Port Adelaide 2018

[morell]

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.

[bennymacca]

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.

it matters when clubs try and put the PR spin on it

(plus I would just like to know out of interest)

[Booney]

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?

[Booney]

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.

Don't let that last one scare you off mate, they're great fun to be at.

[carey]

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?

I was more insinuating the common joe IE- Me

[Lightning McQueen]

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!!

[Booney]

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!!

Of all the people to be so dismissive, I'm quite surprised.

Sponsors most certainly are interested in membership numbers.

[LMA]

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.

If your giving your money upfront to watch your team play than you're a member IMO. A minimum spend rules out all junior and child memberships and they are just as relevant as an adult membership.

[daysofourlives]

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?

[stan]

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?

They dont loud noises.

[Corona Man]

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?

Other teams have supporters

[LMA]

Poor Skills, poor football

[JK]

Looked a bit bye rusty which is always made harder against honest opposition

[JK]

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.

[daysofourlives]

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??

[JK]

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.

[daysofourlives]

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.

No way was he under pressure apart from his own choke. Didnt know what to do when he had to take a basic chest mark instead of spoiling. Very limited footballer that many Port fans here are pinning their hopes for the future on

[Jim05]

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.

He wasn’t under pressure. For me that was one of the most obvious ones you will ever see. I thought the ruling was that the free was in the goal square though?

[JK]

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.

[goddy11]

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.

It is a stupid rule created by over reaction to what was happening a few years ago. Why did we not leave this as a rushed behind regardless. Both sides can do it a defensive action. Same as the rule was changed because the port ruckman a few years ago was becoming good at retrieving a thrown in ball. The AFL rules guys need sacking.