what if gowans retires & could legal action be taken ?

[stampy]

BP, I don't think that any Central supporter is excusing James for the action. They are just trying to explain that it was a retaliatory hit. It was stupid, reckless, unnecessary and James will pay a penalty for it. However, it was no worse than an action that Skipworth did during the Preliminary Final last year.

That's ridiculous. "They are just trying to explain that it was a retaliatory hit". Yeah that makes it fine then Even primary school children know better than that.

So the retaliation is worse than the first hit is it? I think they are both in the wrong.
The fact i think James is being singled out is because people have been waiting for something like this to happen involving James or Chris or both of them.
There is alot more to this than what people really want to look at.

and pray tell is there more to it?your 2nd and 3rd sentences are the biggest load of shite i have ever read, the twins have had a knack of pushing the boundaries when it comes to niggle and the like but this time its matches

[Wedgie]

The two incidents are related because North supporters are saying that they have never seen anything anywhere near as bad on the football field.

Blatant lie, I thought it was bad but I thought the Sims incident was much worse.

Maybe you should rewind the tape back about 10 - 15 seconds before the gowans incident.

Why don't you rewind the tape half a second before the incident and see that James clearly hasn't got a mark on his face.



As I said previously I don't have a problem with the incident but I do have a huge problem with people blatantly lying trying to justify it. It's pathetic, just get over it.

[dogs01]

The two incidents are related because North supporters are saying that they have never seen anything anywhere near as bad on the football field.

Blatant lie, I thought it was bad but I thought the Sims incident was much worse.

Maybe you should rewind the tape back about 10 - 15 seconds before the gowans incident.

Why don't you rewind the tape half a second before the incident and see that James clearly hasn't got a mark on his face.



As I said previously I don't have a problem with the incident but I do have a huge problem with people blatantly lying trying to justify it. It's pathetic, just get over it.

I didnt say there was a mark on James' face, but you cant get a good view to see if there was or wasnt. No you have a problem that people are saying that a north player may have started the incident.
There is no justification on my behalf, just that there were 2 players involved not 1.
The thing with this thread people seem to be reading things and then changing the meaning of what people are writing.I DONT think anyone is condoning it.

[Wedgie]

I didnt say there was a mark on James' face, but you cant get a good view to see if there was or wasnt.

Even though I quoted you my comment was more in reference to the Dogs supporter that previously said it was there. And in high definition you get a very clear view of both sides of his face and its clear there's not a scratch there.
They showed the incident James alleges he was upset about and it was basically a push in the back.
James was very apologetic and said it was very uncalled for. He knows he messed up.

Just on the incident, anyone know why North didn't get a 25 or 50 metre penalty when the Central's player clealry kicked to ball well after the whistle?

[Dogwatcher]

As I said previously I don't have a problem with the incident but I do have a huge problem with people blatantly lying trying to justify it. It's pathetic, just get over it.

Wedgie, can you clarify who you're saying the liar is?

[Wedgie]

Wedgie, can you clarify who you're saying the liar is?

The two incidents are related because North supporters are saying that they have never seen anything anywhere near as bad on the football field.

Lie

And why did Gowans chase him down with a bleeding mouth?

Lie

[goraw]

gowans just apoligised for the incident on the news=he did the wrong thing.was a cheap shot and deserves a holiday for it.end of story.

[Kahuna]

gowans just apoligised for the incident on the news=he did the wrong thing.was a cheap shot and deserves a holiday for it.end of story.

And they also showed the footage of Schubert hitting Gowans in a remarkably similar looking incident to that which is the focus of discussion here.

[Wedgie]

gowans just apoligised for the incident on the news=he did the wrong thing.was a cheap shot and deserves a holiday for it.end of story.

And they also showed the footage of Schubert hitting Gowans in a remarkably similar looking incident to that which is the focus of discussion here.

Well if your assessment of Schubert's push in the back is correct he'll get games.
If he doesn't you're wrong and we have another liar on our hands.
Honestly mate, how could you call a push to Gowans which didn't even scratch James similar to a roundhouse left that required stitches above an eye? I hope you're joking.

PS This is the 3rd story we're hearing now. 1st it was payback for Howard accidentally stomping Chris, 2nd it was payaback for a cut chin before the incidnet, now its payback for a push in the back that was a "similar looking incident" to a round house left that required stitches above an eye. Wonder what the next version will be, the tooth fairy got in his way when he was visiting Santa Claus? Be more believable than most of the crap we've heard.

[doggod]

Yes - while I am over this topic I saw the incident as well and it did look very similar. We may just have 2 people facing the tribunal me thinks.

[Wedgie]

It will be interesting to see if Schubey does get games for the hit to Jame's mouth in payback for the round house left. Probably can claim he couldn't see out of his eye to see what he was doing anyway.

I find it weird but it says a lot that Central fans are whinging more about the incident than North fans when the player involved admitted he erred.

[doggod]

Wedgie - it is very obvious that you didn't watch the Channel 7 news item just gone.

[Wedgie]

Wedgie - it is very obvious that you didn't watch the Channel 7 news item just gone.

No I watched the Channel 9 news.
So are you changing your story now doggod, your previous reference was "And why did Gowans chase him down with a bleeding mouth?" which was proven to be wrong.
Whinge, lie, whinge, lie.

[Kahuna]

Wedgie - it is very obvious that you didn't watch the Channel 7 news item just gone.

No I watched the Channel 9 news.
So are you changing your story now doggod, your previous reference was "And why did Gowans chase him down with a bleeding mouth?" which was proven to be wrong.
Whinge, lie, whinge, lie.

Why aren't my posts appearing?Am I barred?

edit:It appears I am back.
Wedgie your reference to me as a liar is offensive and uncalled for.
What channel seven showed was nowhere near a push in the back.
If you didn't see it why not wait till you do before you start insulting people.

[Wedgie]

Wedgie - it is very obvious that you didn't watch the Channel 7 news item just gone.

No I watched the Channel 9 news.
So are you changing your story now doggod, your previous reference was "And why did Gowans chase him down with a bleeding mouth?" which was proven to be wrong.
Whinge, lie, whinge, lie.

Why aren't my posts appearing?Am I barred?

Your posts are showing, you're not banned, if you were you wouldn't even be able to see the forum let alone reply to me.

Didn't said doggod was which was proven, you're only a liar if Schubert doesn't get games for any pre roundhouse incident.

[woodwt]

The Howard incident was accidental NOTHING in that.

Agreed as did the rdio commentators on 5AA later say the same. The Gowans have to have some piss weak excuse to justify the cowardly action and if it was a square up even the Gowans are not dumb enoguh to king hit the wrong player so the piss weak excuses for the incident continue to have less credibility as the day goes on.

BP, I don't think that any Central supporter is excusing James for the action. They are just trying to explain that it was a retaliatory hit. It was stupid, reckless, unnecessary and James will pay a penalty for it. However, it was no worse than an action that Skipworth did during the Preliminary Final last year.

FFS hey we go with this skipwroth dribble again!!
Get over it!! he did nothing and everyone knew it even the tribunal!!
Unlike your mate James!

[BJ Ernest]

Seriously how can u blokes even excuse what Gowans did.
Blatantly runs past his team mate makes a bee-line for schubert and whacks him. THeres nothing more to the story than that. They always niggle and push and hit off the play and for once someone gave them as much as he give and he didnt like it.
Surely Gowans should have just reminded schubert they were getting towelled up and that would have said more than a lame cheap shot off the play.
Defending the action is disgraceful, just let it go it was a disgrace and shouldnt go unpunished.

[Booney]

I'll come back when it hits page 20,see if you lot have got anywhere.

My bet is no.

[am Bays]

I'll come back when it hits page 20,see if you lot have got anywhere.

My bet is no.

ROTFLMAO

[goraw]

obv they are just baiting and laughing behind their computer.on the 9 news it showed shuey push gowans out of the way,gowans then ran up to shuey and and hit him from behind.cheap shot worthy of a few games but to honestly defend gowans as just retalliating is crap and u dogs supporters know it.ffs gowans apologised for it lol?