Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
CH 7 - seasick again
6 views
Skip to first unread message
David Clayton
May 18, 2012, 7:22:09 PM5/18/12
to
A week after all the complaints in the news media about their woeful 2012
telecasts of AFL matches, CH 7 actually behaved themselves and cut done on
the bone-headed "We've got 10 cameras spread around the ground so we're
going to use them all in every passage of play" policy and let you watch
things from just one or two perspectives, but they are now back to their
nauseating worst.
How the f&^k ("HTF") do these idiots expect anyone watching on TV to be
able to follow the game if they keep changing the perspective the viewer
sees? One second a team is kicking to the left goal but then CH 7 decide
that it will be better to use a camera shot with a totally different
perspective so what you thought was ball movement in one direction is
actually totally different.
Perhaps they are training their viewing audience to just totally stop
thinking for themselves and just blindly accept whatever their
commentators serve up? If the task of watching a game becomes too hard
then perhaps the strategy is to totally paralyse any analytical part of
the brain in their viewing audience so that they all may accept the
rubbish played during the ad breaks and behave more like the sheeple that
our economy is so dependant on?
I can't think of any other rational reason - other than perhaps that CH 7
are basically idiots that don't care much about the actual game of
Australian Football.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
telecasts of AFL matches, CH 7 actually behaved themselves and cut done on
the bone-headed "We've got 10 cameras spread around the ground so we're
going to use them all in every passage of play" policy and let you watch
things from just one or two perspectives, but they are now back to their
nauseating worst.
How the f&^k ("HTF") do these idiots expect anyone watching on TV to be
able to follow the game if they keep changing the perspective the viewer
sees? One second a team is kicking to the left goal but then CH 7 decide
that it will be better to use a camera shot with a totally different
perspective so what you thought was ball movement in one direction is
actually totally different.
Perhaps they are training their viewing audience to just totally stop
thinking for themselves and just blindly accept whatever their
commentators serve up? If the task of watching a game becomes too hard
then perhaps the strategy is to totally paralyse any analytical part of
the brain in their viewing audience so that they all may accept the
rubbish played during the ad breaks and behave more like the sheeple that
our economy is so dependant on?
I can't think of any other rational reason - other than perhaps that CH 7
are basically idiots that don't care much about the actual game of
Australian Football.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
brilton
May 18, 2012, 9:00:20 PM5/18/12
to
I agree about the switching perspectives. Apparently, in terms of movie
directing, it's a no-no to cross the 180 degrees line when you have two
actors engaged in dialogue, so it should be no different in regards to
football and other sports.
Another thing that annoys me about the TV coverage is their propensity
to show replays at the expense of showing the next boundary throw in,
kick, or bounce down.
directing, it's a no-no to cross the 180 degrees line when you have two
actors engaged in dialogue, so it should be no different in regards to
football and other sports.
Another thing that annoys me about the TV coverage is their propensity
to show replays at the expense of showing the next boundary throw in,
kick, or bounce down.
George W Frost
May 18, 2012, 9:51:01 PM5/18/12
to
"brilton" <not...@yacht.net> wrote in message
news:EgCtr.7188$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
BOUNCE DOWN ???
Another Dennis Confetti fan
SG1
May 19, 2012, 5:33:29 AM5/19/12
to
"George W Frost" <georg...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:e0Dtr.6974$v14....@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
>
>
brilton
May 20, 2012, 1:07:52 AM5/20/12
to
So what should I call it then, in your ever-so-correct fucking opinion then?
And are you calling me a foreigner?
George W Frost
May 20, 2012, 1:28:18 AM5/20/12
to
news:J__tr.7236$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
Ever since I can remember and the first game I went to was Fitzroy versus
Richmond around 1946 with my Dad at the Brunswick Street Oval.
They have ALWAYS called it a "BALL-UP"
It has only been since the advent of bringing in foreigners from across the
western desert in an attempt at calling the football game, that Dennis
Confetti called it a "bounce-down".
Now, I really ask you.
Who is the character that he can change the name of a standard procedure,
such as a ball-up ?
I will answer that for you.
He is a nobody
Never heard of him before the Channel 7 and the AFL hierarchy decided to be
lenient to the Western States and cuddle up to them and let one of them to
call football, even though he knows nothing what-so-ever about the proper
game.
Also, if you are from any of those western states,
then you are a foreigner.
Richmond around 1946 with my Dad at the Brunswick Street Oval.
They have ALWAYS called it a "BALL-UP"
It has only been since the advent of bringing in foreigners from across the
western desert in an attempt at calling the football game, that Dennis
Confetti called it a "bounce-down".
Now, I really ask you.
Who is the character that he can change the name of a standard procedure,
such as a ball-up ?
I will answer that for you.
He is a nobody
Never heard of him before the Channel 7 and the AFL hierarchy decided to be
lenient to the Western States and cuddle up to them and let one of them to
call football, even though he knows nothing what-so-ever about the proper
game.
Also, if you are from any of those western states,
then you are a foreigner.
brilton
May 20, 2012, 2:28:36 AM5/20/12
to
On 20/05/12 1:28 PM, George W Frost wrote:
>
> Ever since I can remember and the first game I went to was Fitzroy versus
> Richmond around 1946 with my Dad at the Brunswick Street Oval.
> They have ALWAYS called it a "BALL-UP"
> It has only been since the advent of bringing in foreigners from across the
> western desert in an attempt at calling the football game, that Dennis
> Confetti called it a "bounce-down".
> Now, I really ask you.
> Who is the character that he can change the name of a standard procedure,
> such as a ball-up ?
> I will answer that for you.
> He is a nobody
> Never heard of him before the Channel 7 and the AFL hierarchy decided to be
> lenient to the Western States and cuddle up to them and let one of them to
> call football, even though he knows nothing what-so-ever about the proper
> game.
>
> Also, if you are from any of those western states,
> then you are a foreigner.
Pathetic parochialism noted.
>
> Ever since I can remember and the first game I went to was Fitzroy versus
> Richmond around 1946 with my Dad at the Brunswick Street Oval.
> They have ALWAYS called it a "BALL-UP"
> It has only been since the advent of bringing in foreigners from across the
> western desert in an attempt at calling the football game, that Dennis
> Confetti called it a "bounce-down".
> Now, I really ask you.
> Who is the character that he can change the name of a standard procedure,
> such as a ball-up ?
> I will answer that for you.
> He is a nobody
> Never heard of him before the Channel 7 and the AFL hierarchy decided to be
> lenient to the Western States and cuddle up to them and let one of them to
> call football, even though he knows nothing what-so-ever about the proper
> game.
>
> Also, if you are from any of those western states,
> then you are a foreigner.
Right. Now I don't profess to know a lot about football, and I struggle
still after many years to understand the rules, and the interpretation
of them, but I still enjoy watching the game.
So if you and the other fuckwit want to pull me up over what you insist
is one little incorrect usage of a technical term, rather than respond
to the point I made, well then, fine.
And if you and the other fuckwit want to treat this newsgroup as your
own little treehouse, then OK. That's what happened to aus.tv.
But I will say this though, you and the other fuckwit have to be the two
most miserable cunts imaginable. I come hear to read people's opinions
about the game and respond occasionally, and I get this sort of
treatment. I'm happy to leave this place to you and the other fuckwit,
as this newsgroup slowly dies.
Last one to leave remember to switch the lights off.
Bye, you fucking arsehole.
SG1
May 20, 2012, 2:42:28 AM5/20/12
to
news:J__tr.7236$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
It always was and always will be a BALLUP!!!
As opposed to Cometti who is a BALLSUP...
As opposed to Cometti who is a BALLSUP...
George W Frost
May 20, 2012, 4:13:52 AM5/20/12
to
news:ua0ur.7243$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
Well, I guess that is what happens when you live in the West and think you
are the majority and the almighty.
You reply with abuse of the worst kind
and you obviously, by even your own admission,
you know nothing about football
Nor do you know anything about a debate without resorting to abuse
I would not hesitate to suggest that you would even resort to violence if
anyone disagreed with you.
So happy you are going
Don't forget the lights.
are the majority and the almighty.
You reply with abuse of the worst kind
and you obviously, by even your own admission,
you know nothing about football
Nor do you know anything about a debate without resorting to abuse
I would not hesitate to suggest that you would even resort to violence if
anyone disagreed with you.
So happy you are going
Don't forget the lights.
giovani
May 27, 2012, 7:17:44 AM5/27/12
to
Check the AFL rules; check the AFL site; check wikepedia - in all
instances it is a "bounce down" - UNLESS the condition of the (Victorian)
ground is so soft, slushy, muddy that the umpire is limited to throwing
the ball up.
You do realise that you have been using the incorrect terminology for
over 60 years!!!?? I do feel for you in regard to your poor upbringing
and education.
Commetti has a clear, clean voice and works at making his call
interesting unlike the Victorian baboons (Sam Newman excepted) who are
more interested in the sound of their own voices
avagoodone giovani
giovani
May 27, 2012, 7:43:08 AM5/27/12
to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_rules_football>
Youse bin bownced owet Mr Frost
avagoodone giovani
SG1
May 27, 2012, 5:15:52 PM5/27/12
to
"giovani" <gio...@nothere.not_there.invalid> wrote in message
news:4fc20d57$0$1757$c3e8da3$7649...@news.astraweb.com...
originated it ia a BALLUP. I realise being so far away that can be difficult
at times. But Frosty and my fellow Vics are the guardians of the game.
George W Frost
May 27, 2012, 6:05:45 PM5/27/12
to
--
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
and Zumax freeware
"SG1" <los...@the.races.com> wrote in message
news:4fc2998a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
David J Richardson
May 27, 2012, 11:36:43 PM5/27/12
to
In article <4fc20d57$0$1757$c3e8da3$7649...@news.astraweb.com>,
11.3.1 centre square and Bouncing the football
The field Umpire shall bounce the football on the occasions and at the
position on the Playing Surface as set out in following table:
...
11.3.3 throwing up football
The field Umpire may throw the football in the air:
(a) where they are of the opinion that the conditions are
unsuitable for bouncing but before doing so, shall advise
the Players accordingly; or
(b) if directed to do so by the Controlling Body.
--
David J Richardson -- work...@davidj.richardson.name
http://davidj.richardson.name/ - Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ - Boomerang Association of Australia
giovani <gio...@nothere.not_there.invalid> wrote:
> Check the AFL rules; check the AFL site; check wikepedia - in all
> instances it is a "bounce down" - UNLESS the condition of the (Victorian)
> ground is so soft, slushy, muddy that the umpire is limited to throwing
> the ball up.
The rules never say "bounce down".
> Check the AFL rules; check the AFL site; check wikepedia - in all
> instances it is a "bounce down" - UNLESS the condition of the (Victorian)
> ground is so soft, slushy, muddy that the umpire is limited to throwing
> the ball up.
11.3.1 centre square and Bouncing the football
The field Umpire shall bounce the football on the occasions and at the
position on the Playing Surface as set out in following table:
...
11.3.3 throwing up football
The field Umpire may throw the football in the air:
(a) where they are of the opinion that the conditions are
unsuitable for bouncing but before doing so, shall advise
the Players accordingly; or
(b) if directed to do so by the Controlling Body.
--
David J Richardson -- work...@davidj.richardson.name
http://davidj.richardson.name/ - Dr Who articles/interviews/reviews
http://www.boomerang.org.au/ - Boomerang Association of Australia
David Clayton
May 28, 2012, 2:47:10 AM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 13:36:43 +1000, David J Richardson wrote:
........
"Throw it up ump - your decisions are making us throw up!"?
........
> 11.3.3 throwing up football
> The field Umpire may throw the football in the air: (a) where they are of
> the opinion that the conditions are unsuitable for bouncing but before
> doing so, shall advise the Players accordingly; or
> (b) if directed to do so by the Controlling Body.
Does "Controlling Body" mean fans in the outer yelling out:
> The field Umpire may throw the football in the air: (a) where they are of
> the opinion that the conditions are unsuitable for bouncing but before
> doing so, shall advise the Players accordingly; or
> (b) if directed to do so by the Controlling Body.
"Throw it up ump - your decisions are making us throw up!"?
giovani
Jun 14, 2012, 8:23:31 AM6/14/12
to
It is obvious to all that when an umpire forcefully projects a football
towards (and hits) the ground that this is a "bounce" (down) - bit hard
to bounce up.
After this action, the ball goes up and quite rightly could be called a
"ball up" ' cos it is going up in the air
However. to call a "bounce down" as a "ball up" can obviously only be
called a 'balls-up' or a 'cock-up'
But then Victorians are renowned for getting up themselves and being
unable to correctly see or interpret actions. They are too busy
exquisitely wriggling on their own petard.
avagoodone His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of
chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them,
they are not worth the search.
William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act I, sc. 1
George W Frost
Jun 14, 2012, 10:09:54 AM6/14/12
to
"giovani" <gio...@nothere.not_there.invalid> wrote in message
the way you are attempting to convince us,
the masters of the game,
that it is a bounce down, is entirely wrong.
If you were to call it a bounce-down because the umpire bounces it on the
ground, then you are wrong again
He actually throws it down towards the ground.
When a player is in possession of the ball and he is running toward his goal
or wherever,
he has to bounce the ball every ten yards ( supposedly ) or have a free
kick awarded against him for holding the ball,
now, that "bounce" he does, is done with just the one hand,
otherwise, if he bounces it with both hands,
then, it is deemed to be a throw and he will be penalised,
Your unenlightened mob over there, wrongfully call what the umpire does, as
a bounce down,
when it is actually a ball-up as the ball goes up in the air to be contested
by opposing ruckmen,
usually two of them, unless it is outside the centre circle,
( which is conveniently called The Ball-Up Area.)
Then, any number can jump as much as they like to try to gain possession of
the ball
As I said before, the term Bounce-down, was only heard, when the teams from
the west, came into OUR competition and they brought with them the one and
only, ( thank fuck for that )
Dennis Confetti
He was the very first one I heard use that term.
Are you lot from the west, trying to take over OUR game ??
giovani
Jun 14, 2012, 10:30:25 AM6/14/12
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:09:54 +1000, George W Frost wrote:
> He was the very first one I heard use that term. Are you lot from the
> west, trying to take over OUR game ??
<GRIN>
> He was the very first one I heard use that term. Are you lot from the
> west, trying to take over OUR game ??
avagoodone His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of
chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them,
they are not worth the search.
William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act I, sc. 1
SG1
Jun 14, 2012, 8:07:44 PM6/14/12
to
"giovani" <gio...@nothere.not_there.invalid> wrote in message
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:09:54 +1000, George W Frost wrote:
>
>> He was the very first one I heard use that term. Are you lot from the
>> west, trying to take over OUR game ??
>
> <GRIN>
>
> avagoodone His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of
> chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them,
> they are not worth the search.
> William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act I, sc. 1
>
It would appear that Gio has brown arms. For the unenlightened "SH*T
>
>> He was the very first one I heard use that term. Are you lot from the
>> west, trying to take over OUR game ??
>
> <GRIN>
>
> avagoodone His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of
> chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them,
> they are not worth the search.
> William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act I, sc. 1
>
STIRRER" but with a sense of humus. He must be a gardener..... Ave a good
dig.
David Clayton
Jun 14, 2012, 9:44:08 PM6/14/12
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:09:54 +1000, George W Frost wrote:
.........
distance travelled or the ball has to make contact with another player.
The method of the "bounce" has no definition in the rules - it is just
common sense.
.........
> When a player is in possession of the ball and he is running toward his
> goal or wherever,
> he has to bounce the ball every ten yards ( supposedly ) or have a free
> kick awarded against him for holding the ball, now, that "bounce" he does,
> is done with just the one hand, otherwise, if he bounces it with both
> hands, then, it is deemed to be a throw and he will be penalised
A player in possession has to touch the ball on the ground every 15M of
> goal or wherever,
> he has to bounce the ball every ten yards ( supposedly ) or have a free
> kick awarded against him for holding the ball, now, that "bounce" he does,
> is done with just the one hand, otherwise, if he bounces it with both
> hands, then, it is deemed to be a throw and he will be penalised
distance travelled or the ball has to make contact with another player.
The method of the "bounce" has no definition in the rules - it is just
common sense.
George W Frost
Jun 15, 2012, 12:53:53 AM6/15/12
to
"David Clayton" <dc33box...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.06.15...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:09:54 +1000, George W Frost wrote:
> .........
>> When a player is in possession of the ball and he is running toward his
>> goal or wherever,
>> he has to bounce the ball every ten yards ( supposedly ) or have a free
>> kick awarded against him for holding the ball, now, that "bounce" he
>> does,
>> is done with just the one hand, otherwise, if he bounces it with both
>> hands, then, it is deemed to be a throw and he will be penalised
>
> A player in possession has to touch the ball on the ground every 15M of
> distance travelled or the ball has to make contact with another player.
>
> The method of the "bounce" has no definition in the rules - it is just
> common sense.
>
> --
> Regards, David.
Have the rules changed that much to when I played and we were told that we
> .........
>> When a player is in possession of the ball and he is running toward his
>> goal or wherever,
>> he has to bounce the ball every ten yards ( supposedly ) or have a free
>> kick awarded against him for holding the ball, now, that "bounce" he
>> does,
>> is done with just the one hand, otherwise, if he bounces it with both
>> hands, then, it is deemed to be a throw and he will be penalised
>
> A player in possession has to touch the ball on the ground every 15M of
> distance travelled or the ball has to make contact with another player.
>
> The method of the "bounce" has no definition in the rules - it is just
> common sense.
>
> --
> Regards, David.
had to bounce the ball, or touch the ground with it every 10 yards ?
I remember only a very few players, who could hold the ball in one hand and
with only a slight stoop, touch the ball to the ground while running,
without the ball actually leaving his hand.
David Clayton
Jun 15, 2012, 3:33:01 AM6/15/12
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:53:53 +1000, George W Frost wrote:
>
> "David Clayton" <dc33box...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2012.06.15...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:09:54 +1000, George W Frost wrote: .........
>>> When a player is in possession of the ball and he is running toward his
>>> goal or wherever,
>>> he has to bounce the ball every ten yards ( supposedly ) or have a
>>> free kick awarded against him for holding the ball, now, that "bounce"
>>> he does,
>>> is done with just the one hand, otherwise, if he bounces it with both
>>> hands, then, it is deemed to be a throw and he will be penalised
>>
>> A player in possession has to touch the ball on the ground every 15M of
>> distance travelled or the ball has to make contact with another player.
>>
>> The method of the "bounce" has no definition in the rules - it is just
>> common sense.
..........
>
> "David Clayton" <dc33box...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2012.06.15...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:09:54 +1000, George W Frost wrote: .........
>>> When a player is in possession of the ball and he is running toward his
>>> goal or wherever,
>>> he has to bounce the ball every ten yards ( supposedly ) or have a
>>> free kick awarded against him for holding the ball, now, that "bounce"
>>> he does,
>>> is done with just the one hand, otherwise, if he bounces it with both
>>> hands, then, it is deemed to be a throw and he will be penalised
>>
>> A player in possession has to touch the ball on the ground every 15M of
>> distance travelled or the ball has to make contact with another player.
>>
>> The method of the "bounce" has no definition in the rules - it is just
>> common sense.
> Have the rules changed that much to when I played and we were told that we
> had to bounce the ball, or touch the ground with it every 10 yards ?
>
The 15M change is 10 years old (at least?). The 15M minimum kick distance
> had to bounce the ball, or touch the ground with it every 10 yards ?
>
came in a bit later IIRC.
> I remember only a very few players, who could hold the ball in one hand
> and with only a slight stoop, touch the ball to the ground while running,
> without the ball actually leaving his hand.
they'd overbalance!
SG1
Jun 15, 2012, 4:24:39 AM6/15/12
to
news:CdzCr.8310$%E2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
Hate to say it but we went metric over 40 years ago. They changed from 10M
to 15M as the maggots were letting them go that far anyway. Now they go at
least 20M without a bounce/touch. Why do we bother having rules & maggots as
they appear mutually exclusive..????
to 15M as the maggots were letting them go that far anyway. Now they go at
least 20M without a bounce/touch. Why do we bother having rules & maggots as
they appear mutually exclusive..????
David Clayton
Jun 15, 2012, 7:52:36 PM6/15/12
to
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:24:39 +1000, SG1 wrote:
.......
.......
> Hate to say it but we went metric over 40 years ago. They changed from 10M
> to 15M as the maggots were letting them go that far anyway. Now they go at
> least 20M without a bounce/touch. Why do we bother having rules & maggots
> as they appear mutually exclusive..????
Like the "Holding the man" rule?, that has basically disappeared now.
> to 15M as the maggots were letting them go that far anyway. Now they go at
> least 20M without a bounce/touch. Why do we bother having rules & maggots
> as they appear mutually exclusive..????
SG1
Jun 15, 2012, 9:36:40 PM6/15/12
to
news:pan.2012.06.15....@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au...
missed the ball but was tackled by a Swine, we all know what happened
"Playon". As I said why have the maggots they don't earn their fat stipend.
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:24:39 +1000, SG1 wrote:
> .......
>> Hate to say it but we went metric over 40 years ago. They changed from
>> 10M
>> to 15M as the maggots were letting them go that far anyway. Now they go
>> at
>> least 20M without a bounce/touch. Why do we bother having rules & maggots
>> as they appear mutually exclusive..????
>
> Like the "Holding the man" rule?, that has basically disappeared now.
Saw a good one last week, Hocking has go at kicking off the ground, he
> .......
>> Hate to say it but we went metric over 40 years ago. They changed from
>> 10M
>> to 15M as the maggots were letting them go that far anyway. Now they go
>> at
>> least 20M without a bounce/touch. Why do we bother having rules & maggots
>> as they appear mutually exclusive..????
>
> Like the "Holding the man" rule?, that has basically disappeared now.
missed the ball but was tackled by a Swine, we all know what happened
"Playon". As I said why have the maggots they don't earn their fat stipend.
David Clayton
Jun 16, 2012, 1:46:05 AM6/16/12
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:36:40 +1000, SG1 wrote:
>
> "David Clayton" <dc33box...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2012.06.15....@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:24:39 +1000, SG1 wrote: .......
>>> Hate to say it but we went metric over 40 years ago. They changed from
>>> 10M
>>> to 15M as the maggots were letting them go that far anyway. Now they go
>>> at
>>> least 20M without a bounce/touch. Why do we bother having rules &
>>> maggots as they appear mutually exclusive..????
>>
>> Like the "Holding the man" rule?, that has basically disappeared now.
>
> Saw a good one last week, Hocking has go at kicking off the ground, he
> missed the ball but was tackled by a Swine, we all know what happened
> "Playon". As I said why have the maggots they don't earn their fat
> stipend.
The jockeys just follow the owner's instructions.
>
> "David Clayton" <dc33box...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2012.06.15....@NOSPAM.yahoo.com.au...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:24:39 +1000, SG1 wrote: .......
>>> Hate to say it but we went metric over 40 years ago. They changed from
>>> 10M
>>> to 15M as the maggots were letting them go that far anyway. Now they go
>>> at
>>> least 20M without a bounce/touch. Why do we bother having rules &
>>> maggots as they appear mutually exclusive..????
>>
>> Like the "Holding the man" rule?, that has basically disappeared now.
>
> Saw a good one last week, Hocking has go at kicking off the ground, he
> missed the ball but was tackled by a Swine, we all know what happened
> "Playon". As I said why have the maggots they don't earn their fat
> stipend.
giovani
Jun 16, 2012, 4:13:46 AM6/16/12
to
Particularly where people don't know the difference between down and up.
>He must be a gardener..... Ave a good dig.
SG1
Jun 16, 2012, 7:32:49 PM6/16/12
to
"giovani" <gio...@nothere.not_there.invalid> wrote in message
>
giovani
Jun 17, 2012, 12:26:19 AM6/17/12
to
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 09:32:49 +1000, SG1 wrote:
> "giovani" <gio...@nothere.not_there.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4fdc403a$0$11102$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:07:44 +1000, SG1 wrote:
>>
>>> "giovani" <gio...@nothere.not_there.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4fd9f580$0$29884$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:09:54 +1000, George W Frost wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He was the very first one I heard use that term. Are you lot from
>>>>> the west, trying to take over OUR game ??
>>>>
>>>> <GRIN>
>>>>
>>>> avagoodone His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels
>>>> of chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have
>>>> them, they are not worth the search.
>>>> William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act I, sc. 1
>>>>
>>> It would appear that Gio has brown arms. For the unenlightened "SH*T
>>> STIRRER" but with a sense of humus.
>>
>> Been known to carry a small spoon on occasion in gentle fun.
>> Particularly where people don't know the difference between down and
>> up.
>>
>>>He must be a gardener..... Ave a good dig.
>>
>> huh!!?? The keeper caught that one.
>
> Sense of humus????
Thanks
> "giovani" <gio...@nothere.not_there.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4fdc403a$0$11102$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:07:44 +1000, SG1 wrote:
>>
>>> "giovani" <gio...@nothere.not_there.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4fd9f580$0$29884$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:09:54 +1000, George W Frost wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He was the very first one I heard use that term. Are you lot from
>>>>> the west, trying to take over OUR game ??
>>>>
>>>> <GRIN>
>>>>
>>>> avagoodone His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels
>>>> of chaff: you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have
>>>> them, they are not worth the search.
>>>> William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act I, sc. 1
>>>>
>>> It would appear that Gio has brown arms. For the unenlightened "SH*T
>>> STIRRER" but with a sense of humus.
>>
>> Been known to carry a small spoon on occasion in gentle fun.
>> Particularly where people don't know the difference between down and
>> up.
>>
>>>He must be a gardener..... Ave a good dig.
>>
>> huh!!?? The keeper caught that one.
>
> Sense of humus????
Guessed later that may have been it - but had already posted.
0 new messages