mal wrote:Ive watched THAT decison on tape a few times now
I find the Umpire
Not Gwilty

by saintal » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:11 am
mal wrote:Ive watched THAT decison on tape a few times now
I find the Umpire
Not Gwilty
by trev » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:38 am
by saintal » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:55 am
by Bum Crack » Sat Sep 04, 2010 8:37 am
by bulldog2004 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:10 am
Media Park wrote:Now this is no chance of happening...
by Media Park » Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:15 am
bulldog2004 wrote:Media Park wrote:Now this is no chance of happening...
Why not Collingwood could lose but doubt it.
Wedgie wrote:I wear skin tight arseless leather pants, wtf do you wear?
by Wedgie » Sat Sep 04, 2010 9:31 am
Media Park wrote:bulldog2004 wrote:Media Park wrote:Now this is no chance of happening...
Why not Collingwood could lose but doubt it.
Well... I thought their victory was a given...
Also thought Geelong was a sure thing...
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by mighty_tiger_79 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:27 am
by Booney » Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:31 am
Rik E Boy wrote:Seriously, do these **** ever win a ******* final without getting kissed on the dick by the umpires? It's getting as obvious as a Pakistani no ball. Lenny Hayes had spent the whole ******* night tackling Cat players in the exact same way with no penalty. We can't have another Cat flag can we now? ******* Bullshit not happy Jan.![]()
regards,
REB
by Punk Rooster » Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:34 am
trev wrote:Not going to be drawn into a slanging match, so all I will say is
Yes it was controversial, But Stokes's free kick was not there
and the holding the ball decision against McEvoy was farcical.
So thats TWO decisions that went the Cats way inside their 50 in the last 1/4.
Oh, and one more thing, GO YOU SAINTERS!
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by mighty_tiger_79 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:35 am
by Leaping Lindner » Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:04 am
by JK » Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:05 am
Punk Rooster wrote:trev wrote:Not going to be drawn into a slanging match, so all I will say is
Yes it was controversial, But Stokes's free kick was not there
and the holding the ball decision against McEvoy was farcical.
So thats TWO decisions that went the Cats way inside their 50 in the last 1/4.
Oh, and one more thing, GO YOU SAINTERS!
if that was the gang-tackle, then I agree- I could not see how that was holding the ball, & I was willing the Cats to win...
by fester69 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 11:45 am
by mal » Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:52 pm
by stan » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:01 pm
by catchisthecry » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:07 pm
by Bag The Points » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:29 pm
by fester69 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 3:18 pm
Bag The Points wrote:Clear push in the back !!!! You see those paid all the time.
And what about the ARROGANCE of the comments to the umpire ---- "you've cost us the game. do you understand that --- you've cost us the game".
No mate, YOU cost your side the game !!
If I were the ump I'd be telling him "You're off the ground --- DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT" ---- while the play was being marched fifty yards down the field.
by mighty_tiger_79 » Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:28 pm
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:go the dockers today
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |