by Dogwatcher » Mon May 17, 2010 5:50 pm
by Dogwatcher » Mon May 17, 2010 5:51 pm
by Gingernuts » Mon May 17, 2010 6:03 pm
by Voice » Mon May 17, 2010 6:04 pm
by the joker » Mon May 17, 2010 6:21 pm
by whufc » Mon May 17, 2010 6:25 pm
Voice wrote:Very silly Jaenschy, Princess Voice will give you a clip next time she sees you. Come to think of it you'll probably enjoy that![]()
by whufc » Mon May 17, 2010 6:26 pm
by tiger07andbeyond » Mon May 17, 2010 7:19 pm
Media Park wrote:You'd sort of hope to finish third in such a tightly contested year- get the cheap win over the fourth placed side for a bit of momentum.
by bulldog2004 » Mon May 17, 2010 7:41 pm
by NFC » Mon May 17, 2010 7:43 pm
bulldog2004 wrote:Whats the point in suspending players from AFL duty but still letting them play SANFL.
by the wonder elephant » Mon May 17, 2010 8:58 pm
whufc wrote:Voice wrote:Very silly Jaenschy, Princess Voice will give you a clip next time she sees you. Come to think of it you'll probably enjoy that![]()
Is this Jaensch second offence of this nature since he was 17.
Sometimes talent can only take you so far.
by Voice » Mon May 17, 2010 9:21 pm
bulldog2004 wrote:Whats the point in suspending players from AFL duty but still letting them play SANFL.
by Dirko » Mon May 17, 2010 10:49 pm
by Voice » Mon May 17, 2010 10:52 pm
SJABC wrote:**** 'em. Glad they're down and out. The amount of **** I've had flung at me re the Blues being crap & Fev being a dickhead etc, it's great !
And where is Gossip Girl. How's your captain fairing now ?
by whufc » Mon May 17, 2010 10:58 pm
Voice wrote:bulldog2004 wrote:Whats the point in suspending players from AFL duty but still letting them play SANFL.
Because they wouldn't be guarenteed to be straight back in the week after their suspension. If they go back to their SANFL team and show the application they require then that would justify them being selected following the suspension. If they don't play then surely they wouldn't be a walk up start in the week following (thus effectively becoming a longer than one week suspesion in essence) as they wouldn't have been able to prove that they have the commitment to show they should be back in.
by Columbo » Mon May 17, 2010 11:06 pm
by Voice » Mon May 17, 2010 11:07 pm
by Dirko » Mon May 17, 2010 11:09 pm
by whufc » Mon May 17, 2010 11:10 pm
Voice wrote:The thing is that none of us know what they've actually done so we have no idea what the punishment should or shouldn't be. Everybody has been assuming it's alcohol related (including the media) when the noises that are filtering through to me are that it wasn't.
Not sure we should be speculating this much until we know exactly what the players have done.
by Tassie Blues » Mon May 17, 2010 11:20 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |