tigerpie wrote:Theres only one Dane Swan. What a lord.
Hope his lordship invited the bloke he gave a permanent brain injury to his big night.
He did that did he? So you were there? Yes he was involved. If it was proven HE was responsible for inflicting a permanent brain injury do you think the afl would've inducted him? Not a chance. I suggest you do some reading of the incident before you pass judgement.
Well if you were in his shoes, what would you do at 18 years of age? If I saw my mate getting hit with a maglite and outnumbered I'd be punching on as well. What would you do, keep running?
Again with the afl PC police all over it would he be inducted if it was proven he did the brain damage? I highly doubt it.
'Let us know when the wake is': AFL apologises after former player incorrectly named 'in memoriam' at Hall of Fame night
A former Hawthorn player was incorrectly marked as deceased during the AFL's Hall of Fame ceremony on Tuesday night.
The Age revealed Hawks great Michael Porter flashed up on the big screen during the "in memoriam" tributes at the event, which recognised past players who had died in the last 12 months.
Porter won the 1971 premiership with the Hawks.
But the 79-year-old was at home watching the broadcast of the ceremony, and promptly called his former teammate David Parkin.
Parkin was in the room at the Hall of Fame awards, and Porter had to assure his former captain he was not yet dead.
While it was too late to remove Porter from the slideshow, the AFL moved to apologise for the error on Wednesday.
"Once this innocent mistake was realised we moved quickly to ring and apologise to everyone affected, including Michael, and thank him for his understanding," a league spokesperson told The Age.
On Seven's The Front Bar, Hawthorn great John Kennedy Jr sent a message to Porter.
"I'd like to send one out to Michael Porter who played in the '71 grand final. Portholes they called him," Kennedy said.
"He was noted as deceased last night on the AFL Hall of Fame, as one of the deceased people.
"The issue is he's alive. So Portholes, if you're listening mate or you're up there in NSW, let us know when the wake is because we'll be all there mate."
wenchbarwer wrote:I'd love to see Laura Kane explain that they didn't get this announcement wrong
The initial call whilst seemingly incorrect by the staff in HQ will in time n prove to be correct so we're comfortable with our decision and are prepared for that day to come which hopefully is many years from now.
Matty Wade is a star and deserves more respect from the forum family!
Four umps has nothing to do with it. Its the interpretations of the (too many) rules they are being told to interpret. Game used to be easy to umpire, now the rules feel like they have tripled.
MW wrote:Four umps has nothing to do with it. Its the interpretations of the (too many) rules they are being told to interpret. Game used to be easy to umpire, now the rules feel like they have tripled.
It's 4 different interpretations...
Matty Wade is a star and deserves more respect from the forum family!
MW wrote:Four umps has nothing to do with it. Its the interpretations of the (too many) rules they are being told to interpret. Game used to be easy to umpire, now the rules feel like they have tripled.
It's 4 different interpretations...
If the controlling umpire makes no call, the next nearest makes no call then the third farthest makes a call then we go with that.
MW wrote:Four umps has nothing to do with it. Its the interpretations of the (too many) rules they are being told to interpret. Game used to be easy to umpire, now the rules feel like they have tripled.
Four umpires has EVERYTHING to do with it. How does adding an extra umpire help with the scenario you have described? You've got umpires getting involved now just to justify their existence. It's getting very hard to defend our sport up here in Leagueland. Never enjoyed the footy less. Too many umpires with microphones and numbers on their back. We don't care who you are, we don't want to notice you, we just want to thank you for a job well done at the end of the season. None of that is possible this year.
MW wrote:Four umps has nothing to do with it. Its the interpretations of the (too many) rules they are being told to interpret. Game used to be easy to umpire, now the rules feel like they have tripled.
It's 4 different interpretations...
If the controlling umpire makes no call, the next nearest makes no call then the third farthest makes a call then we go with that.
tigerpie wrote:Just another howler. Tha afl are saying they are pleased with how the four umpire system is going as well. Do they actually listen to the fans at all?
Tell me when in football history that the fans were happy with the umps?
MW wrote:Four umps has nothing to do with it. Its the interpretations of the (too many) rules they are being told to interpret. Game used to be easy to umpire, now the rules feel like they have tripled.
It's got nothing to do with an increase in rules. It's got everything to do with four egos. Four different personalities all trying to be relevant. The days of a game finishing and people saying they didn't notice the umpiring are long gone.
Go back to 2 on field and have an umpires interchange maybe? It just baffles me they think 4 is working?
