Brogan v Lovett

Talk on the national game

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby Footy Smart » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:57 am

The Girth wrote:will lovetts evidence at the tribunal come back to haunt him in the future. What happened to the code of silence between players is that also a thing of the past.



Code of Silence.... are these guys bikies??? or underworld figures
User avatar
Footy Smart
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5088
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 1:16 pm
Has liked: 54 times
Been liked: 118 times
Grassroots Team: Modbury

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby The Girth » Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:12 am

yeah good one but i was of the understanding that you didnt drop another player in the shit at the tribunal. Is this the way footy is heading now players who will dob you in given half a chance. A bit ordinary i think.
The Girth
Under 16s
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:12 am
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby Choccies » Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:06 am

The Girth wrote:yeah good one but i was of the understanding that you didnt drop another player in the s***t at the tribunal. Is this the way footy is heading now players who will dob you in given half a chance. A bit ordinary i think.


Yes true.... a bit ordinary.... but so is Brogan's behaviour... So you get what you deserve !!
I love grapes. With grapes, you always get another chance. You know, if you have a crappy apple or a peach, you’re stuck with that crappy piece of fruit. If you have a crappy grape, no problem-just move on to the next. ‘Grapes: The Fruit of Hope.
User avatar
Choccies
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4083
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 4 times
Grassroots Team: Golden Grove

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby Psyber » Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:04 pm

Constance_Perm wrote: Oh yeah, but Im sure the likes of Barrassi or Nicholls would have a different view and they were both champions of the game ...
The Girth wrote:will lovetts evidence at the tribunal come back to haunt him in the future. What happened to the code of silence between players is that also a thing of the past.
It really depends what culture you want.
If you think bashing others, and being bashed, is a normal part of playing sport, and muscle is what Aussie rules is about, you support both propositions above.
If you think sport is about mastering the skills of the game, and not getting deliberately pulped, outside the rules, for being better at them than some of the lumbering brutes, you don't!

I wonder whether Barassi, Nicholls, and Neil Kerley in SA, would have looked quite as good if they had to play by today's rules. [I don't doubt they would still have been good players.]
As a kid, I saw Lindsay Head make Neil Kerley look silly - he missed him three times in one match trying to take him out - LH side-stepped him every time and got the ball.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12245
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 403 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby JK » Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:47 pm

Psyber wrote:
Constance_Perm wrote: Oh yeah, but Im sure the likes of Barrassi or Nicholls would have a different view and they were both champions of the game ...
The Girth wrote:will lovetts evidence at the tribunal come back to haunt him in the future. What happened to the code of silence between players is that also a thing of the past.
It really depends what culture you want.
If you think bashing others, and being bashed, is a normal part of playing sport, and muscle is what Aussie rules is about, you support both propositions above.
If you think sport is about mastering the skills of the game, and not getting deliberately pulped, outside the rules, for being better at them than some of the lumbering brutes, you don't!

I wonder whether Barassi, Nicholls, and Neil Kerley in SA, would have looked quite as good if they had to play by today's rules. [I don't doubt they would still have been good players.]
As a kid, I saw Lindsay Head make Neil Kerley look silly - he missed him three times in one match trying to take him out - LH side-stepped him every time and got the ball.


You're being far too generalised with your terms there Psyber .. To all the Nancy's that down play the importance of physicality in the game, terms like "bashing" as you put it, do little to distinguish between king-hits and reasonable fair physical impact.

If a bloke got bumped, or nudged, and effectively that's what it is in this case (otherwise it's a charge and the transgressor should go for 3 weeks), how freakin soft have we become if there's no longer room for that in this game? Forget Bickley's hit on Wakelin or Kerley's hit on Nygaard, what we're talking about is effectively a game of marbles by comparison.
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37457
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4480 times
Been liked: 3022 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby Psyber » Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:30 am

I'm not criticising fair body contact in the process of winning the ball, but the deliberately going for the guy and not the ball.
I also deplore the hits behind play, or, in this case, after the siren ends play..
Physicality in the contest is one thing, but belting or crunching a guy who is not expecting it because he isn't in the contest at the time is another.
Kicking, kneeing, kneeling on, a guy who is down in a pack and defenceless needs to be stopped too.
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12245
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 403 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby JK » Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:37 am

Psyber wrote:I'm not criticising fair body contact in the process of winning the ball, but the deliberately going for the guy and not the ball.
I also deplore the hits behind play, or, in this case, after the siren ends play..
Physicality in the contest is one thing, but belting or crunching a guy who is not expecting it because he isn't in the contest at the time is another.
Kicking, kneeing, kneeling on, a guy who is down in a pack and defenceless needs to be stopped too.


Don't disagree with any of that Psyber, I guess I just don't count it as a hit, happy to agree to disagree though :D
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37457
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4480 times
Been liked: 3022 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby Pup » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:07 am

The Girth wrote:will lovetts evidence at the tribunal come back to haunt him in the future. What happened to the code of silence between players is that also a thing of the past.


Please

Lovett told the truth, why should he cover for Brogan when he clearly has no respect for the bloke. Brogan made a fool of himself on sunday IMO, and while the contact was minor at best it was stupid reckless and innappropiate at 3/4 time especially with the umpire 5 metres away, you cant expect to get away with that.

And what Chad Cornes said yesterday was laughable. Deal with it, Lovett told the truth and Brogan got what he deserved.
You sunk my Scrabbleship
User avatar
Pup
Veteran
 
 
Posts: 3591
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:09 am
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby jimmy loughnan » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:10 am

Brogan is a half-wit. Gets what he deserved. At quarter time when the siren blows you don't expect unprovoked contact. Sure if there was scuffle going on, and you were expecting it and ready for it - different story. Gets what he deserves. Would be lucky if that bloke had half a brain.
jimmy loughnan
Rookie
 
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:49 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 0 time

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby Booney » Fri Apr 03, 2009 10:52 am

Dale Mortimer, is that you again? :roll:
PAFC. Forever.

LOOK OUT, WE'RE COMING!
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 60963
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 8048 times
Been liked: 11729 times

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby Rik E Boy » Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:31 pm

Booney wrote:Dale Mortimer, is that you again? :roll:


Image

;)
User avatar
Rik E Boy
Coach
 
 
Posts: 28497
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: The Switch
Has liked: 1764 times
Been liked: 1876 times

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby brod » Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:13 pm

Booney wrote:He has been done for "Rough Conduct". Absolute joke. He, and it was at walking pace, walked into Lovett at the end of the first quarter and gave Lovett some "arjy barjy and push and shove". Absolute joke.

Meanwhile Steve Johnson apparently didnt "attepmt" to strike Hodge, despite the fact a clenched fist was thrown at Hodge and missed by very little.

Rough Conduct? Rough treatment more like it.


After the panel threw out the contact of Max Rooke against Sam Mitchell, a player gets a week for contact at walking pace :roll:
(Im not saying either that the Rooke incident shouldnt have been thrown out either)
User avatar
brod
Coach
 
 
Posts: 19193
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:45 pm
Location: Willaston
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 27 times

Re: Brogan v Lovett

Postby catchisthecry » Sat Apr 04, 2009 10:06 am

Go belt some bloke walking his dog Bogan!!
catchisthecry
League Bench Warmer
 
 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:07 pm
Has liked: 0 time
Been liked: 1 time

Previous

Board index   Football  AFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |