Why the heck he didn't go back and take a shot is anyone's guess. That's two awesome Russell marks in two weeks though.
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Russell won't be dropped next week http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24942 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | verbs [ Fri May 29, 2009 7:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Russell won't be dropped next week |
Travis Johnstone. |
|
| Author: | Blue Vain [ Fri May 29, 2009 7:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
Dont bet on it. I heard a rumour he may be out this week! http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 11,00.html |
|
| Author: | verbs [ Fri May 29, 2009 7:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
Why the heck he didn't go back and take a shot is anyone's guess. That's two awesome Russell marks in two weeks though.
|
|
| Author: | Deano Supremo [ Fri May 29, 2009 8:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
verbs wrote: Why the heck he didn't go back and take a shot is anyone's guess. That's two awesome Russell marks in two weeks though. This has been bothering me all week. Kade Simpson incurred a 50 metre penalty last week when he tackled a Crow player that had played on after a mark. The umpire explained that as he hadn't called play on, Kade's act was illegal. Fair enough. If that's the case however, shouldn't the Hawthorn player that swiped the ball away when Robertson played on have been penalised too? Or did the umpire in that case call the quickest play on of all time? |
|
| Author: | verbs [ Fri May 29, 2009 8:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
I was thinking about that last night too. Until the umpire calls play on it's a mark in which case the second Hawthorn player was also too close to Robertson. Plus he ran between Robertson and the goal, so he also went across the mark. Technically Robertson should've had a shot on goal for his mark, a second shot on goal for the Hawthorn player swatting the ball away before the umpire called play on, and a third shot on goal for the player going across the mark.
|
|
| Author: | Lowey_47 [ Fri May 29, 2009 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
You forgot that umpires only apply certain rules at certain time of games  The classic was blowing time off when calling a ball up deep into the last term of a close contest. The AFL got this rule change right 
|
|
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Fri May 29, 2009 11:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
Interesting thread title, yet the content doesn't match it. |
|
| Author: | aramari [ Fri May 29, 2009 1:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
I prefer the content to the title! Interesting stuff. |
|
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Fri May 29, 2009 1:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
We can change the title and then merge with the Ray Chamberlain thread.
|
|
| Author: | jimmae [ Fri May 29, 2009 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
Deano Supremo wrote: verbs wrote: Why the heck he didn't go back and take a shot is anyone's guess. That's two awesome Russell marks in two weeks though. This has been bothering me all week. Kade Simpson incurred a 50 metre penalty last week when he tackled a Crow player that had played on after a mark. The umpire explained that as he hadn't called play on, Kade's act was illegal. Fair enough. If that's the case however, shouldn't the Hawthorn player that swiped the ball away when Robertson played on have been penalised too? Or did the umpire in that case call the quickest play on of all time? But the umpire had thought "play on", so it was ok. |
|
| Author: | The Duke [ Fri May 29, 2009 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
I'm gonna play swine/maggot's advocate here and say that the dumbshite Robertson was on his mark - not behind it, and the Hawthorn player was not over the mark. Robertson effectively kicked into the man on the mark (much the same as JR did a few weeks back ( see how I did that?).I get what you're saying...... though I don't agree. |
|
| Author: | Big Kahuna Boot [ Fri May 29, 2009 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
.. hhmmm, TJ isn't that good, and neither is JR.. ..so it's not like another player can't play a shutdown role on TJ.. |
|
| Author: | verbs [ Fri May 29, 2009 2:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
JR owns TJ. PB for JB? or BT? Who'll take DB? |
|
| Author: | Big Kahuna Boot [ Fri May 29, 2009 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
verbs wrote: JR owns TJ. PB for JB? or BT? Who'll take DB? ..JR played a great game on him once (last yr up at gabba).. ....as for their power forwards i have no idea.. ..i think we'll wind up shuffling players around until we get something that works.. ..or we'll blanket one of them, and the other will kick a bag (but hopefully won't be enough).. |
|
| Author: | Knackers [ Fri May 29, 2009 2:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
Pardon me, I'm a bit lost, could somebody point me in the direction of a good Andrew Walker thread? |
|
| Author: | verbs [ Fri May 29, 2009 2:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
Big Kahuna Boot wrote: verbs wrote: JR owns TJ. PB for JB? or BT? Who'll take DB? ..JR played a great game on him once (last yr up at gabba).. ....as for their power forwards i have no idea.. ..i think we'll wind up shuffling players around until we get something that works.. ..or we'll blanket one of them, and the other will kick a bag (but hopefully won't be enough).. Gave him a hiding round 2 after Johnstone cut it up in round 1. |
|
| Author: | Big Kahuna Boot [ Fri May 29, 2009 2:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
verbs wrote: Big Kahuna Boot wrote: verbs wrote: JR owns TJ. PB for JB? or BT? Who'll take DB? ..JR played a great game on him once (last yr up at gabba).. ....as for their power forwards i have no idea.. ..i think we'll wind up shuffling players around until we get something that works.. ..or we'll blanket one of them, and the other will kick a bag (but hopefully won't be enough).. Gave him a hiding round 2 after Johnstone cut it up in round 1. ..yeah, to be honest i wasn't too sure from memory how he went against him this year, so didn't comment but i didn't remember either of their games so i prolly should watch the game again.. |
|
| Author: | The Duke [ Fri May 29, 2009 2:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
I love it how the JR thread has up-stumps and come in here - where there's a will.......
|
|
| Author: | Mrs Caz [ Fri May 29, 2009 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Russell won't be dropped next week |
Well, unless you can convince me (via PM only please) that this is a valid thread, it will be closed for now. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|