SA Footy

Final margin was 59 points, Salisbury blew a 15pt lead at half time. From the beginning the Salisbury players were in for a physical game hoping to soften up the PAOC players and stop their running game, Jessen hitting a bloke from behind, who laid on the ground for some time and had to leave the field 80m from the contest just a start. The umpires did have more involvement in the last half but only after they Salisbury team dropped their heads and discipline and started to go for the blokes or made general poor decisions. IMO PAOC out classed them and ran all over them as they were far fitter which proved superior over muscle. Bloke in the B Grade for Salisbury may have cost the club a few premiership points too for abusing the umpire and getting a straight red card.

Gingin wrote:Final margin was 59 points, Salisbury blew a 15pt lead at half time. From the beginning the Salisbury players were in for a physical game hoping to soften up the PAOC players and stop their running game, Jessen hitting a bloke from behind, who laid on the ground for some time and had to leave the field 80m from the contest just a start. The umpires did have more involvement in the last half but only after they Salisbury team dropped their heads and discipline and started to go for the blokes or made general poor decisions. IMO PAOC out classed them and ran all over them as they were far fitter which proved superior over muscle. Bloke in the B Grade for Salisbury may have cost the club a few premiership points too for abusing the umpire and getting a straight red card.

The Jessen thing at half back was nothing, happened directly in front of me and was milked for everything it was worth. The B grade incident is disgraceful, Absolute joke if he cost blokes points he'll feel the rath internally that's for sure.

I thought there were some questionable decisions in the second quarter which kept PAC in it. No doubt they ran out the game better. I didn't see the Jessen incident only saw the bloke on the ground after. No doubt there will be a lot of eyes on him from now on. With SN on their bond he'd have to be very silly to do anything. Those at league HQ won't hesitate to rub him out/take points. Was impressed that Thomas laid a solid bump on him straight after.

Bloke with the red card has also been rubbed out from this site. Only had one handball and one missed tackle for the day. He has fallen a long way since kicking 10 goals on the full back of the century in a 9 a side game. He should retire and just go back to supporting/bandwagon jumping. The chat at the oval was that the bond only counts for physical incidents though so SN might be alright.

I think 15 more scoring shots suggests more wrong than a couple of decisions going against you....

Gingin wrote:Jessen hitting a bloke from behind, who laid on the ground for some time and had to leave the field 80m from the contest.

The Big Shrek wrote:I didn't see the Jessen incident only saw the bloke on the ground after. No doubt there will be a lot of eyes on him from now on. With SN on their bond he'd have to be very silly to do anything. Those at league HQ won't hesitate to rub him out/take points. Was impressed that Thomas laid a solid bump on him straight after.

carey wrote:The Jessen thing at half back was nothing, happened directly in front of me and was milked for everything it was worth.

Carey, for those of us not at the game, can you please explain how any incident 80m behind the play is 'nothing'?
If someone like TheBigShrek is impressed that a player stood up to Jessen after he did whatever it was that he did, I'm not sure the incident can be described at nothing.
As one of the lucky few who apparently saw it, I would love to hear your take on it in a little more detail.

The Big Shrek wrote: The chat at the oval was that the bond only counts for physical incidents though so SN might be alright.

Nope, also includes off field behavior and umpire abuse from spectators, officials or players.

Footy Chick wrote:

The Big Shrek wrote: The chat at the oval was that the bond only counts for physical incidents though so SN might be alright.

Nope, also includes off field behavior and umpire abuse from spectators, officials or players.

Called the ump an f***ing cheat. Not sure what that's worth? I would have thought one game was enough.

The Big Shrek wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

The Big Shrek wrote: The chat at the oval was that the bond only counts for physical incidents though so SN might be alright.

Nope, also includes off field behavior and umpire abuse from spectators, officials or players.

Called the ump an f***ing cheat. Not sure what that's worth? I would have thought one game was enough.

With the great Shrek representing him possibly but otherwise he's up for at least 4 weeks

He is probably on the money though if he is calling the umpire a cheat.

Old_mate21 wrote:He is probably on the money though if he is calling the umpire a cheat.

Div 1R has neutral umpires. Even if you're to accept umpires cheat, which I don't, accusing neutral umpires is a bit much.

The Big Shrek wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

The Big Shrek wrote: The chat at the oval was that the bond only counts for physical incidents though so SN might be alright.

Nope, also includes off field behavior and umpire abuse from spectators, officials or players.

Called the ump an f***ing cheat. Not sure what that's worth? I would have thought one game was enough.

Minimum of 3 weeks if guilty of abusing, insulting or threatening an umpire.

So umpires don't show any bias during a game? They take nothing personal?

I hear a whisper Jessen has had his bags packed! Carey you are part of the inner sanctum there, true?

Affirmative, I've heard the same.

Footy Chick wrote:Affirmative, I've heard the same.

Probably from the same person.

The Big Shrek wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:Affirmative, I've heard the same.

Probably from the same person.

doubt it, I don't hang out with your kind

Footy Chick wrote:

The Big Shrek wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:Affirmative, I've heard the same.

Probably from the same person.

doubt it, I don't hang out with your kind

tight arses?

Zartan wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

The Big Shrek wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:Affirmative, I've heard the same.

Probably from the same person.

doubt it, I don't hang out with your kind

tight arses?

Now now, funnily enough, he always buys me a drink when we bump into each other.

True story.

Probably because I normally end up being his taxi and/or he owes me more than a few by letting his arse back on here

So SN potentialy sitting negative 1 point going into this week! Also heard that Jessen rumour today, guess that so cold nothing behind play was deemed to much of a liability going into the future.

SN not losing points for the b grader. He will suffer an internal suspension. Anyone else smell a deal being done?