Talking Footy

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

http://www.AFL.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

There's about five in there, rough and intentional acts of violence including Judd's intentional dislocation of a players shoulder. And that's just from round 16. Don't you look the buffoon Xman

And please do feel free to comeback with your usual subjective contortion of the facts i.e. "they should not be considered crude acts of violence"

Fact is they're violent, intentional and I'd say the fact the AFL banned these players for a number of weeks means they should be considered as 'crude' also.

Crude: 2. Lacking tact or taste; blunt or offensive:

Yes Xman believe all you like that the AFL has all but eradicated crude acts of violence but please do so with the knowledge you will be viewed as 'the talking footy buffoon'.

They are minor incidents compared to deliberately punching someone. The majority are bumps which is still a grey area in our game. It's fine if it doesn't contact the head, but punished if it does. Sometimes this is out of the players control or the circumstances change in an instant making a legal bump illegal. Judd's act was silly but he got punished. How many punches in the NRl are just ignored?

They're ignored when there's proper reason to ignore them. I would've been happy to see a good stoush occur straight after Judd decided it would be appropriate to dislocate a mans shoulder, while he was pinned down by another player. A stoush would have been appropriate given the extreme unsportsmanlike act of Judd. Anything less is often not punishment enough, 4 weeks pffft.

Oh and you failed to realise that several of the incidents i linked indicate intentional rough conduct. Sorry Xman, you're a buffoon to think the AFL has all but eliminated crude unneccesary violence. A buffoon that thinks he's intelligent but a buffoon all the same

AFL Warrior wrote:

But nothing compares with being charged with murder...right nrl?

yes the 'nrl' was charged with murder.

King-Eliagh wrote:

No that's not good enough TLPG. Standing back and watching someone get mutilated is not acceptable behaviour in any society and our law would put you behind bars for not acting to save someone.

I still cant believe the lies you will make to save face.

I would act to save them - by calling the police. Doing nothing means doing nothing at all - not even a phone call. Just standing and watching. I would NOT do that. If that's not good enough for you, then too bad.

I am not lying. You are a violent little ***** who will end up in jail one day. Or beaten up when you tried to act and the attacker turns on you. For someone who claimed to run away from thugby because it was too rough, that's a back flip worth 10 points at the Olympic Games!

I'm not violent at all, I just understand its part of being human. The AFL dont understand this and neither do you TLPG. I still can't believe you wouldnt act violently and ask you to stop the lies. Ok TLPG we'll take people out of the equation.

A rogue bear has gotten loose from the zoo and is mauling a small group of hare krishnas in the shopping mall. You're watching in horror when you look to your left and notice a sawn off shottie lying in the flower bed next to you.

Do you

a) Reach for your mobile phone and call the police knowing full well 7 innocent hare krishnas will have been eaten by the time the police arrive.

or

b) Reach for the shotgun and blow the bear away.

a)

Because b) is illegal and would land me in jail.

I am not lying. Being violent is NOT a part of being human. Being violent is a cheap excuse to justify situations that have an alternative and correct course.

I am not violent. You are. And you are also a liar because your pechant for violence goes completely against your claim to not wanting to play thugby. Go and play it, because that's where thugs like you belong.

"The pen is mightier than the sword."

TLPG wrote:

Being violent is NOT a part of being human

Oh dear. Well if you believe that then you may as well give up on watching and umpiring footy TLPG. Cause in effect you're condoning one of the most violent sports in the world.

Or alternatively you could just lobby for all physical contact to be outlawed in the game of marngrook.

Footy is violent?? Now I've heard everything!! That just proves that you've never played it or had anything to do with it!

King-Eliagh wrote:

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

http://www.AFL.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

There's about five in there, rough and intentional acts of violence including Judd's intentional dislocation of a players shoulder. And that's just from round 16. Don't you look the buffoon Xman

And please do feel free to comeback with your usual subjective contortion of the facts i.e. "they should not be considered crude acts of violence"

Fact is they're violent, intentional and I'd say the fact the AFL banned these players for a number of weeks means they should be considered as 'crude' also.

Crude: 2. Lacking tact or taste; blunt or offensive:

Yes Xman believe all you like that the AFL has all but eradicated crude acts of violence but please do so with the knowledge you will be viewed as 'the talking footy buffoon'.

They are minor incidents compared to deliberately punching someone. The majority are bumps which is still a grey area in our game. It's fine if it doesn't contact the head, but punished if it does. Sometimes this is out of the players control or the circumstances change in an instant making a legal bump illegal. Judd's act was silly but he got punished. How many punches in the NRl are just ignored?

They're ignored when there's proper reason to ignore them. I would've been happy to see a good stoush occur straight after Judd decided it would be appropriate to dislocate a mans shoulder, while he was pinned down by another player. A stoush would have been appropriate given the extreme unsportsmanlike act of Judd. Anything less is often not punishment enough, 4 weeks pffft.

Oh and you failed to realise that several of the incidents i linked indicate intentional rough conduct. Sorry Xman, you're a buffoon to think the AFL has all but eliminated crude unneccesary violence. A buffoon that thinks he's intelligent but a buffoon all the same

The rough conduct charges involving an intentional finding do not suggest head high contact was intentional! it's the bump that was intended! the fact it contacted the head makes it illegal. No player deliberately attempts to bump someone's head given its against the rules and results in a free kick!

Man you're a fool!

the buffoon that thinks its intelligent wrote:

The AFL have addressed (violence) long ago and all but eradicated deliberate crude acts of violence. All that's really left are acts of carelessness...No player deliberately attempts to bump someone's head given its against the rules and results in a free kick!

And that's just a small collection. Xman i think its best you get on your bike and start backpeddlin yo ass outta here

Pathetic try!

A couple of the softest headbutts ever!

This compares to full on punches does it?

Yes folks I think this thread can now happily come to an end. Violence is apparent in both the nrl and AFL comps however due to the afls ridiculous attempts to quell violence we instead see quite malicious cheap shot incidents where players attempt to hide the violent act. So in effect the players are resorting to cheating tactics and violence. And it seems they often get away with quite lenient penalties for their subterfuge. Terrible examples for the children.

The results are clear. The NRL quite clearly have their ruling right, taking into account the context of the violent acts before making their ruling. The AFL have clearly misunderstood the importance of taking in the context of the event by attempting to throw a set of blanket inflexible overarching rules to cover each and every case, even though each and every case is different. Their players have thus resorted to be more creative and kniving in their use of violence. Not my cup of tea at all.

Xman wrote:

Pathetic try!

A couple of the softest headbutts ever!

This compares to full on punches does it?

I thought no players make deliberate contact with the head no more Xman? There's quite a few full on punches in the match review vid i showed. And need i pluck out barry hall vids? My my you are the buffoon. Fancy thinking the AFL are so good in their ruling that they have completely obliterated violent acts

If you think those are true headbutts, you haven't seen one KE! But then that doesn't surprise me. I have and I reported it (I was umpiring the game) and the idiot got six weeks for it as he should have. And it was worse than those! Heck, the idiot had to jump to do it and busted the other bloke open across the bridge of the nose - I had to send him off under the blood rule.

Just forget about trying to understand footy okay? It's clear that you don't, and that you can't!

Ah TLPG please, dont come in here huffin and puffin about what you've seen and then try to send me outta my own thread. I'm thrashing the pants off Xman here now so allow me to continue...this is the FC after all. <>'

Xman, the slightly confused buffoon wrote:

The AFL have addressed (violence) long ago and all but eradicated deliberate crude acts of violence. All that's really left are acts of carelessness...No player deliberately attempts to bump someone's head given its against the rules and results in a free kick!

And here's some more interesting vid for you folks. Notice how cheap these shots are, one to the testicles which had chapman vommitting and retaliation in the form of the king hit...because as we know if these fulla look at though they are fronting for a fair man to man fight, they'll get a higher penalty. And notice how the players respond on twitter to the retaliation, thinking it was well deserved. Also note dumbchook Demetriou's comment "these folks need to learn how to deal with people who irritate them". Well I'd love to see how that doughnut scoffing dumpling would like to deal with an elbow to the nuts? Idiot.



Xmans words again folks

Xman, the slightly confused buffoon wrote:

The AFL have addressed (violence) long ago and all but eradicated deliberate crude acts of violence. All that's really left are acts of carelessness...No player deliberately attempts to bump someone's head given its against the rules and results in a free kick!

Oh and here it looks as though someone has nicely done my work for me and packaged it up in a lovely and telling video. Notice how price and his comabatant square up at each other, fairly and squarely like true combatants. They know and are prepared for the blows. Notice the difference in the cheap shots the AFL players are resorting to since the AFL introduced harsh penalties came in for fairly and squarely engaging in combat with an opponent.

Oh and please take the time to read Xmans thoughts once more before viewing the video.

Xman the slighlty confused buffoon wrote:

The AFL have addressed (violence) long ago and all but eradicated deliberate crude acts of violence. All that's really left are acts of carelessness...No player deliberately attempts to bump someone's head given its against the rules and results in a free kick!

Crude indeed



Dear oh deary my. When will the AFL change, for the children atleast!