Huge outcome!!
Brad with his connections
Very similar
Youâve been brainwashed washed by the AFL media
If Essendon had any backbone they would challenge it
But we know how gutless they are
I listened to a discussion that Durhamâs was bad because he ran past the ball (which he didnât because you can see his hand touching the ball
Stewart on the other hand was ok. Such bollocks, Stewartâs only intention was to hurt the other player.
Iâm so sick of being screwed over by the AFL and their media dogs and our â â â â weak club just rolling over and taking it
Ha, no I havent Vander. I donât believe they are similar in anyway but you are obv entitled to your opinion.
I do agree our club has been weak in the past though but this is not the one to challenge.
1 Like
Durhamâs was bad because he made high contact.
Stewartâs was fine because he didnât.
Itâs that simple, itâs not a conspiracy. Itâs the rules.
7 Likes
Agree
2MP was a victim
Any heavy hit central on the body can cause long term brain damage. The head doesnât need to be hit.
The AFL knows this. The whole thing is stupid.
2 Likes
Johnson was a soft â â â â that would call for a stretcher after being tackled.
1 Like
WhY wOuLd ScOtT dO tHiS?!1
1 Like
AFL 
1 Like
Catching the train back to Sydney. Next stop is Seymour. I will be sure to give my thanks when we stop for the wonder they have given us in Sammy Durham
3 Likes
Got what it probably deserved by the rules. I love Duzz, he could use a break. The hard ons Zita and Ralph mouth get with these things is sickening. No talent arse clowns, pot shotting those actually out there. Fark them, fark Voss and mostly, Fark Carlton.
1 Like
Ben Dixon and itâs not even closeâŚ
1 Like
Wow, what a town!
Both Sam Durham and the best place to stop and stretch your legs when driving to Shepparton.
3 Likes
If the Stewart action is ok, why not take it to extreme. Why bother with football, just have a team of thugs to take out opposition players.
Thatâs how ridiculous your (the AFL) take is.
You canât make contact with a player whilst going for the ball but (if you play for Geelong or one of the other favoured teams) then its ok to knock out an opponent.
There is no conspiracy theory, there are plenty of examples of the AFL corruption and measures to manipulate outcomes of games. umpires regularly apply the rules differently to teams and fave players - like the Daicossssss.
How many other teams get pinged for deliberate rushed behind as often as we do.
Any excuse to give our opponent a free kick at goal.
1 Like
I have already started facing Seymour to pray!
1 Like
Not to nitpick here, but the correct answer is Nagambie.
1 Like
Can confirm by the train station signage that the town has officially being renamed Duztown
2 Likes
So much so that they have previously publicly admitted to keeping a list of their preferred pet players to ensure they receive favourable treatment.
OK, Iâll bite. Iâm not sure where you are coming from with your take on Stewart. What Stewart did has been a part of the game for over a hundred years- it was a bump, a shirt front, a hit down the middle and no contact was made to the head whatsoever- we actually want that in the game. He didnât hit him from behind, he didnât hit him late, Iâm not sure where this thug take is coming from.
Durham hit a guy that had his head over the ball, vulnerable (technique argument aside) and chose to bump him- an action we have known for a few years now results in a suspension.
5 Likes
Ive heard brad johnson doesnât put anything on the top shelf of his cupboards for fearing needing moorcrofts assistance reaching it.
3 Likes