Talking Footy

King-Eliagh wrote:

Listen Mr Mackey, I know you wish for all children to be taught that violence is not ok in any circumstances, but I dont mmmkay. I want the children of the world to know that throwing an uppercut if someone tries to or does bite your testicle and knocking a blokes block off if he is intentionally dislocating the shoulder of your teammate is a perfectly fine and normal response...which it is. Simpletons like you Xman, who teach our children to give up their human rights and not stand up for themselves in this violent world we live in disgust me

So there must be a lot of shoulder dislocating and testicle biting in RL then, since these are cases where violence is ok, and violence is seen regularly in RL.

Problem with your "theory" is that violence escalates. One person does something aggressive that upsets another. The opponent pushes, the other guy punches, a punch is thrown back, then according to your "theory" everyone should start punching on to protect their mates.

It's crazy stuff. It's outlawed in the community for a reason. People are not a law unto themselves and incapable of making an objective judgment on the use of violence.

You've got your head in the sand. You think junior RL doesn't have a problem with violence, but it clearly does. You think some violence is ok but it rarely stops with 2 players. You're the one with the over simplistic view.

Oh there's many other instances where violence is ok Xman. I know you have a hard time realising this fact but do try .

Your violence escalates theory is a bunch of baloney. Lookup any RL fight and if you actually concentrate on what is occurring, I know Xman, concentrating for you is tough but do try and if you do you'll see that the vast MAJORITY of players in ANY on field brawl are trying to break up the fight.

My theory is to stick up for yourself and your teammates. This can be tearing someone off or knocking their block off, especially if they are doing something horrific. I personally usually tear others off but I see no problem in belting someone across the noggin if they so deserve it, like Judd did this year. 4 weeks indeed!

A simpleton Xman, that's what you are.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Oh there's many other instances where violence is ok Xman. I know you have a hard time realising this fact but do try .

Your violence escalates theory is a bunch of baloney. Lookup any RL fight and if you actually concentrate on what is occurring, I know Xman, concentrating for you is tough but do try and if you do you'll see that the vast MAJORITY of players in ANY on field brawl are trying to break up the fight.

My theory is to stick up for yourself and your teammates. This can be tearing someone off or knocking their block off, especially if they are doing something horrific. I personally usually tear others off but I see no problem in belting someone across the noggin if they so deserve it, like Judd did this year. 4 weeks indeed!

A simpleton Xman, that's what you are.

Recent junior RL events don't back up your simplistic view KE.

Every RL brawl on youtube does. Would you like me to start linking? :D

King-Eliagh wrote:

Every RL brawl on youtube does. Would you like me to start linking? :D

If junior violence is ok why do they ban players? If its ok under some circumstances why did they ban 57 players? Seems to me like that's a heck of a lot of inappropriate use of violence KE!

Yes it does doesnt it Xman. Perhaps they overracted but unlike yourself I base my comments on what I know are the facts. You on the other hand will scream "but but whaaaaaat about the children" before you think, such is your hysterical nature.

I havent read about nor was there in Brissie so whether it was appropriate or innaprorpriate violence i dont know. But I do know if it had happened on a junior marngrook field we would have seen a massive amount of utterly senseless bannings of those who were merely defending themselves or their friends in the unruly fracas.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Yes it does doesnt it Xman. Perhaps they overracted but unlike yourself I base my comments on what I know are the facts. You on the other hand will scream "but but whaaaaaat about the children" before you think, such is your hysterical nature.

I havent read about nor was there in Brissie so whether it was appropriate or innaprorpriate violence i dont know. But I do know if it had happened on a junior marngrook field we would have seen a massive amount of utterly senseless bannings of those who were merely defending themselves or their friends in the unruly fracas.

Utter bollocks. Your claim violence in sport is ok under some circumstances is shown to be your ridiculous because a brawl involving 4 teams would have many many circumstances yet 3 entire teams worth were banned.

The complexity is lost on you Xman. That is all.

King-Eliagh wrote:

The complexity is lost on you Xman. That is all.

Nothing complex about banning 57 players

Not talking about the banning of 57 players

King-Eliagh wrote:

Not talking about the banning of 57 players

You should be. It makes a mockery of your prehistoric attitude.

My attitude is realistic and contemporary Xman.

As much as you wish it would be, it aint all fairyfloss and rainbows out there Helen, and it never will be. The AFL will never eradicate unnecessary violence by putting in place blanket rulings against it, never. Nor will the AFL play a part in reducing violence amongst the littlons by having their ridiculous ruling in place. Same as prohibition, its an archaic attitude, belonging in the 1920s. The AFL - got it wrong

But never mind there Helen, you run along now. The complexity is lost on you old girl, there's a lass.

King-Eliagh wrote:

My attitude is realistic and contemporary Xman.

As much as you wish it would be, it aint all fairyfloss and rainbows out there Helen, and it never will be. The AFL will never eradicate unnecessary violence by putting in place blanket rulings against it, never. Nor will the AFL play a part in reducing violence amongst the littlons by having their ridiculous ruling in place. Same as prohibition, its an archaic attitude, belonging in the 1920s. The AFL - got it wrong

But never mind there Helen, you run along now. The complexity is lost on you old girl, there's a lass.

Eradicating unnecessary violence may be unachievable, but the aim is to reduce it as far as possible, and the AFL have done that. The NRL permit senseless unnecessary violence and it remains a problem in all forms of their game.

Bottom line, no one ever died from an annoying cheap shot. Plenty die from head injury as a direct result of violence every year.

The resurgence of stomping anyone?

King-Eliagh wrote:

The resurgence of stomping anyone?

Death by stomping?