above the shoulder with Junior's head.

Going by what the "learned panel" at Match review has dished out during the course of this season - Mitchell deserved to be sanctioned.....

All I want is consistency... this decision shows a form consistency. And that is the lack of it.

Mitchell's bump from the hip did not make contact to Ablett jnr's head, it hit him flush on the shoulder, I am 100% certain of that.   An angle 7 showed on GF day showed it perfectly while the others were inconclusive.

If I saw Ablett's head was made contact I would be completely on the same side as you but as there was no head high contact there is nothing cite him for.  Also there is no law against having to go for the football in a bump when the other player is contesting the ball, that's what the bump is all about.

Absolute ripper bump and I loved it.   

And if you think consistency isnt being shown maybe they're showing actually showing consistency after the Cats player (Trent West?) absolutely polaxed Xavier Clarke who was no where near the ball and he had to be stretchered off.  Zero weeks.

[WilliamPowell]

Mitchell's bump from the hip did not make contact to Ablett jnr's head, it hit him flush on the shoulder, I am 100% certain of that.   An angle 7 showed on GF day showed it perfectly while the others were inconclusive.

If I saw Ablett's head was made contact I would be completely on the same side as you but as there was no head high contact there is nothing cite him for.  Also there is no law against having to go for the football in a bump when the other player is contesting the ball, that's what the bump is all about.

Absolute ripper bump and I loved it.   

And if you think consistency isnt being shown maybe they're showing actually showing consistency after the Cats player (Trent West?) absolutely polaxed Xavier Clarke who was no where near the ball and he had to be stretchered off.  Zero weeks.

Ch7 News showed the bump again from 2 different angles and Mitchell made contact with the head of Junior based on both bits of vision they showed tonight.

Mitchell went straight at Ablett and made contact with both the shoulder and above, which means there was head high contact for mine.

For the "learned panel" to use as part of their "considerations" the reasoning that Ling pushed Mitchell and thereby causing things to fall outside Mitchell's control is drawing a long bow IMHO.

I don't think they are showing much consistency based on exactly what you are saying. One week someone gets off the next week they cite a bloke....

[Francois Jackson]

Amazing how a club like Hawthorn can get it right from a rebuild. Makes Richmond look stupid all over again 

you are 100% correct.

2004 draft is the reason they are where they are today.

we had more picks inside the top 20 and we stuffed it. Alternatively they can thank that draft and Richmond FC for handing them their 10th flag

[tigersalive]

Mitchell's bump from the hip did not make contact to Ablett jnr's head, it hit him flush on the shoulder, I am 100% certain of that.   An angle 7 showed on GF day showed it perfectly while the others were inconclusive.

If I saw Ablett's head was made contact I would be completely on the same side as you but as there was no head high contact there is nothing cite him for.  Also there is no law against having to go for the football in a bump when the other player is contesting the ball, that's what the bump is all about.

Absolute ripper bump and I loved it.   

And if you think consistency isnt being shown maybe they're showing actually showing consistency after the Cats player (Trent West?) absolutely polaxed Xavier Clarke who was no where near the ball and he had to be stretchered off.  Zero weeks.

Ch7 News showed the bump again from 2 different angles and Mitchell made contact with the head of Junior based on both bits of vision they showed tonight.

Mitchell went straight at Ablett and made contact with both the shoulder and above, which means there was head high contact for mine.

For the "learned panel" to use as part of their "considerations" the reasoning that Ling pushed Mitchell and thereby causing things to fall outside Mitchell's control is drawing a long bow IMHO.

I don't think they are showing much consistency based on exactly what you are saying. One week someone gets off the next week they cite a bloke....

We disagree as much as we like but as long as I maintain (and am in rock solid belief from the angle I saw) that Abletts head did not get collected by Mitchell and you're the other way round I dont think we are going to agree. 


Is the MRPs reasoning anywhere on the web yet?

[Infamy]

2004 draft is the reason they are where they are today.

rubbish

[Francois Jackson]

2004 draft is the reason they are where they are today.

rubbish

rubbish.

Well i have almost 200 reasons to suggest otherwise.

Buddy and Roughead. How many goals did they kick again in 2008? Yes exactly apology accepted.

Throw in tough nut Lewis.

bang!!

[Ekto]

2004 draft is the reason they are where they are today.

rubbish

rubbish.

Well i have almost 200 reasons to suggest otherwise.

Buddy and Roughead. How many goals did they kick again in 2008? Yes exactly apology accepted.

Throw in tough nut Lewis.

bang!!

I don't remember Roughead kicking 90 goals in 2008. Did he even get 90 kicks for the year?

Go and barrack for the Waverley Thugs that used to come from Glenferrie if you like these guys so much.

Buddy is the most undisciplined player in the AFL, on and off the field, that is why he has a full time minder, even at GF celebrations only attended by players and family....to keep the other players and families safe. You did not see any Hawk players patting Buddy on the head after they won the GF, did you? They know that hair is dangerous these days.

Finals footy produces champions....not duds like Buddy who can't get a kick when the pressure comes on....when one of his team mates passes it too him (oops I meant used to pass it to him)....oops another undisciplined slash at the footy and the resultant point.....no wonder Clarko moved him away from FF but didn't have the guts to drop a 100 goal hog. (I wouldn't have either mind you)

Chris Judd showed his disgust at the West Coast culture by coming east to those mongrels at Optus.

Shane Crawford is about to hang up his boots......for similar reasons.....its best to get out of the fire while the kindling is still trying to get our attention.

[Francois Jackson]

2004 draft is the reason they are where they are today.

rubbish

rubbish.

Well i have almost 200 reasons to suggest otherwise.

 Yes exactly apology accepted.


bang!!

I don't remember Roughead kicking 90 goals in 2008. Did he even get 90 kicks for the year?

Go and barrack for the Waverley Thugs that used to come from Glenferrie if you like these guys so much.

Buddy is the most undisciplined player in the AFL, on and off the field, that is why he has a full time minder, even at GF celebrations only attended by players and family....to keep the other players and families safe. You did not see any Hawk players patting Buddy on the head after they won the GF, did you? They know that hair is dangerous these days.

Finals footy produces champions....not duds like Buddy who can't get a kick when the pressure comes on....when one of his team mates passes it too him (oops I meant used to pass it to him)....oops another undisciplined slash at the footy and the resultant point.....no wonder Clarko moved him away from FF but didn't have the guts to drop a 100 goal hog. (I wouldn't have either mind you)

Chris Judd showed his disgust at the West Coast culture by coming east to those mongrels at Optus.

Shane Crawford is about to hang up his boots......for similar reasons.....its best to get out of the fire while the kindling is still trying to get our attention.

First you tell me to support the blues and now its the Hawks. Which one is it??

i agree with you about only one thing. Buddy having a "MINDER"
A good mate lives with Sewell and we played poker last year and he told me then the same thing. Loose cannon he is, but who cares he is a century goal kicker and a premiership player

If you think Shane Crawford is going to hang up his boots because of the off field behaviour at Glenferrie than you dont know anything about Football, in fact im sure you dont.

Read my post again "almost 200 reasons to suggest otherwise" Buddy=113 goals, Rough-75goals = 188 goals.

They would never have won a flag withouth these 2 i am 100% sure of that, surely you can see that.

Ill repeat again, the 2004 Draft was the most important Draft for them resulting in a flag.

[mightytiges]

Ill repeat again, the 2004 Draft was the most important Draft for them resulting in a flag.

Only 4 of their premiership 22 came from the 2004 draft. Their most influential players came from other drafts. It takes a whole team of 22 to win a flag anyway.

That 2004 draft was important for them as it was a second wave of top youngsters to add their already existing young core and to balance up their list but if they didn't have that existing core of mostly mids all now in their mid 20s and with 7 or so years experience behind them they wouldn't have won the flag. All top sides have strong midfields with depth to rotate 10 or so players through there.

Apart from their best youngsters post-2004 we haven't yet seen most of their kids they've drafted in the Clarkson era at AFL level yet people expect all our cubs to match a Hawthorn. The only thing we have in common with the Hawks is we both finished down the bottom in 2004. People continue to ignore the state of both lists at the time as well as the financial positions and off-field resources. We needed to start from scratch both on and off-field. Hawthorn didn't.