Matt Thomas

[Macca19]

This thread worked out well.

[NFC]

This thread worked out well.

Well considering half the posters are Port supporters, you're telling me it was really going to work out any other way?

[Rik E Boy]

Absolute dirty scum bag of a player. Has no skills, is in the competition because of his thuggery. The sooner someone takes him out the better.

LMAO. You hate him becuase he takes players out so you want him taken out.

regards,

REB

[Booney]

This thread worked out well.

Well considering half the posters are Port supporters, you're telling me it was really going to work out any other way?

Getting lots of support NFC?

[Footy Smart]

No need to talk about him, he is an average footballer and wouldnt be in 3/4 of AFL teams

[Choccies]

What else does M.Thomas bring to the Port side then ??? I can't seem to see a hell of alot........

[auto]

What else does M.Thomas bring to the Port side then ??? I can't seem to see a hell of alot........

Hardness around the ball. You may not have noticed but port are lacking in that department which makes thomas worth his weight in gold to our club.

[Choccies]

What else does M.Thomas bring to the Port side then ??? I can't seem to see a hell of alot........

Hardness around the ball. You may not have noticed but port are lacking in that department which makes thomas worth his weight in gold to our club.

I've noticed don't worry.... Still gotta get the thing tho so just being 'hard' around the ball still isn't going to take you places... Port do have a problem with working out the difference between 'being hard' and 'being disciplined' though....

[NFC]

PORT Adelaide’s Matt Thomas and Fremantle’s Hayden Ballantyne have both been offered one-match suspensions after the match review panel's assessment of round 18.

Thomas was charged for rough conduct against Hawthorn’s Xavier Ellis.

Thomas’ poor record means his one-game sanction cannot be reduced with an early plea.

His incident was assessed as negligent conduct, medium impact and body contact, drawing four activation points and a level one offence. Thomas’s existing bad record of three matches suspended within the last three years increased the penalty by 30 per cent to 162.50 points.

Well deserved.

[JK]

Hardly thuggish though, some big names in AFL have gone along those lines before.

As I said before, it's a fine line for players who play that enforcer type role, he certainly isn't the first nor last to get done in a manner like that.

[jointman]

he got 1 game for that bump...what a load of crap.

[auto]

What a joke, i was under the impression you were allowed to bump and shepherd your teammate
Can someone please explain what ive missed?

[GWW]

This thread worked out well.

Well considering half the posters are Port supporters, you're telling me it was really going to work out any other way?

So half the supporters are Port fans, that still leaves the other half who aren't Port supporters, who are on Thomas' side.

Any chance those agreeing with NFC (maybe 2 or 3 came on board today..), are football supporters who are too young to remember the SANFL/VFL in the 1980's (and before) when Aussie Rules wasn't sanitised to such a ridiculous extent that it is today. I actually feel sorry for some of the young supporters out there who never got to appreciate the 1980's and some of the characters who played back then.

[Adelaide Hawk]

What a joke, i was under the impression you were allowed to bump and shepherd your teammate

Not AFL 21st century style. You can't do much at all really. I hate watching a player mark on his own when there is an opponent about 2 metres away too scared to make the slighest bit of contact for fear of a 50 metre penalty, so he just watches his man mark the ball. Footy has become a game for girls, it's apropos Kelli Underwood is calling it these days.

[dedja]

Footy has become a game for girls, it's apropos Kelli Underwood is calling it these days.

[Dermie]

What a joke, i was under the impression you were allowed to bump and shepherd your teammate
Can someone please explain what ive missed?

I think you can bump/shepherd your teammate auto when your are in general play but not when your teammate is having a kick from behind his mark and the ump hasn't called play on. I think the match review committee were spot on with there ruling. Surely if your standing the mark you shouldn't have to be looking behind you to see if someone is gunna come and smash into the back of you.

[NFC]

What a joke, i was under the impression you were allowed to bump and shepherd your teammate
Can someone please explain what ive missed?

I think you can bump/shepherd your teammate auto when your are in general play but not when your teammate is having a kick from behind his mark and the ump hasn't called play on. I think the match review committee were spot on with there ruling. Surely if your standing the mark you shouldn't have to be looking behind you to see if someone is gunna come and smash into the back of you.

Yep, well said.

[MatteeG]

What a joke, i was under the impression you were allowed to bump and shepherd your teammate
Can someone please explain what ive missed?

I think you can bump/shepherd your teammate auto when your are in general play but not when your teammate is having a kick from behind his mark and the ump hasn't called play on. I think the match review committee were spot on with there ruling. Surely if your standing the mark you shouldn't have to be looking behind you to see if someone is gunna come and smash into the back of you.

Yep, AFL set precendence when they gave Dawson a week for this against the crows (went to 2 weeks as the saints contested it). They had to give Thomas a week to keep consistency.

[JK]

What a joke, i was under the impression you were allowed to bump and shepherd your teammate
Can someone please explain what ive missed?

I think you can bump/shepherd your teammate auto when your are in general play but not when your teammate is having a kick from behind his mark and the ump hasn't called play on. I think the match review committee were spot on with there ruling. Surely if your standing the mark you shouldn't have to be looking behind you to see if someone is gunna come and smash into the back of you.

Thats fair enough, I'd just assumed (I know, a bad practice), that it must have been "play on" and Thomas had applied a physical shepherd, which I wouldn't see a problem with.

Digressing I know, but kind of makes you wonder why an umpire didn't pay a reversing free-kick

[Dermie]

What a joke, i was under the impression you were allowed to bump and shepherd your teammate
Can someone please explain what ive missed?

I think you can bump/shepherd your teammate auto when your are in general play but not when your teammate is having a kick from behind his mark and the ump hasn't called play on. I think the match review committee were spot on with there ruling. Surely if your standing the mark you shouldn't have to be looking behind you to see if someone is gunna come and smash into the back of you.

Thats fair enough, I'd just assumed (I know, a bad practice), that it must have been "play on" and Thomas had applied a physical shepherd, which I wouldn't see a problem with.

Digressing I know, but kind of makes you wonder why an umpire didn't pay a reversing free-kick

Probably should have but then again that wasn't the only free that went missing in the game.