If I was playing the Hawks I’d be into him from the first bounce. Think a lot of coaches will instruct their players to do the same
Thomas should get 4 weeks…ran passed the ball at a bloke with his dead…weak dog. Could have done serious damage
Presumably it’s been called deliberate and not careless. Cases over a certain threshold are sent to the Tribunal even though the table says/could say x weeks.
It’s nothing to do with that, and you know this.
Getting referred straight to the tribunal isn’t because they can’t deal with it, but more that it’s so serious that it should be dealt with outside of the normal parameters.
Not sure what’s wrong with that or why you’re upset by it. I think it’s quite sensible actually
Never liked Thomas. Diving, cheating, dirty dog of a player. U wouldn’t let him near ya chick he would probably do something stupid. That hawk spud Sicily would most likely get punched in every pub he walks into. He just looks like one of those has to have the last say wankers
Kinda annoying telling me what you think I know.
I think taking this to the tribunal is really friggin’ stupid.
I don’t think it was good, but nor do I think it was a king hit.
He was barely walking when contact was made.
Oh, and I’m not upset by it.
But you know that.
Looking forward to the show trial.
All of that post is fine, but… is any of it relevant? Thomas started mid-00s, head high bumps - if the ball was there, let alone if it wasn’t- were certainly outlawed then.
No, it’s not.
I was following a completely different discussion.
Perhaps you should read it?
I’m saying I don’t buy that someone is “hardwired” to act a certain way in a certain situation. Particularly when that was made naughty before he got into the professional game. It’s a pretty big stretch. (Unless he’s 45, which is about how old he looks when he’s putting in a chase).
Personally I reckon it’s absolute BS, and Thomas has always tried to over compensate for being pretty soft in work rate, and over a contested ball - by sniping blokes who aren’t looking.
You’ve quoted the wrong person.
Some people might try and further explain a point that people aren’t grasping.
I don’t understand what you mean by that, but if you want to discuss what Thomas is or isn’t hardwired to do, then you should quote (which notifies) the person who actually said that.
I have no opinion on it.
It’s not something I’ve ever considered.
I can’t help you there and, again, I was talking about something completely different which I think everyone but you has noticed.
Just ask the right person, is all.
whatever you do, don’t try and explain your point.
Again, I made no point about Thomas.
Someone else did.
I can’t be bothered looking it up, but if that’s the question you want answered then you should do that.
I’ve also told you that what I was discussing was not Thomas.
It was local footy in the days of yore.
Now if you have anything specific you’d like to ask me then by all means, but please stop living up to the last part of your username.
So when i ask a question, about your post, in direct reply to your post, I’m talking about the wrong thing. When I ask where I went wrong, you tell me to ask a question pertinent to your post.
You used to have a word for people who did stuff like this.
Coach: “Lindsey, I gave you one ■■■■■■■ job to do and that was take out Selwood, you took out the wrong one idiot!”
Hey Zimmer, HAP has some sort of issue with whether Thomas is hard-wired to do something. Only he thinks I said it, and I honestly don’t give a ■■■■.
I’ve tried to explain that, but he’s not having it.
Could you two sort it out?
OK. I said, ‘some players remain hard-wired that way’, but I meant it as a general discussion around choosing to bump rather than play the ball.
It was a response to @Aceman regarding the idea in amateur footy that you should ‘take out the player if you get a chance.’ I referred directly to the ‘levels’ Aceman was referring to.
If you read the post, it’s pretty clear what I’m speaking about, which is lower levels of footy, grass roots etc. I haven’t seen where the discussion has gone since then. I also haven’t suggested that it’s ‘hard-wired’ for anyone to knock someone out, but to bump in a contest - opening access to the ball, teamwise.
To clarify my position re. Thomas: I think Thomas should go for three. I’ve watched it again, and it shocks me again. It’s a low act on a modern footy field. It’s a low act on any football field, historically, as Thomas doesn’t have any teammates around who he’s protecting or allowing avenue to the ball - he goes straight for the man, and ignores the ball…
Will that do?
I would hope so.