carey wrote:Does anyone actually give a f**k about 3 game, 11 game or what ever memberships other clubs have? I know this little black duck doesn’t.
Outside of this forum? No.
by morell » Thu May 31, 2018 2:23 pm
carey wrote:Does anyone actually give a f**k about 3 game, 11 game or what ever memberships other clubs have? I know this little black duck doesn’t.
by bennymacca » Thu May 31, 2018 2:32 pm
carey wrote:Does anyone actually give a f**k about 3 game, 11 game or what ever memberships other clubs have? I know this little black duck doesn’t.
by Booney » Thu May 31, 2018 2:39 pm
carey wrote:Does anyone actually give a f**k about 3 game, 11 game or what ever memberships other clubs have? I know this little black duck doesn’t.
by Booney » Thu May 31, 2018 2:39 pm
MW wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:MW wrote:pot luck on the day although I have never been refused entry on my 3 game membership even on sell out days. mind you I normally get there an hour before the bounce to lubricate
Used it for a showdown?
Nope. I've only ever attended one showdown and that was one too many.
by carey » Thu May 31, 2018 3:19 pm
Booney wrote:carey wrote:Does anyone actually give a f**k about 3 game, 11 game or what ever memberships other clubs have? I know this little black duck doesn’t.
Other than potential sponsors and financiers?
by Lightning McQueen » Thu May 31, 2018 3:33 pm
morell wrote:carey wrote:Does anyone actually give a f**k about 3 game, 11 game or what ever memberships other clubs have? I know this little black duck doesn’t.
Outside of this forum? No.
by Booney » Thu May 31, 2018 3:42 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:morell wrote:carey wrote:Does anyone actually give a f**k about 3 game, 11 game or what ever memberships other clubs have? I know this little black duck doesn’t.
Outside of this forum? No.
morell goes bang!!
by LMA » Thu May 31, 2018 9:15 pm
Dutchy wrote:Maybe they need a minimum spend rule to count the memberships, say $200 or more spend is counted as a member, then at least we could compare correctly.
Those 3 game memberships should not be used.
by daysofourlives » Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:32 pm
MW wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:MW wrote:pot luck on the day although I have never been refused entry on my 3 game membership even on sell out days. mind you I normally get there an hour before the bounce to lubricate
Used it for a showdown?
Nope. I've only ever attended one showdown and that was one too many.
by stan » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:25 pm
They dont loud noises.daysofourlives wrote:MW wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:MW wrote:pot luck on the day although I have never been refused entry on my 3 game membership even on sell out days. mind you I normally get there an hour before the bounce to lubricate
Used it for a showdown?
Nope. I've only ever attended one showdown and that was one too many.
Cant handle supporters from the other team being there?
by Corona Man » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:26 pm
daysofourlives wrote:MW wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:MW wrote:pot luck on the day although I have never been refused entry on my 3 game membership even on sell out days. mind you I normally get there an hour before the bounce to lubricate
Used it for a showdown?
Nope. I've only ever attended one showdown and that was one too many.
Cant handle supporters from the other team being there?
by JK » Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:15 pm
by JK » Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:48 pm
by daysofourlives » Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:56 pm
JK wrote:Whilst it had no bearing on the result, didn't like the deliberately rushed free in the last quarter today, maybe against Howard? I understand the rule, but he had eyes only for the mark which he fumbled near the line - Now if he's looking at the ball the whole time HTF is he supposed to know if there's an opponent up his clacker or not. One could argue he spilled the easy mark expecting body contact, in which case he obviously thought there was an opponent nearby.
by JK » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:00 pm
daysofourlives wrote:JK wrote:Whilst it had no bearing on the result, didn't like the deliberately rushed free in the last quarter today, maybe against Howard? I understand the rule, but he had eyes only for the mark which he fumbled near the line - Now if he's looking at the ball the whole time HTF is he supposed to know if there's an opponent up his clacker or not. One could argue he spilled the easy mark expecting body contact, in which case he obviously thought there was an opponent nearby.
If he knocks it out of bounds there is no question it wouldve been deliberate, why does the fact he missed the point post and went through for a point change that ruling??
by daysofourlives » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:04 pm
JK wrote:daysofourlives wrote:JK wrote:Whilst it had no bearing on the result, didn't like the deliberately rushed free in the last quarter today, maybe against Howard? I understand the rule, but he had eyes only for the mark which he fumbled near the line - Now if he's looking at the ball the whole time HTF is he supposed to know if there's an opponent up his clacker or not. One could argue he spilled the easy mark expecting body contact, in which case he obviously thought there was an opponent nearby.
If he knocks it out of bounds there is no question it wouldve been deliberate, why does the fact he missed the point post and went through for a point change that ruling??
Because you're allowed to rush a behind under pressure, but can't deliberately put it OOB under pressure.
by Jim05 » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:06 pm
JK wrote:daysofourlives wrote:JK wrote:Whilst it had no bearing on the result, didn't like the deliberately rushed free in the last quarter today, maybe against Howard? I understand the rule, but he had eyes only for the mark which he fumbled near the line - Now if he's looking at the ball the whole time HTF is he supposed to know if there's an opponent up his clacker or not. One could argue he spilled the easy mark expecting body contact, in which case he obviously thought there was an opponent nearby.
If he knocks it out of bounds there is no question it wouldve been deliberate, why does the fact he missed the point post and went through for a point change that ruling??
Because you're allowed to rush a behind under pressure, but can't deliberately put it OOB under pressure.
by JK » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:11 pm
by goddy11 » Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:27 pm
JK wrote:I didnt say he was, I implied he was possibly under perceived pressure - Also said I understand the rule so didn't dispute it was a correct call, just don't like it being applied that way.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |