Central beat Port - Post Match Reviews

[whufc]

It certainly sounded like that on the radio whufc.

I heard Williams name a bit late in teh game. For doggies fans do you think his game has gone up a notch so far this season and is he a chance to be re-drafted at the end of teh year?? He has been very good against us in his last four games.

He finals series last season was outstanding, so based on what he did then he is proabably a tiny bit down on last season, but is still playing very well.

His playing a slightly different role this season spending more time deep in defence rather than on the ball or on the half back flank.

I don't think he will get re-drafted on the basis that he is probably struggling to stand-out this year because we are getting such an even effort across the board. The talent scouts may not notice him as much as they probably should.

In saying all that he has probably been named in our best 4-5 times this season so he is going very well, his playing consistent strong football but he did set very very high standards last season.

[Dogsbody]

When I saw the incident at the end of the game, I was sure the bespectacled bloke giving some mouth was a PA official, like a runner or something. Could have just been another person putting his two cents worth in.

[StrayDog]

Great contest, deserved a bigger crowd IMO

Has the "fairy princess" Port Fan got a Wooden spoon in his back pocket or was it photoshopped?

Nope, the spoon was for real . 10/10 to that bloke for the fortitude to wear that costume BTW.

Plenty of banter between our fans and the Port CS (where we were), some of it pretty funny. Love it!
Comment of the night "Go home, Centrals!"

[Brucetiki]

When I saw the incident at the end of the game, I was sure the bespectacled bloke giving some mouth was a PA official, like a runner or something. Could have just been another person putting his two cents worth in.

I don't think so - that appears to be a 2008 Port Magpies polo (in the photo it looks like his arm is covering a Pagel Glass logo, who no longer are a major sponsor of Port).

Perhaps the photo should be sent to the Port Magpies and/or the SANFL to see if he can be identified, and if so, then he can be slapped with a season ban.

[Dogwatcher]

When I saw the incident at the end of the game, I was sure the bespectacled bloke giving some mouth was a PA official, like a runner or something. Could have just been another person putting his two cents worth in.

More like his $2.

[Wedgie]

First of all, some pictures I have taken have ended up here because someone else put them here.
am Bays, I don't agree with posting pictures of idiot supporters amongst the crowd. It would get out of hand if people just picked a nut job out of the crowd and post pictures of them, the end result being that all supporters get cast as idiots.
I think there is a big difference when a supporter is on the ground having a go at a player, they have put themselves in the spotlight. If the game was televised do you think they would have switched off the cameras?
I wouldn't care if someone posted a picture of the guy who had a go at Cain Ackland.
People who get in the faces of the players should be identified and kicked out, if player safety starts to become an issue (and it is) then the days of supporters entering the oval could be numbered.
We don't want to lose something that makes this competition unique.

I'm a bit confused here.
It's OK to identify a culprit who threatens players safety by photography but its not OK to identify a culprit who threatens the safety of our very own children?

That makes a lot of sense, sounds like complete hypocrisy to me.

Sounds more like we can't take pics of Central supporters misbehaving but its open slather on Port supporters.

[calzy]

First of all, some pictures I have taken have ended up here because someone else put them here.
am Bays, I don't agree with posting pictures of idiot supporters amongst the crowd. It would get out of hand if people just picked a nut job out of the crowd and post pictures of them, the end result being that all supporters get cast as idiots.
I think there is a big difference when a supporter is on the ground having a go at a player, they have put themselves in the spotlight. If the game was televised do you think they would have switched off the cameras?
I wouldn't care if someone posted a picture of the guy who had a go at Cain Ackland.
People who get in the faces of the players should be identified and kicked out, if player safety starts to become an issue (and it is) then the days of supporters entering the oval could be numbered.
We don't want to lose something that makes this competition unique.

I'm a bit confused here.
It's OK to identify a culprit who threatens players safety by photography but its not OK to identify a culprit who threatens the safety of our very own children?

That makes a lot of sense, sounds like complete hypocrisy to me.

Sounds more like we can't take pics of Central supporters misbehaving but its open slather on Port supporters.

I thought I made a clear distinction, but here I go again.
If we take photos of nut cases in the crowd we will all be very busy snapping at every game.
When someone enters the ground and threatens a player I think they have crossed a pretty big line in the sand.

If your children were being threatened why were you taking pictures of the guy instead of taking them away from harm?
Taking pictures wasn't exacerbating the situation was it?

[Wedgie]

I thought I made a clear distinction, but here I go again.
If we take photos of nut cases in the crowd we will all be very busy snapping at every game.
When someone enters the ground and threatens a player I think they have crossed a pretty big line in the sand.

If your children were being threatened why were you taking pictures of the guy instead of taking them away from harm?
Taking pictures wasn't exacerbating the situation was it?

You did make a clear distinction. You place more importance on grown mens safety, I place more importence on my children's safety.
I had moved my children out of the immediate vicinity already so no, me taking a photo of the culprit didn't exacerbate the situation, but thanks for your care.
I wont have a go at you for taking a photo of an idiot and publishing it online if it helps warn others of him but I do find it highly amusing considering your past stance on exactly the same matter.
You suggest it is completetly different because the offender is on the ground, I find it absolutely no different but I do find a distinction between the safety of grown men and that of women and children.
Each to their own but I'm sure those with memories as good as mine will find the hypocrisy of your stance highly amusing.
Thanks for the giggle. You'd make a good politician my friend!

[calzy]

I thought I made a clear distinction, but here I go again.
If we take photos of nut cases in the crowd we will all be very busy snapping at every game.
When someone enters the ground and threatens a player I think they have crossed a pretty big line in the sand.

If your children were being threatened why were you taking pictures of the guy instead of taking them away from harm?
Taking pictures wasn't exacerbating the situation was it?

You did make a clear distinction. You place more importance on grown mens safety, I place more importence on my children's safety.
I had moved my children out of the immediate vicinity already so no, me taking a photo of the culprit didn't exacerbate the situation, but thanks for your care.
I wont have a go at you for taking a photo of an idiot and publishing it online if it helps warn others of him but I do find it highly amusing considering your past stance on exactly the same matter.
You suggest it is completetly different because the offender is on the ground, I find it absolutely no different but I do find a distinction between the safety of grown men and that of women and children.
Each to their own but I'm sure those with memories as good as mine will find the hypocrisy of your stance highly amusing.
Thanks for the giggle. You'd make a good politician my friend!

An irate dogs supporter is mouthing off in front a large group of middle aged North supporters celebrating a close win over the Dogs and you say the guy was threatening your children?
I'm sure the North supporters were giving as good as they got from him and you stood there taking pictures right in his face.
You can't expect me to believe that supporters arguing with each other aren't antagonised further by having their picture taken.

And you say "your past stance on exactly the same matter"
Are you serious?
From memory all discussion on the matter (the supporter photo) was banned and a moderator was given the flick.
Perhaps hypocrisy would be allowing discussion on these photos, which I NEVER POSTED HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I put the photos on CDFC because people were unsure as to what happened, and I don't see a problem identifying people who front up to players and create potentially very ugly scenes.
I was taking pictures of the players leaving the ground and it unfolded in front of me, as opposed to me being part of the problem.

I could have taken a dozen photos amongst the crowd (of both sides) on Saturday night and they all would have looked very similar to yours. Many of the people in the area could have claimed their children's safety was jeopordized, unfortunately supporters are behaving badly toward each other, and it happens at every ground, every week, SANFL or AFL. It's not a good thing, and if people start sticking cameras in each others faces it would only get worse.

I didn't even know I had a photo of the guy until I got home, I knew I was trying to get a photo of the gowans and saw one point at someone as I took a picture, I lowered the camera and realised the guy was trying to provoke them. I raised the camera in the air as Police and Security escorted the guy away and captured a bit of a crowd scene.
Tell me Wedgie, how is this "exactly the same matter"

[drebin]

Wedgie, I dont know why you bother arguing with Calzy - he is nearly as bad and as anti-North as his brother and we all know what he is like!

[Wedgie]

Calzy, your memory is a bit selective. The person I placed a photo of online was involved in a bloody fight which led to him being taken out of the ground by security, not just mouthing off.
However your issue with me at the time was about (and I quote you) 'just making a point about images being posted'.
Where the images are posted is completely irrelevent.
My point is you crticised me for posting am image of an offender online and you go and do EXACTLY the same thing.
Whoopsee!
You've been caught out with your pants clearly around your ankles my friend.
Have a nice day!

[SnappyTom]

...
Perhaps hypocrisy would be allowing discussion on these photos, which I NEVER POSTED HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I put the photos on CDFC because people were unsure as to what happened, and I don't see a problem identifying people who front up to players and create potentially very ugly scenes.
I was taking pictures of the players leaving the ground and it unfolded in front of me
...

Calzy, besides the issues of legality surrounding the taking of and posting of digital imagery, it is the highlighted statement above that is of most concern (to me, in the least). Check the legality of subjective photography and the Privacy Act before you repeat the action.

I pose to you this - what if this man has an identical twin? What if that twin were to be 'idfentified' by someone, and retaliated at while at work, or elsewhere. Remember, you 'outed' the identity intentionally; but it is not your place to do so - potential issues aside.

You, me, nor anyone else has been appointed "Captain of the World", morally or ethically; and as such you cannot take and post subjective imagery - anywhere (without permission). Tread carefully.

There have been a number of instances where subjective imagery has been posted on this site (and many other sites), but it is your comment and intent above that is of most concern here.

By all means, take objective images of the Gowans twins etc... And if they decree that the images can be publicly posted and distributed, do so.

ST...

[calzy]

Snappy, that was the guy the Gowans pointed out to Security, it was the guy I saw mouthing off at them and it was the guy police and security escorted from the ground. His head was in the frame of a photo I took of the Gowans (I didn't point the camera at him) He might have a twin, a doppelganger or a clone, that's for him to argue! On and off field incidents are filmed and photographed all the time, does anyone go and get permission from all the involved parties before it is televised?

Drebin, why am I anti North? Because I don't agree with Wedgie?

Wedgie, you didn't address much of what I posted, but you mentioned that the guy was involved in (or started) a fight (not just mouthing off) That doesn't change my point, in fact, if someone is angry enough to get physically involved then pointing a camera at him and snapping away would make it worse.

Wedgie:
"My point is you crticised me for posting am image of an offender online and you go and do EXACTLY the same thing.
Whoopsee!"

I have tried to explain the difference, in fact you didn't refute my explanation of the difference, you just keep saying it's exactly the same. I give up.

'just making a point about images being posted'
I don't know where you took my comment from, can you post a link? (Context)

[Wedgie]

'just making a point about images being posted'
I don't know where you took my comment from, can you post a link? (Context)

Can't post a link but I could send you a screenshot if you like.
Its word for word from a post you made on SAFooty in September 2006 in the topic where I posted a pic of the gentleman involved.

PM me if you want the screenshot and I'll send it off tonight.
That way we can leave this thread for discussion on the game since I've clearly made my point.

[beenreal]

Great game of footy with Port getting alot closer than i expected to the Doggies, infact if not for the undisciplinary acts of Clayton & Lokan they could of found themselves with win no.2 for the season.
The decision to have Elstone & Murray go with the Gowan boys proved a good one with both Port boys picking up 20 plus possessions the Gowans 12 & 13 not 25 plus like other weeks, no-doubt those matchups helped Port get so close.
I'd be pretty p!ssed off if i was a Port player with Clayton & Lokan's dumb acts, time & time again i see Clayton ( the best player in the League) let himself & his team-mates down with acts of stupidity, why???. Lokan's the same- i don't know what this blokes trying to prove at times with his wreckless ways, the most baffling thing to me is wheres the runner when these blokes break a team rule? I couldn't give a sh!t how good the player is but if he';s not disciplined for his stupidity then the problem will continue & continue it has.
Why wern't they dragged i say to Tim? i thought you would of learnt from the Elimination Final v South a few years ago at Adelaide oval involving the same player, he wasn't dragged then & that undisciplined act ( Clayton ) turned the game Souths way, once again no runner then & not removed from the ground.
Tough decisions need to be made if a player is bigger than the club & if this player is on the rumoured figure of $60,000 a year well i say get rid of him as he's not setting the standard required to our younger brigade.

Not that I wasn't looking forward to seeing Jenner hit the ground hard, but I was absolutely ropeable at Clayton's late charge. To his credit he abided by team rules and took himself straight off the ground to be eyeballed by Tim Ginever. He then entered into a verbal with the Centrals supporters on the boundary line right in front of me. Funny stuff.

[CENTURION]

**** me, who won?

[dedja]

f*** me, who won?

on or off the field?

[CENTURION]

both! because with all this petty arguing, I've forgotten!

[am Bays]

f*** me, who won?

F*** knows? You were there you tell us!!

The gummy bears???

[calzy]

f*** me, who won?

Clayton's effort on Jenner was a shame for the Port faithful, their team came to play on Saturday and that incident didn't do them any favours.